If the VP spot was down to these two choices...

[Killarney]

If the VP spot was down to these two choices (and some pundits say it is) who would you rather have? Feel free to add why.

[hlthe2b]

1. Screw the pundits...

I like Edwards, but I personally still want Clark...

[WI_DEM]

2. why is Vilsak so high on Kerry's list?

well probably becuz he is from the midwest, but from what I understand he is not overly popular in Iowa, infact, Survey USA (I think) recently had a poll showing Kerry ahead of Bush in Iowa but add Vilsak to the ticket and Kerry falls behind Bush.

[Killarney]

3. I'm wondering the same thing.

I was hoping to glean some knowledge from this thread as to why in the world he would want Vilsack, but it seems like most people here (myself included) would pick Edwards over Vilsack.

[AP]

6. Vilsack has a great wife. They went to college together. They're real...

...liberals. Decent. They're really products of their time. Long time democrats. It's a really sweet story.

I may have this backwards, but I think she might be the Iowan and he was the carpetbagger who moved to Iowa with her (or maybe he was the original Iowan). But the idea that you'd move to Iowa for your spouse after going to the prestigious east coast college they went to (I can't remember which one) makes for an interesting story about their relationship with each other and about American culture.

I can imagine how voters would warm to their story if they knew it.

Having said that, Edwards is the candidate who is on fire. He has a great story too, and a great wife, and is the product of a public education, and has a message that I think could really get America back on the right track. He also has a proven record of people warming to him once they know about him. Vilsack's appeal is more speculative, and he doesn't have a policy agenda which people could associate with him just yet. Even Lieberman has a political persona before Gore picked him ("values," even though his real persona was giving away the store to Wall St and the accounting firms).

[Killarney]

9. Thanks for that info!

[Scoopie]

10. On fire?

Where?
I never see him unless I do a search (which I don't - others here do more than their share).

[Jai4WKC08]

15. All this and foreign policy/defense expertise too

Clark "is the candidate who is on fire. He has a great story too, and a great wife, and is the product of a public education, and has a message that I think could really get America back on the right track. He also has a proven record of people warming to him once they know about him."

[AP]

5. IIRC, those were two different polls.

So comparing them didn't say much.

[Scoopie]

4. But, it's not

and I'm glad there's a third choice out there - one that's not all pomp and circumstance without any credentials.

Wesley K. Clark.

Ergo - I won't vote in this poll, because I won't vote for Kerry if he picks either of these people.

[Killarney]

7. You won't vote for Kerry/Edwards or Kerry/Vilsack?

Seriously?

I mean, I'm a Clarkie, too, and he was my first choice for the top of the ticket. I supported him. I gave him money. I threw a house party for Clark. I was disappointed when he dropped out. etc, etc.

But no matter WHAT, I'm voting for Kerry in November. I would vote for Kerry/My Dog over Bush/Nader/stay home (which all enable Bush).

[Scoopie]

8. Nope

I would vote for Kerry/anyone with FP creds (Clark, Biden, Graham, Cleland, Kennedy, Richardson...there are PLENTY), but neither of those.
I'm an Independent, not a Democrat, for one thing.
For another, I'm tired of enabling the Democratic Party to shoot itself in the foot by NOT taking away the national security issue from the GOP while it can.
And, while I'll exempt Vilsack because I don't know that much about him, I will also say that I'm tired of there being so many candidates foisted on me that are flash over substance - and that includes one of the people listed above, Bush 43, Quayle, etc.

If it helps, though, I know tons of people who will vote Kerry/whoever. I'm just not wired that way.

[cjbuchanan]

11. So you would rather shoot down any chance to get Clark, Biden, Graham,...

and all the rest in an administration because they are not VP?

When Kerry wins, he'll have a whole cabinet and dozens of other FP related positions for all of the people you mention. Since the next president is either going to be Bush or Kerry, who do you trust more to put competent people in these positions?

I understand you are an independent and are not going to vote for just anyone and I applaud you for that. But, if you really want to give Dems a chance to take back the FP issue, you need to get a Dem in the WH.

[Scoopie]

12. Then I hope the Dems do the right

things and pick for solid leadership (and not that kind that Shrub keeps yelling about in his ads) over flash. It's happenening too much and too often and hasn't benefited anyone save the very wealthy or well-connected.
Do that and I'll be more than happy to help you guys. If either of these two listed above are picked, then I'll just sit and wonder why the Democratic Party can't seem to get in touch with people like me. I am truly concerned about terrorism and about how our foreign policies effect, not only the world, but our own economy. I see a distinct link between the two that, heretofore, only Republicans seemed to get (and I mean real Republicans, not this neo-con, shape-the-world-in-our-own-view bunch of thugs up there now).

I joined this message board sometime after Clark announced his run for the presidency because I truly thought people would see the light - that we needed someone intelligent, world-saavy and tough.
Kerry was my second choice, so I'm fine with his candidacy, too, but Bush is STILL beating him on the national security front, mainly because of years of Republican control of this issue.

I want Bush out, too, but I don't want him replaced with a ticket that is halfway OK.

Besides, I'm of the opinion that if Kerry doesn't pick a VP with strong national security skills, there won't be a Dem in the White House in 2005 for Clark, Graham, et al to BE in a a cabinet. People, while complaining about their pocketbook, will still vote security after 9/11 over economy - afterall, what's the point in a strong economy if you're dead (this isn't necessarily my opinion, but that of the sheeple)?

[cjbuchanan]

13. Thank you for your post

First I want to state that I too am an independent, so please don't think I'm giving you the party line. With that stated I have to point out something.

In you post you say:
Besides, I'm of the opinion that if Kerry doesn't pick a VP with strong national security skills, there won't be a Dem in the White House in 2005 for Clark, Graham, et al to BE in a a cabinet. People, while complaining about their pocketbook, will still vote security after 9/11 over economy - afterall, what's the point in a strong economy if you're dead (this isn't necessarily my opinion, but that of the sheeple)?

A couple things about this. When you look at polls about what issues concern Americans most, time and time again, it is the economy and health care that top the list.

As for your thoughts that without a strong FP VP, Kerry will not get elected, well you are aiding that. By saying that you will not vote for him unless he picks a strong FP VP, you are making it more likely that Kerry will lose. One of those self-fa-filling prophecies.

I hope it does not sound like I am against a strong FP VP, I think that would be a great ticket, but I strongly feel that if Bush gets 4 more years, a lot of bad will come of it. I do trust the Kerry will make smart decisions as President and I think these will include the people that surround him.

[Jai4WKC08]

17. Just a minor correction, and a comment

In the polls I've seen, when you add Iraq and terrorism together, they trump domestic issues as the number one concern for the most people.

Now, obviously, polls of this nature are HIGHLY dependent on how the question is worded, what choices are given, what order they're put in, and so forth. But fwiw, I also think it's a mistake to look only at what polls say now. There's no doubt in my mind we have an "October surprise" in the making, and it's gonna be all about terrorism. BushCo knows that's where his vote-getting strength lies.

I do agree it's important to support Kerry no matter what idiot he might pick for a VP. But that said, I also know that some people live in states where it really doesn't matter who they vote for, so don't be too hard on them if they want to send a message. I'm sure most will do what's necessary when the time comes.

In the meantime, I have a lot of confidence that Kerry WILL pick someone qualified to step in, as a VP must be able to do. And that means being able to handle the war, our allies, and homeland defense. So to my mind there's not much point in arguing about what may never be an issue.

[Darkamber]

20. Could you list those polls?

I've not seen them unless they have been done recently because of the spotlight on the war right now. Here's a few facts from exit polls during the primaries...

Issues that were important in these states during the primaries:

OH: Jobs- 42%, Education-10%, National Sec. 3%, Iraq- 9%
WIS: Jobs- 41%, Healthcare-19%, Iraq- 17%, National Security- 3%
TX: Economy- 43%, Healthcare-26%, Iraq- 6%, Terrorism- 6%

If you look at any of the exit polls, you will find Jobs and Economy and healthcare trumping Iraq and Terrorism/National Security...especially away from the coasts.

Now that might be changing somewhat now, but what happens if things go well after June 30? Bush can already claim the UN is on-board. All the things that Kerry has wanted to do. They have the out ready in the sidelines. Do you really want to put all your eggs in one basket?

[Jai4WKC08]

21. Those primary exit polls...

Those were of Democrats only. Democrats have always tended to care more about domestic issues. People who are more concerned with jobs or healthcare or education or the environment are more likely to identify as Democrats.

Yes, the trouble in Iraq has made a difference. And yes, the situation is improved by yesterday's UN resolution. But don't think it's solved, or that Bush is doing what Kerry (and Clark) have proposed. There are no UN or NATO troops committed and none promised or even likely, so American forces are still grossly overextended. The prisoner abuse problem has not gone away, and the complicity of Ashcroft and Rumsfeld looks even worse. God only knows what's gonna happen with the transfer of "sovereignty" or what it's even gonna look like.

And you aren't even considering the War on Terror, where Bush is still strongest, even with the hits he's taken on Iraq. As I said before, there's bound to be something happen close to November, engineered by the Rovians to remind us all how "tough" Bush is on terrorists. Or how we have to "stand with the commander-in-chief" and not change horses... yada yada. Very hard to dislodge an incumbent president during a war--I don't think it's ever happened.

I don't remember what polls I've seen, but a quick google revealed several. One, for example, from Washington Post/ABC, says:

"Nearly half of Americans ranked the situation in Iraq or the war on terrorism as their biggest concerns this election year. About one in four singled out Iraq as their most important voting issue, more than double the proportion who expressed a similar view five weeks ago. Almost as many said the war on terrorism is the issue that will determine their vote, also up from last month. At the same time, the proportion who said the economy and jobs are most important dropped by 10 percentage points, to 26 percent, after data that suggest the economy is growing and beginning to create large numbers of jobs."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25138-2004Apr19.html

I also found an update of the same polling source, which shows terrorism and Iraq have gone down some since the above was written.
4/18/04
Terrorism... 22%
Iraq........ 23%
Economy......26%
Healthcare... 8%

5/23/04
Terrorism... 14%
Iraq........ 18%
Economy......32%
Healthcare... 8%

So these things do fluctuate, esp with the media all but ignoring what is going on even today in Iraq. It hasn't let up, but they'd much rather cover Reagan's funeral for as long as they can.

But whatever the polling shows at any given time, the most important point is that Americans already trust Kerry to do a better job on domestic issues. It's the foreign policy and national defense issues he has GOT to improve his image on.

Finally, it's just silly to say it's a matter of putting "all your eggs in one basket." We have to cover ALL the bases. Clark helps do that. None of the others do.

[Darkamber]

22. You make some good points, but another question...

can you name the group that Clark is appealing to?

I've been trying to think this through since I saw some Clark supporters in another threat make the statement that Clark ran to the left. The CBS poll, which sadly only showed McCain and Edwards, did show that Edwards on the ticket Kerry picked up more military and conservatives.

Clark is a General and his has massive foreign policy experience yes. And I know his has knowledge on the economy as well. But he did come out 'anti-war' and had such people as Michael Moore come out for him.

Now don't yell at me because I come from a Republican family. I'm the black sheep, but I know from listening to them that there are a few people that get them worked up they include Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore and Hillary Clinton. At the same time, I'm talking about McCain Republicans who are fiscal conservatives and are pissed at what Bush has done to the deficient. They would like a reason to vote for Kerry, but they have told me before that they can't stand Clark. On the other hand, they said they liked Edwards.

I guess...I see Edwards as appealing to the Hawkish fiscal conservatives who are unhappy with Bush. But I'm not sure which group Clark appeals to. The anti-war left? How many anti-war Republicans are there?

And I do agree that polls are fickle things. The war issue can go up and down and the terror issue can go up and down. Even the economy is getting better according to some reports. I can say one thing that will not change. And that is the HUGE federal deficient that is threating social security. Kerry's plan would cut that in half in 4 years if I recall correctly. It's almost the same plan as Edwards had and Edwards could put that plan forward.

Sorry, to go on...but what group do you think that Clark would bring in that is different then what Kerry has now?

[JayS]

23. Another thing to consider is that if the economy can make...

...a substantial improvement before the election the deficit will shrink from the increased revenues, assuming no one goes on a spending spree.

[sandnsea]

16. Don't get your post at all

You want Bush out. But apparently, Bush/Cheney is okay with you, whereas Kerry/Vilsack or Kerry/Edwards aren't. But then you admit you know nothing about Vilsack. How does that make sense?

You say Republicans see a link between terrorism and about how our foreign policies effect, not only the world, but our own economy. But Democrats don't. Yet Democrats are the ones accused of paying too much attention to international relations, foreign aid, "nation building", humanitarian intervention, and the like. How can you possibly think Democrats don't understand the link between our foreign policy, global economies and relations, and terrorism and our own economy? Makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

Real Republicans? Well, they're all up there in D.C. rubber stamping George Bush. Which leads me to believe that what we're seeing right now actually IS the agenda of real Republicans. Same agenda Ronnie had. U.S. domination and trickle-down economics. How's anything so different under Bush? Seems they're just being more honest about it, that's all.

[JohnLocke]

25. You won't vote for Kerry if he picks Edwards?!

[TexasSissy]

14. Too many people don't know Vilsack, so this isn't a fair poll.

I don't know much about him. Not enough to say if he'd be a good choice for VP, anyway.

[sandnsea]

18. I agree

I don't know much about him either. So I'm abstaining from the vote. The only thing is, we've got to introduce Kerry and then turn around and try to introduce Vilsack. Probably not the best idea. If it's just rural votes they're going after, may as well take Edwards that we already know most people like.

[JayS]

24. From what I have found on Vilsack he would not be a good...

...choice. He is at least as anti-gun as Kerry, supports the same ineffective gun control policies, and shows strong support for continuing the War On Drugs. We need him as much as the Titanic needed an iceberg.

[VOX]

19. Edwards. But I'll vote for Kerry and **anyone**...

Seriously, the stakes are too high. Whoever gets the veep nod is fine with me.

Of course, I have preferences (Clark, Edwards), but it's not up to me, and I want BushCo out.

So it's Kerry/(veep's name here) all the way.