Pick Kerry running mates in order of preference

[Tactical Progressive]

An MSNBC poll for us:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4565073

It's a running poll. 3rd week in.

[Dover]

1. A very narrow selection. NONE OF THE ABOVE

I'd like to see him choose Doggett, or any number of others before I'd choose anyone in their list.

[Tactical Progressive]

2. Clark and Edwards are the main ones

Graham and McCain have been mentioned alot and they're there. Gephart was on another poll I saw today and should probably be on this one too. Hillary was apparently one of the choices for a while.

So yes, it's a small list but they got most of the main ones. I'm sure if anyone new comes on the scene they'll be added.

[Crunchy Frog]

3. I think they're going to have Gep on

next week. They have a selection that you can vote on to put on the lineup the following week. Gep has the most votes for that.

I'm very glad to see that Clarks numbers have gone up, and he is doing quite well. Maybe since the media blackout ended, and he is being interviewed on television so frequently, people are finally becoming aware of his existance, and developing a positive impression of him. Unlike when the media lynched him for saying that Michael Moore has the right to freedom of speech.

[lettucehavepeace]

13. neat picture! n/t

[blondeatlast]

4. Richardson is an excellent choice. He has the experience

and can help the ticket strategically, as he is well-respected among Latinos.

[belle]

16. I thought he already said thanks but no thanks, though.

Huh.

Anyway, I don't see why it wouldn't be Edwards.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. Because Edwards won't win any states for Kerry n/t

[Padraig18]

31. Know that for a fact, do you?

May I borrow your crystal ball when you're done with it; I'd like to check out the World Series and next week's Lotto numbers...

[surfermaw]

34. Hell's win North Carolina

hard shell republicans will stay home, while the democrats favoring Edward's will vote;
Republicans in North Caroliana are angry and taking it out on democrats, they want vote democrat, but will stay home on election day.

[mzmolly]

25. I like Richardson. I think he could make a huge difference...

;)

[surfermaw]

36. I saw Richardson, on a TV news show, he can't speak well enough

[beyurslf]

5. And loo at that... Gov Sebelius is on the add list.

You go! Gotta keep saying her name until she gets mentioned more. :)

[osaMABUSh]

6. Gen. Wes Clark is the one - I think it's a no brainer for Kerry

Why mess around with another Senator (whose voting record would be trashed) or an unknown Gov.?

Clark hits Bush at his only "perceived" strength over Kerry (terrorism and foreign affairs)

[Padraig18]

9. And the Republican media machine gets a wet dream come true.

Kerry = pro-IWR; Clark = anti=IWR. I can see KKKarl Rove salivating over and "Are the Democrats for, or against the Iraq war?" type commercials, can't you?

[Jai4WKC08]

10. Oh nonsense

They were both for keeping the threat of force on the table, as leverage while all other means were exhausted. Clark was more for going after bin Laden first, but that hardly an irreconcilable difference.

There is NO match-up that the Rovians can't twist to make them sound at odds on something significant. And no VP candidate who can't be attacked with the lies and half-truths they're gonna come up with. We'd better be ready for it, no matter who gets the nod from Kerry.

[Padraig18]

11. I'm glad you see my point.

I don't disagree with a single thing you said. My entire point in posting that comment was to let some of the hot air out of the 'Wes Clark is 1o-feet tall and Teflon-coated' crowd's arguments about him being the only candidate who can help Sen. Kerry win.

Of COURSE KKKarl Rove will savage and smear whoever Kerry picks for VP.

:thumbsup::)

[Jai4WKC08]

12. But the person you repsonded to...

Didn't say that at all. Said that he's the BEST candidate to help Kerry win, not that he's "teflon coated."

If that was your point, you didn't express it very well. Calling Clark as VP a Rovian "wet dream come true" more than implies that he's more vulnerable to attack than any of the others, and that's simply not true.

The specific example you used was a downright non-issue. They're not very far apart in their views on Iraq or international multilateralism. Besides, no one expects the VP to be a clone of the President on every issue. Remember Bush I and "voodoo economics"?

Whether you believe it or not, there has been some direct effort by the RNC to keep Clark out of consideration--it's part of what that whole Drudge thing was about, and why they keep bringing it up. Could hardly be because they look forward to a Kerry/Clark ticket.

[Padraig18]

18. Baloney.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the RNC is conspiring to keep Clark out of anything. That's just pure nonsense. Furthermore, Clark is NOT the best candidate to help Kerry win, by all objective evidence--- Edwards is. It is Edwards who appeals to Independents and moderate/disaffected Republicans, and many polls have shown that. Furthermore, the exit polls in all four states on 'Southern Super Tuesday' showed that Edwards was clearly preferred by Democrats in those states, even when paired against 'favorite son/daughter' candidates.

You can nuance Kerry and Clark's positions on Iraq, if you like, but Clark presened himself to the electorate as an anti-war candidate, and it would be naive to think that KKKarl Rove would not have a field day with that inherent contradiction on the same ticket.

[LandOLincoln]

26. Yeah, Padraig, and you can carry on about Edwards all you

want, and that won't change the polling results one iota.

When the GENERAL PUBLIC is polled, they support Kerry over * on domestic issues by a comfortable margin--and the numbers are totally reversed when it comes to NS/FP issues.

And to compare Edwards' NS/FP experience to Clark's is an exercise in futility, IMHO.

However, I trust the Kerry team and Wes Clark to come up with a ticket they think will be the strongest against BushCo, and if that means Edwards as VP and Wes in another role I can live with that.

That said, I see other major drawbacks to a Kerry/Edwards ticket (over and above his relative lack of FP/NS chops, that is):

1. He voted for the war and unlike Kerry's, his vote was NOT nuanced. He's said more than once that he thinks * did the right thing by going into Iraq, and he would have done the same. How is that position going to play the more Iraq goes down the tubes?

2. He's trying way too hard, as are all the people out there signing petitions and otherwise lobbying for him--especially his big money backers, who made their support of Kerry contingent on him choosing JE as his VP? This is a major strategic blunder IMO, not to mention pretty damned undignified.

3. The media are far too happy with the idea of a Kerry/Edwards ticket. I don't trust that for a minute.

[Darkamber]

43. Sadly you missed Padraig's main point...

And that is that Clark has come out very strongly anti-war. Whatever his military background, he has been anti-war and the GOP will take him through the ringer on that. They might even drag out Michael Moore again and use that against him. As a Moderate, I distance myself from anything that has anything to do with Michael Moore.

Edwards has not changed his position on the war. When he is asked if he would change his vote, he calmly says, "No" and the matter is dropped. There's nothing to look into. But, he also can do a good job defending Kerry on the very positions that Kerry is weak on because he made the same votes on most of them. He knows the details involved. Clark doesn't.

Clark is good in his area of expertise, and I hope he gets Sec. of State or National Security adviser.

On your #2 point, I should mention that the Draft Kerry/Edwards movement started about NH and worked AGAINST Edwards during the primary. Made people think of him as VP and think of Kerry and Edwards together and liking that view. I know that all of us core Edwards supporters were very angry at that movement.

And yes, Edwards big money supporters told Kerry that if he really wanted to see them flex their muscles that he should pick Edwards as VP and yes, Senators are lobbying for Edwards in Congress.

But there is alot of average people who want Edwards as VP for a wide verity of reasons that have little to do with the war. For myself I see the VP as someone who can help change the congress and who can speak for the President. Edwards compliments Kerry very well on most issues.

[JI7]

27. the moderate voters is important

this is why i think edwards should be one of those in top consideration. if ONLY democrats could vote then kerry would have won by very large majority in each state. but it was in states with more open voting where edwards came close to kerry. wisconsin being the best example. and it was because of moderate voters. this is where kerry needs the most help and edwards has proven he can get those votes. even though most vote for who is at the top of the ticket, in a close election if edwards can even get a few of those moderate voters to vote for kerry it could make the difference in whether kerry wins the state or not.

[mzmolly]

7. Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean....

I don't care where he's from. He's a good choice! :P

[Hippo_Tron]

21. Dean won't win any states for Kerry n/t

[citizen snips]

8. 1.Edwards 2.Clark 3.Graham 4.Richardson 5. McCain. . .

And why is Hillary out?

[yelladawg]

14. It's time for Veterans

It's time for Veterans to be on the Democratic ticket.

It's Clark, or McCain for me.

[AntiCoup2K4]

24. McCain on "Meet The Press" this morning.....

"What part of NO don't you understand??"

[surfermaw]

35. Why should democrts, vote for republicans?

[atre]

49. Why?

Most people don't really care about whether candidates were veterans or not. Clinton smashed Bush I, Clinton smashed Dole, AWOL beat Al "Vietnamese journalist" Gore. No one seems to care anymore. Why do you?

[otohara]

15. Why McCain???

If Kerry picked McCain, many liberal democrats would be throughly disgusted, including myself.

[elperromagico]

17. And think of the line of succession.

Imagine this: Kerry/McCain wins by a comfortable margin in November, but the House remains in the hands of the Republicans.

They tried to impeach Clinton on bullshit charges, even though they knew Gore would become President. Imagine what they'd do if a conservative-leaning, anti-choice Republican were next in line...

[yelladawg]

19. If I can get Two Nam Vets

If I can get Two Nam Vets on the ticket then I'm happy. Sure Clark is A Nam Vet, but his staff, who he defended, was very anti-Veteran.

It's time to get someone in the White House who knows what it is like to be in combat.

[LandOLincoln]

29. "...his staff, who he defended, was very anti-Vet??" Care to explain

that assertion?

[Hippo_Tron]

22. Removal requires 3/4 of the senate...

That won't happen.

[UrbScotty]

38. Actually, 2/3 , not 3/4 (nt)

[elperromagico]

40. Assassination requires one bullet.

With a Republican VP, that's highly possible.

[LandOLincoln]

28. I was getting an oil change yesterday, and while I was waiting

I read the the March 15th (IIRC) issue of Time magazine.

They seemed pretty sure that Kerry would put McCain in the SecDef spot--something I've been predicting for months.

Makes a heck of a lot more sense than VP, nor has McCain ever denied it. But then again, no one's ever asked him about it, AFAIK.

Comments?

[surfermaw]

37. My Clark, you sure do like republicans

[LandOLincoln]

39. Well, I'll tell you: I've come to despise the hysteria and hatred of

the loony and doctrinaire far left every bit as much as I despise the hysteria and hatred of the loony and doctrinaire far right.

Most of all, I'm interestd in winning this election, and--while I should probably read up on the duties and powers of the SecDef, and while I think the idea of McCain as Veep is deplorable--I think McCain as SecDef could do a lot towards

(a) bringing in Independents and moderate Republicans who are aghast at BushCo's traitorous shenanigans; and

(b) stop the slide towards the privatizing of the American Armed Forces and the selling off of Iraq to the highest corporate bidder that is the true NeoCon agenda.

However, I'll grant you that in McCain's case I'm not nearly as sure of #2 as I am of #1.

And if by your cattiness you meant to imply that truly tired old canard that Wes Clark is actually a Republican, then you can kiss my proudly Liberal ass.

With all due respect, of course. :evilgrin:

[Padraig18]

23. Edwards, Clark, Breaux...

Breaux would be a little hard to swallow, in some ways, but he is WELL, well-liked in a battleground state that went red last time, and he could definitely help us in Senate and House races in the South. Although he's a good deal more conservative than am I, he brings a fair amount to the table as a VP candidate, it seems to me.

[JI7]

30. Kerry can get rid of Breaux in second term also

even if kerry picks breaux, it's a "safe" choice as breaux will not be running for president. the pick will mostly be about helping to be elected. and since breaux will be vp he can do whatever kerry wants him to do. and i'm sure kerry wont put him in charge of areas where he is horrible in such as envirnoment, protecting women's right to choose etc. in fact breaux can just be used to represent the administration and go campaign for democratic candidates in more conservative leaning areas.

one good thing about breaux is that he is a strong democrat. a conservative democrat, but he is a democrat and he doesn't bash the majority of democrats who lean to the left of him as zell miller does.he mostly stays quiet and votes the gop way, but when it comes to supporting other candidates he always supports democrats. in 2000 he came to the los angeles convention and met with anti gun control people and tried to get their support for the party.

mary landrieu is another good choice also. but breaux is more popular. but landrieu always proves herself to be much stronger than many give her credit for. and i think she is much more liberal than her voting record.

[Padraig18]

32. Yes.

Breaux would be a strong choice, for all the reasons you state. He is also a Democrat, when it comes time to 'put it on the line', as you point out. :)

[Zynx]

41. I agree with Breaux. He gives you LA and makes you more competitve elsewhe

re.

[maisey03]

33. Has Dennis Kucinich been on there?

I picked Gephardt because I've never heard of the others. If those people are choices, I think Dennis should be, too. Gephardt and Edwards were two of my faves for VP because of their backgrounds and the trade issues, but the war situation makes me uncomfy with them now. War support is going straight down the tubes - it will hurt Kerry even more to have a running mate that also voted for the war. I think he should get someone on who opposed it or who was not involved with it at all. Dennis has the war and trade issues all in one. Now would be the time for people to warm up to him. More people are getting to their breaking point with the war, and they want our troops home.

[Darkamber]

44. No he hasn't...

Bust as he's still running for President, I don't think his supporters would be really happy to see him in VP race.

Dennis is still an active candidate for President.

[salonghorn70]

42. Its fun to play this game BUT

Kerry has the one and only choice. This is one that I will leave to him. Whoever Kerry thinks will help the most to get him elected, then that person is fine with me. I read an article recently that said a VP choice really hasn't helped win an election by carrying a needed state since LBJ in 1960. The article said that most recent choices were put on the ticket to emphasize the message. Nevertheless, the Kerry camp may really be convinced that Gephardt can help with Missouri and Ohio. If message is the choice, then they will need to decide between national security and the economy. Edwards would be good on the economy, Clark would be good for national security.

[JI7]

45. John Kerry like John Kennedy is a Massachusettes Democratic senator

so i think it would be smart for kerry to consider how picking a southerner helped the last guy in his position in an election , especially a very close election as 1960 was and 2004 is likely to be.

i think Kerry should go with a southerner. and he can go with a message also based on which southerner he picks. one thing i learned was that people outside of the south vote less based on geography than people in the south. so go with a southerner, not much to lose with that. and he can send a message based on which one he picks.

but i have to say that gephardt DOES bring something for kerry, even if people on du might not like him. so at this point i think kerry could pick gephardt and i would not be surprised.

[salonghorn70]

46. Who?

Who are your Southern candidates besides Edwards. As surprise choices, I would like Warner or Nelson.

[JI7]

48. yes, Mark Warner

also, mary landrieu, john breaux. but i just know he has many good choices from the south and i hope he goes with it.

[lupita]

47. RUBIN= Knows how to fix the economy n/t