Hypothetical ? Should Gore Pick Kerry or Clinton as a Running Mate?

[L. Coyote]

Add, if neither, who?
Or, Should Clinton pick Gore or Kerry? etc.

Just hypothetical questions.

[DFW]

1. Neither.

Either Kathleen Sibelius or Bill Richardson.

[Mist]

2. Neither. nt

[hippiechick]

3. FEINGOLD

'nuff said. :patriot:

[GreenPartyVoter]

26. That could be good. Who would replace him in the Senate?

[vireo]

39. Jon Erpenbach?

He holds Feingold's old state senate seat and is his (former?) brother-in-law. http://www.legis.state.wi.us/senate/sen27/news/

[hippiechick]

64. I'm sure there's a mini-Russ running around Madison ...

... getting ready to launch his/her political career.


:hi:

[Alexander]

74. YES. That would be a dream ticket.

We would win with that ticket.

[cooolandrew]

4. Yeah, we all know the obvious he's saying who would you pick if your life depended on it. I'd say ..

... Hillary. Hillary is going to fight for it, Kerry although he's a good guy has proved he won't. Actually I would say that is his most likely running mate, he'd go for old allies I'm sure, or Richardson.

[blm]

8. Who'd throw you under a bus to........

.

[MH1]

5. Kerry. n/t

[blm]

6. The top anti-terror, anti-corruption, open government lawmaker is John Kerry.

He's an expert military mind with a demonstrated lifelong commitment to environmental issues.

What does the COUNTRY and WORLD need?

[LWolf]

7. Neither.

Here's just a few of the many better choices, in no particular order:

Boxer
Feingold
Lee
Kucinich

[CTD]

9. Hillary is poison. He should pick Obama or Feingold.

Unfortunately Kerry also has too much baggage.

And if he actually runs, picking Hillary as his running mate would pretty much be the only way he could LOSE in the general election. He needs to stay FAR AWAY from Hillary.

But considering her positions, I have no doubt that he will.

[blm]

19. Being top lawmaker on anti-corruption, open government issues is GOOD BAGGAGE

Being top lawmaker on anti-terrorism and tracking terror funding is GOOD BAGGAGE.

Being the past candidate who even RW pundits are now saying was right on how to fight terrorism is GOOD BAGGAGE.

Being the past candidate whose opponents have been proven to have lied - both Bush and the swifts is GOOD BAGGAGE.

Being the lawmaker with the best record on environmental issues is GOOD BAGGAGE.

Being a past candidate, like Gore, who knows now exactly which Dems can be trusted and which ones will stab you in the back is PRICELESS BAGGAGE.


This talk by historian Douglas Brinkley occurred in April 2004:

http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."
>>>>>>>>>>


http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

By M.J. Rosenberg

I just came across a troubling incident that Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Very troubling.
On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.
>>>>>>>>>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[CTD]

21. I REALLY like Kerry.

And I know that he has done a tremendous amount of good, both pre and post-2004. I have a lot of respect for him and think he would make a very strong president.

But he's unfortunately become damaged goods. The Republican echo chamber/noise machine did an excellent job of sticking him with unfortunate labels ("wimp", "flip-flopper", "elitist", "French", etc) that don't play with large swaths of the electorate. We all know it's bullshit. But mention Kerry to some random person, say, at work and you're likely to get a negative response of some kind. The Republicans were just really effective at sliming him back in 2004. And it stuck.

He might be able to repackage himself as Gore has done. But he's not there yet. I hope he does because I like him a lot. I'm just realistic about the public's perception of him and how that would impact the 2008 race. For now, he's still baggage.

[blm]

22. And yet, when presenting himself in the debates the public easily trusted that he

was competent and knowledgeable and presidential.

What they have been forcefed the last few years is REVISIONISM - and much of that has come from within the Dem party - via those who were the ones who REALLY FAILED - MacAuliffe's DNC who didn't secure the election process in 2002 or 2004 because its Office of Voter Integrity never lifted a FINGER to do its job from 2001-2005.


And...
Just 6 years ago all we heard was about the 'dirty bathtub ring' the Clintons left on the White House to go along with the trashed WH story.

Or that "Clinton was asleep at the wheel' on terrorism.

And Gore was a buffoon and we were all so lucky he wasn't in office on 9-11, weren't we?

Corporate media has to be dealt with and those attacked by corporate media can best maneuver against it.

It took Clinton over FIVE YEARS before he even hit back on the weak on terrorism charge against him. It all comes down to the media and how much IT can get away with.

[politicasista]

107. delete n/t

[karynnj]

27. It wasn't just the RW, there was a whole second phase that started after he lost

Before the new Congress even started there were inside the beltway whisper articles saying that Kerry was not a team player and that he was not in the leadership either in the party or in the Senate. Kerry did absolutely NOTHING to deserve that - he had made a basically classly won and likely would have won if there were enough voting machines in Ohio. More importantly, he had VERY convicingly won the nomination. The people of the Democratic party show him to lead.

This didn't give him any preference to the nomination in 2008, but it did make him ONE of the party leaders. The party should have used the fact that he was right on the issues. The Democrats do not have that many people will real credentials on terrorism or national security. Especially when the right conceded Kerry was right on Tora Bora and terrorism, why did Clinton constantly say Kerry lost because he wasn't strong enough on national security?

The ridicule, the asinine "he didn't fight back" all came from Democrats. Kerry thought the truth was out there - the media had it - that was more than Clinton had for all his issues - he usually simply had a clarification not somethiong that showed the claims were out and out lies. In effect, Kerry was swiftboated a second time with the lie that he didn't respond.

[Rockholm]

36. He's my Senator and I don't like him.

Sorry.

Edit: Spelling.

[mtnsnake]

10. Kerry as a running mate would be the KISS OF DEATH for anyone!!

[Tellurian]

12. agreed..

and the political tag-alongs he'd bring with him, would be just as detrimental to the good and welfare of the American people, as they have been to him. :puke:

[ProSense]

20. Hillary Clinton 21%

Hillary Clinton 21%

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070520/NEWS/305200007/-1/iowapoll07">John Kerry 23%

Damn, Kerry tops Clinton and he's not even in the race!

[karynnj]

29. This is really interesting

He would make on incredible team with Gore. I don't think either will run, but these numbers do indicate that there are a substantial number of people who are not content with the three media hyped choices. The Gore number is phenomenal.

If Gore doesn't get in, Kerry may have made a mistake in not running.

[wisteria]

30. Sigh! n/t

[mtnsnake]

37. "Kerry may have made a mistake in not running"

LOL!!

"Not running" is the first time he DIDN'T make a mistake when it comes to making decisions concerning presidential campaigns. Against Clinton, Obama, Edwards, etc, Kerry would've gotten creamed in the primaries after what he put us through last time. There wasn't a poll out there that showed him even in the running this time. Sharpton would have had a better chance than Kerry. At least he knows how to joke!

[karynnj]

44. Kerry and Edwards polled almost identically in 2006

except for Nov/Dec in spite of very positive Edwards press and negative Kerry press. If you looked at the debate, there is an opening for an experienced anti-Hillary. Biden was the one who was that in the debate. Kerry always, even at his very lowest, significantly outpolled Biden. Had Kerry stayed in I would guess at this point that he would likely be third to Hillary and Obama. Over the course of the debates - it could have become Kerry vs Hillary, if Obama were seen as not ready.

Look at the issues and where Democrats are - Kerry beats Hillary on Iraq and terrorism, the environment, and is at least even on health care. (Hillary's main credential is that she claims S-Chip which was sponsored by Kennedy/Hatch, which took key parts of the Kerry/Kennedy bill that tried to expand natonally the Weld bill in MA. Kerry, a co-sponsor wrote substanial parts of the bill. Corruption - Kerry's clean Elections bill and BCCI give him major credentials. Then add that Kerry excells in debates.

[mtnsnake]

32. Yeah thats why Kerry was in single digits in all the national polls

Damn, Kerry tops Clinton and he's not even in the race!

Kerry dropped out of the race because he couldn't even get into double digits in all the preliminary polls. How pathetic is that?

In all national polls, Hillary totally throttled Kerry. So didn't most of the other candidates. In Kerry's brightest moment, he couldn't top any Clinton, not even Chelsea!

[blm]

42. Want to put that to the debate test? Clintons targeted Kerry BECAUSE he can debate honestly

and knowledgeably.

How do YOU think ANY Clinton could debate terrorism with Kerry? You think they would really want to go there?


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[mtnsnake]

48. What, I'm supposed to debate Kerry now? HAHAHAHAHA!!

He wouldn't stand a chance! Maybe I'll run for Senate in MA just to prove it! :smoke:

[wisteria]

25. Well, I have no use for a woman who doesn't know her own mind and panders to everyone.

I think Senator Kerry would make an excellent VP candidate. Clinton well :puke: Talk about lacking any personality or charisma and having to have her husband sell her to the American people.

Did you know that Gore had Senator Kerry on his orginal list of VP candidates in 2000. Gee, I don't recall a female senator riding on her husband coat strings on that list.

[mtnsnake]

33. As a presidential candidate, Kerry is useless. At least Hillary isn't a flip flopper like he is

Speaking of pandering, Kerry was the biggest panderer of all of them. Crise sakes, he even tried to pander to the gun people with that stupid photo-op of him hunting geese right in the middle of a presidential campaign. Even THEY weren't stupid enough to fall for it!

[blm]

46. Haha...you love RW talking points. Kerry's hunted since he was 10. And a top marksman

to boot.

You probably can't even name a GOP in office who can handle a gun better than Kerry can.

The media LIES and you are right there to help them continue the lie aren't you?

[mtnsnake]

47. RW talking points my butt. He came off as insincere. What a dumb ploy that was!!

Good gawd, Kerry thinking he could suck up to the fence sitting gunners by dressing up in camouflage and hunting geese in the middle of a fricken presidential campaign in a feeble effort to cop their votes....it just doesn't get any more dorky than that!!

[blm]

49. Except that is a RW lie. Media could've easily told the TRUTH that Kerry's a lifelong hunter

who is an expert marksman and the RW lie that you employ for your attack on him could not even have been conceived.

[mtnsnake]

50. It's a lie that he came off as insincere and a dork? I don't think so. We saw it w/our own eyes.

[blm]

52. That was media commentary that lied when they could have told the truth.

Had they told the truth, you wouldn't be so comfortable spreading their RW lies.

[mtnsnake]

54. Him being a lifelong hunter has nothing to do w/pulling an insincere GOOFY stunt like that!

I don't care if he killed himself a bear when he was only three. To see him dressed up in camouflage in the middle of a presidential campaign, flaunting himself as a the big brave hunter in a feeble attempt at winning the votes of some gun people...well that just takes the cake. Everything Kerry did backfired!

[blm]

62. It wasn't a stunt when he hunted during hunting season in any other year

that he did it.

Had the press chosen to tell the truth instead of repeating RW lies, then you would be less comfortable repeating those lies yourself.

[mtnsnake]

90. Baloney. He bought a non-resident license in Ohio that Saturday

...so obviously he went waaaay out of his way to dress up in camouflage and get on television in a dumb attempt at courting the swing voters who liked guns. How dorky can you get.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50527-2004Oct21.html

[blm]

92. Because you HAVE TO buy a license in each state you hunt in. As he has for DECADES

and as he did in Ohio. Shooting in other states is NOT unusual for him. He's hunted in many states. And hunting during a campaign is COMMON, but the corpmedia CHOSE to play it completely differently in Kerry's case.

It doesn't matter what the WaPost tries to infer - they would know damn well that Kerry has been a lifelong hunter if they really WANTED to give a full picture. In fact, they would have stated so and known so FOR YEARS if they wanted to give an accurate portrayal of ANY Dem, including on the gun issue that has been around for years.

But corporate media doesn't DO that, do they?

[mtnsnake]

95. There was only 1 person in the entire United States who fell for that dumb goose hunting routine

...and that was YOU!

Kerry the big bad goose killer got his goose cooked by Bush. HAHAHAHAHA!!!

[blm]

97. Me and the many who bothered to KNOW the Dem candidate instead of repeating lies

about him that the corporate media liars wanted you to repeat and so.....you do. Frequently.

[mtnsnake]

98. I don't repeat lies. The "t" in mtnsnake stands for "truth". Whats the L in blm stand for?

Just wondering! lol

[blm]

99. You're pushing the RW's lie that Kerry was only playing at being a hunter for an election.

And you know that is exactly what you want people to believe.

[L. Coyote]

100. Enuf said. Let's go fishing instead! For more Bush crimes.

[karynnj]

68. Which is why he would have won if there were adequate

voting machines in Ohio. No campaign is flawless. Kerry was not caught in anything as ugly as the Gennefer Flowers mess or the whole draft mess - both made worse by a candidate who didn't tell the whole truth immediately. Why did Clinton, not Kerry win - Bush 1 was at 33% approval rating near the election and W near 50%.

[karynnj]

67. There are photos taken by his friend George Butler

of Kerry in the 1980s shooting clay pidegons and fishing in his book. Along with many other outdoor photos.

[karynnj]

66. So, who voted for the 2001 Bankruptcy bill

then voted against a bill that was very similar in 2005. I'm glad she flipped. Do you remember that it was the Clintons and their people who coined the political meaning of the word "triangulate".

Kerry does hunt in real life even when not campaigning. At least it's more moral than flying back to Arkansas to be home for the execution of a man who was so mentally impaired, he saved his dessert for later.

Kerry is the opposite of the biggest panderer - you would like it if he were. In my life time, the biggest panders were Bill Clinton and john Edwards.

[illinoisprogressive]

105. No. She is just always WRONG

[karynnj]

34. "political tag-alongs"

The Kerry people in Massachusetts did a really good job in helping MA get a Democratic governor. If you mean the people who helped him help people in 2006, they did a very good job.

The people that Kerry has allied himself with include Al Gore (on the environment), Gary Hart, George Mitchell, and Anthony Zinni (on national defense), Max Cleland and Jon Solz (on veterans issues). Before he opted not to run, he also had the support of Deval Patrick and Ted Kennedy. These all seem to be good decent men of integrity. On these two major issues, he is connected to some of the best people. I assume that they will act as to hold either a Democrat or Republican President to account. I admit he hasn't golfed with GHWB, but some see that as a plus.

[Tellurian]

43. actually, I thought that was a clever phrase..

you'll be too busy with a re-election campaign anyway. There, you can demonstrate your effectiveness with your sharply honed oppo skills at destroying Kerry's opponent. Maybe even get a notch for an indictment on your tool belt.

[karynnj]

51. I do not live in MA , though I have a college kid who does

Though you have dreams of Kerry losing to someone in the primaries, that does not jibe with the reported reaction to Kerry at the convention. The Republicans do not have a candidate who can touch him. My guess is that no matter who the Democratic candidate is Kerry will be a valued foreign policy, national security and environmental surrogate. You also know that he would do it even for a Democratic candidate who stabbed him in the back. I also assume that you won't have any Kerry campaign people like his brother or David Thorne calling a Republican to give inside campaig information.

[wisteria]

24. No, actually he would do very well on anyones ticket. Although, he would be best as president. n/t

[Honeycombe8]

113. I second that. n/t

[indepat]

11. Easy!

1. Clark
2. Clark
3. Clark

Nuf said

[Tellurian]

14. I like Gen Clark..

No matter who the nominee is he would make a spectacular head of the DOD..

For VP, my picks would be Gore, Richardson or Biden.

[Adelante]

16. I don't like Clark for VP

SoS or heading national security or disaster preparedness/recovery - any of those he would be outstanding. Congress would have to pass an exception for SoD since Wes isn't out of the military long enough.

[Greyskye]

72. I LOVE Clark for VP

And then Clark for POTUS in 2016!

[indepat]

79. Richardson as VP would be a really good

[Clark2008]

82. For the millioneth time, Clark cannot be the Secretary of Defense

until the year 2010.

When is this board going to learn this?

Federal statute, sigh, requires, sigh, that the Def. Sec. be out of active-duty military for 10 years. Clark retired in 2000, making him ineligible until 2010, unless Congress passes a special resolution allowing it.

Damn, this gets frustrating.

[JBear]

13. Oh the possibilities!

Obama
Edwards
Sebilius
(Bob) Graham
Dean (any of them)

[karynnj]

15. If his two biggest issues are global warming and ending the corruption

of our government, Kerry fits and Hillary absolutely doesn't.

Kerry has been a Gore ally on global warming since 1987, when Kerry was on Gore's Commerce sub committee which held the first Senate hearings. (Gore had previous House of Representative hearings.) Also, Kerry has cosistently mentioned Gore whenever he spoke of his record on Climate Change - which is appropriate but unusually gracefull in a politician. Kerry also augments Gore's incredible credentials with his efforts on other environmental issues that are also on the tipping point. (coastal erosion and toxins in the water and air) Teresa has also been involved in green buildings for over a decade.

Bill Clinton had a mediocre at best record on the environment in Arkansas. In the WH, he looks good only compared to W - the first Bush did more than Clinton.

On corruption and openness in government, this issue is to Kerry as global warming is to Gore. This is what Kerry fought when he -alone in the Senate - took on the investigation of whether their was US funding of the Contras in violation of the Boland Act. He doggedly pursued this even when his own integrity and that of his staff were smeared by the RW to hide what they were doing. He investigated BCCI and continued fighting to close it even when he knew that big Democrats had been bought off and would be hurt by the investigation. It still amazes me that he was the only one who saw that it was more important to sever tentacles of a terrorist linked Pakistani bank that litterally had reached into the Congress to prevent investigation than to protect friends.

He is also the only person to run for 4 Senate terms without taking PAC money. He authored the Clean Money bill which he introduced with Wellstone. Th floor speech when it was re-introduced could be given today. It spoke of how the moneyocracy was threatening our democracy itself. This was given in 1996 or 1997 and it is as strong as anything anyone has said and includes a statement of how important activism of citizens has always been when the government has started to go astray.

Gore was tarnished himself through the Clintons and McAuliffe's Indonesian and Chinese campaign contributions. Clinton, unlike Kerry, was one of the majority of Democrats who didn't want the stronger Pelosi measures included in the Seante ethics bill. Need I add - cattle futures.

[LiberalFighter]

17. VP Gore with a Senator as running mate

Best possibility!

I don't know if H. Clinton would be best as VP.

Feingold or Obama as VP with the expectation of becoming President would be good.

Back in the early 1800's, Richardson would had been a shoo in for President with his credentials if he wasn't Hispanic. If Richardson does become President it isn't his time yet.

Biden has made some critical mistakes. Notably, not stopping Clarence Thomas from becoming a SC Justice. He is just too nice that he can't be trusted. Who would he nominate for any open spots?

[lojasmo]

18. Feingold or Dean. That is all.

[ripple]

23. Neither - Obama! n/t

[Totally Committed]

28. No.

Al Gore should choose someone who is (1) Not DLC, (2) Inn tune with his goals, aspirations, and values, and (3) NOT DLC.

Hillary should not be the nominee. Period. (See #s 1 and 3 above) Edited to add: Kerry needs to stay in the Senate to keep his seat in Mass. Blue.

TC

[karynnj]

40. Al Gore was more DLC than Kerry ever was

As to Gore's values, it's hard to find anyone more in line on the environment than Kerry, who was on Gore's committee in 1987 and who Gore said has the best environmental record in the Senate.

On, the constitutional and corruption issues, Kerry is far more in line than others. Kerry was one of the few joing Gore and Feingold speaking out before it was fashionable on NSA spying and censureship of Bush. I think Feingold only got Boxer, Harkin and Kerry to cosponsor that resolution.

On Iraq - going forward, I haven't heard any Gore statements. At a point where the ISG pretty much supported Kerry 2005 approach and the Democrats pretty much have backed Kerry/Feingold - It is hard to believe that Kerry is far out of line from Gore.

Gore knew Kerry very well when Kerry was on his short list. I doubt that Kerry is far off on other issues from Gore.

As to the MA seat, it would stay blue. The Presidential nomination will most likely be known by February 2008. If Gore was the choice - and I don't think he will run - then if he picked Kerry, there would still time for another Democrat to win the democratic nomination. The Republicans don't seem to have anyone strong enough to beat the best Democrats other than Kerry.

[Totally Committed]

41. Nevertheless, and not discounting all the good stuff Kerry's done since his '04 run,

I don't believe that to be so now (Gore as DLC). If Gore were to hook up with the DLC or take on a DLC running-mate (should he run), I couldn't support that ticket any more than I could support a Clinton one.

Besides, Kerry is a good Senator for Mass. and needs to stay put and defend his seat.

TC

[karynnj]

55. Kerry is not currently linked to the DLC

per what Little Clarkie was told when she called the office. Al From NEVER listed Kerry as one of the 2008 people. Kerry's votes NEVER matched the DLC as much as they matched Teddy Kennedy's. For example, Edwards and Clinton voted for the 2001 bankruptcy bill - Kerry voted against it.

Gore was the first DLC candidate for President. His record was as DLC as you could get. Kerry's record never looked like anyone in the DLC. Although Gore could not be DLC now because he is not an elected official, I agree that he might not be now. We don't know because he hasn't spoken on economic issues. Kerry is a Senator and I think the last time he spoke at a DLC meeting was when he had the nomination in 2004 and was invited to.

But, as I said this is academic - I doubt Gore is running. If Gore runs and wins, he will pick a running mate. That will be his choice and his choice only and he would likely look at what he needs to win. one of the 2000 things mentioned that to some degree Kerry's and Gore's strengths match - which can be a plus or minus.

[mtnsnake]

56. "not currently" with Kerry means he probably will be in 5 minutes!

:evilgrin:

[ProSense]

58. DLC: Leader Profiles -- Hillary Clinton

DLC: Leader Profiles

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton Accepts Position as Chair of the DLC's 'American Dream Initiative'

[mtnsnake]

59. Did I say she wasn't DLC or something? So is Richardson...& probably Kerry, too, again...or still.

Until you show me a link where Kerry himself denies being linked to the DLC, then I'm just going to have to assume that he still MIGHT be linked, despite any phone call LittleClarkie made to his office.

[ProSense]

61. Hillary is DLC leadership. Kerry isn't! n/t

[karynnj]

69. and just happens to miss all their conferences?

The DLC does not have a membership list and hasn't for at least a year. What is more important is Kerry's votes and the fact that From never ever lists him when speaking of the DLC.

[Clark2008]

83. Edwards was DLC, too, despite his trying to pretend he wasn't.

He's trying to rewrite his entire Senatorial career.

:grr:

[mtnsnake]

86. Thanks for reminding me. I forgot about him!

He's trying to rewrite his entire Senatorial career

No kidding. And I love how some of these guys can all of a sudden go from riches to rags and make like they're walking in poor peoples shoes...that is, until they get caught charging $400 haircuts to their donators, lol. "Oops, I didn't mean to charge the voters for those haircuts. It was just an honest mistake, like my Iraq War vote!"

[karynnj]

65. You mean because he has such good supportive friends there?

that's a RW slur. Kerry is not an ideologue, so he won't always take the position people expect him to take - but I cannot think of any politician whose world view has been as consistent as Kerry's. If you read Albright's latest book, you would have read part of a Kerry speech from 1966, where among other things he spoke of needing to understand the cultures of other places. Albright included this because it fit. That speech hit some of the same point that he spoke of in 2006.

You might also note - that the ONLY real example they had was not a flip flop - it was typical Senate practice where there are multiple versions of bills. The fact was that when Kerry said what he did, he was desputing that he was against funding the war.

Kerry is very consistent for a politician.

[Tellurian]

91. mtnsnake..

STOP! you're killin me!

:rofl:

[Totally Committed]

71. Whenever Kerry is mentioned, this always happens....

the thread becomes about him, his affiliations, his votes (past and present), etc., etc., etc. I should have known that just that mention would do this, but.... c'est la vie.

May I just say THIS to clarify what I meant:

Kerry is not talking or voting much like a DLC-er these days. That doesn't mean I want him anywhere near the Presidential ticket again. I've said he should stay in the Senate, and I mean that. And, that's ALL I meant.

Hillary is DLC. No ticket that includes her or any other DLC-er will get my vote. Not ever again. Gore isn't talking like a DLC-er these days, either, so barring his unfortunate return to that entity, I could and would cast my vote for him enthusiastically -- providing his running-mate is not DLC.

Let Kerry do his thing in the Senate. DLC or not, it's where he belongs.

TC

[karynnj]

77. Kerry was mentioned in the op - of course he was one of the 3 people involved

As to it turning to his votes etc, part of the reason was YOU. There are many good reasons to say that you don't want Kerry as VP - you don't think he could help the ticket, you don't like him, or you far prefer soma of the others. The reasons you gave were bogus.

1) You said it was because "he is DLC". So, of course some of pointed out that Gore was as DLC as they come - he was their first endorsed Presidential candidate, then with Clinton their first ticket. Kerry, on the other hand was at most someone who came in to build bridges. There is no year where you could take Kerry's votes and show that they were similar to the main group of DLCers - there was even disagreement that he was really in the DLC or the ND or anything. Both Clintons and Gore were in leadership roles.

You said you could vote enthusiastically for Gore. Gore is not in office and has not spoken on economic issues, he may well really be DLC - and in this scenario, Gore is President and is determining the policy. Kerry would have more impact on policy as a high senority Senator than as VP, where it would be the President's policy he is implementing. So, if Kerry never voted DLC, even when he was in the DLC, why would you have a problem with him being vp.

2) On the second, do you really think that none of the Congressional delegation could beat the strongest Republican in MA?

[Totally Committed]

78. Where did I say "he is DLC"?

I didn't. I worded it badly, and tried to clarify in that second post.

You (Kerry supporters) are so sensitive and over reactive about anything that is ssaid about him that it is hard to word replies so as not to rile you. No matter how it is phrased or couched, it just sets you off. I'm sure this isn't the first time you've heard this.

Please re-read my posts and tell me where I said Kerry is DLC. I even went out of my way to say something mice about his current stances and statements.

TC

[politicasista]

80. What's wrong with facts?

:shrug:

[karynnj]

87. You are correct

I had read it as your problem with both, and you do specificly say Hillary - who as the head of the DLC. The added edit in the same paragraph made me conflate them - even though you didn't say it.

It does seem that your reason on Kerry is disengenuous - he would almost certainly be replaced by a Democrat - the liklehood is probably greater than for many other Senators.

[mtnsnake]

89. "(Kerry supporters) are so sensitive and over reactive about anything that is ssaid about him "

hahaha, ain't that the truth!!

The funny thing is that Kerry deserves more criticism than any other presidential candidate, past or present, all because he blew it to an imbecile at a time when it hurt our country the most! When the history books get written, there is only one candidate who can ever brag about losing to a moron after that moron had already proven to be the worst president in history. Yikes!!

[mtnsnake]

45. I'd have to agree. Both of them are/were DLC, but Gore was/is deeply embedded

When it comes to the DLC, Gore gets the benefit of the doubt around here only because he isn't officially running, so nobody really knows if he's still embedded as deeply in the DLC or not. I would suspect his ties to the DLC are as strong as anyone's, not that that's necessarily good or bad. Just saying.

[marlakay]

73. Senators dem governors repub

That is what a few years ago someone from MA told me. We like our senators dem and our governors repub. I always wondered about that. And they liked Kerry and said good things about him.

[AtomicKitten]

31. Neither ... a Gore/Obama ticket would, however, be formidable.

n/t

[Kelly Rupert]

35. Bill Richardson.

Three reasons:
1. Western red-state governor.
2. Unmatchable resume.
3. Hispanic vote.

[peace frog]

38. Neither

Obama, Clark and Richardson are my first three choices for VP.

[derby378]

53. He should pick Bill Richardson instead

If we can't have Bill as President, his diplomacy skills will be invaluable in the Veep's office.

[PresidentObama]

57. Gore/Kerry would be an incredible ticket. I'd have no problem with either.

On a side note, I love a certain poster above who claims time and time again he isn't anti-Kerry, yet takes every opportunity to cheap shot and low blow one of our fine Senators. Anyway, I doubt Kerry or Clinton will be VP running mates. Hillary will either be the nominee, or won't be on the ticket. And Kerry will be re-elected with ease, and serve the kind people of MA!!

[Bullet1987]

60. Neither

Obama
Feingold
Edwards

[politicasista]

81. Good observation n/t

[bobbie]

63. Clark should pick whoever he wants

In the unlikely event of a 2008 election.

[politicasista]

70. Today must be Trash Democrats Underground Day

Rove must be really proud. Go figure. :(


(Not the OP's fault of course)

[L. Coyote]

102. This is all very enlightening, and does not bode well for 2008.

And, everyday seems to be Trash Democrats Underground Day, probably because there are Rov-bot infiltrators/disruptors, a la Dick Cheney and the NY Times---first decide what they will say, then quote them saying they said it.

[politicasista]

106. Exactly

:hi:

[Labors of Hercules]

75. Gore/Edwards

TN/NC Nuf Said.

[Clark2008]

84. Why would he do that?

Pair himself with an Iraqi War voter and co-sponsor?

Don't see it happenin'.

[Truth2Tell]

76. Edwards

Gore / Edwards is a winner.

[FrenchieCat]

85. What would Edwards bring to the ticket more than what he brought last time

to the Kerry-Edwards ticket?

Why would Gore want that? :shrug:

[Truth2Tell]

109. Like Gore

Edawrds has evolved. And like Gore, he has turned his back on the establishment somewhat (all relative).

[ecstatic]

88. R U SERIES?!11

But if they were the only two choices, I'd err on the side of making history with Senator Clinton.

[blm]

93. Historic would be getting an anti-corruption, open government Democrat.

Y'know it would be TRULY HISTORIC if the books were finally opened up on BushInc.

[Tellurian]

94. Well, I don't have to make up a gazillion excuses for my candidate..

She is the Real Deal and has been preparing for this moment since she was 29 yrs old.

Hillary isn't about to settle for 2nd best because she is the BEST! She brings more to the table, yes, including Bill, than any other candidate in the field. She doesn't have to play media games for photo-ops, hunting in Cammi's, or para-sailing like macho man, or Ski boarding in the Alps like an elite wannabe. Hillary is ALL business and why the RWingers are petrified of her as the nominee. She doesn't make lame brain mistakes, where surrogates have to burn up band with with excuses. She can stand her own ground and make us proud to be Americans once again!

[mtnsnake]

96. Yes, she is the real deal. Good post!

Thank goodness we have candidates this time like Hillary, Obama, Kucinich, etc. Any one of them will get down to business and kick ass once they get the nod, and they won't have to hunt birds or act like an artificial dork to try and fool anyone. "Surfs up. Someone get me my board, quick!! Find me a shotgun, too, in case a goose flies over me!"

[draft_mario_cuomo]

103. HRC doesn't make "lame brain mistakes"? 1993 health care debacle anyone?

The only responsibility Clinton II had as First Lady was the health care issue. She was a miserable failure on it. That compares to a lifelong hunter *gasp* going hunting?

[Tellurian]

110. The only responsibility she had was to be First Lady.. If only Kerry fought for us..

We wouldn't have GWB in the White House and be in Iraq right now!

[DesertRat]

101. How about Russ Feingold? n/t

[illinoisprogressive]

104. Never ever ever Clinton. Actually neither one.

[YvonneCa]

108. Kerry...

...absolutely NO DOUBT in my mind. Hillary isn't even close.

[MiniMe]

111. If Gore runs, he can pick anybdy he damn well chooses, and I would vote for him

Well, except for Lieberman, but I think he is sooooo over Lieberman.

[jcrew2001]

115. how about gore/bloomberg that would be crazy

but a fun ticket - substituted lieberman for a true rich liberal jewish man, instead of a fake liberal jewish man.

[jcrew2001]

112. I don't think Gore can win the general election - i think there is still

a lot of apathy towards him from swing voters and red state voters.

[Forkboy]

114. I think Gore could run with this guy and be tough to beat...

[DemGa]

116. Wes Clark

That draws the moderates. A damn good choice too.