Now that Al Gore has given Howard Dean the Democratic Presidential Nomination, who will Howard Dean appoint as his VP?
My opinion?
-Al Gore (this was probably part of the deal he struck with Dean)
-Wesley Clark (Clark gives off an illusion of safety and security, to deceive people into believing Howard Dean can be trusted with foreign policy and national security)
Any other possibilities?
I would hope it would be Wesley Clark. I think a Clark/Dean or Dean/Clark ticket would be fairly formidible. They compliment each other well. One’s a centrist, the other’s fairly liberal. One’s best known for being opposed to the Iraq war, the other is a general. One’s from New England, the other from the South. Demographically and politically, they’re an excellent pair.
But don’t count Clark or perhaps Kerry out of the running for the nomination just yet. Dean will clean up in Iowa and New Hampshire, but the big test is whether he will have any traction in the South. If Clark cleans up when the campaign moves South, he could conceivably take the election from Dean. In either case, they’d be a stronger pair on the ticket together than either of them apart.
McCain would be a nice choice to draw out moderate republicans.
McCain will never defect to the Democrats. You don’t spend years as a POW without developing a fierce sense of loyalty. Don’t look at him to campaign too hard for Bush, however.
Clark’s the best choice, but he’s also the fiercest competition at this time, so don’t look for that to happen very soon. Hopefully the primary endgame won’t be so bitter that he won’t accept (or be offered) the position.
How strong would Bush/McCain have been? They would have trounched Gore.
Wesley Clark, though I have a gut feeling it’s not going to happen.
I hope it won’t be Joe Lieberman.
Edwards, perhaps, if he’s worried about the south, though I think people in Edwards’ own state barely know who he is. He might come into his own once in the spotlight, though. Bob Graham for Florida, though Graham has developed a largely undeserved reputation as a flake lately.
I doubt any of the other Dem nominees are worth considering except for Kerry, and there’s 1) possibly too much animosity there and 2) what’s the point of having 2 New England Dems on the ticket?
Arianna Huffington? Never, but it would be interesting.
Best guess: Edwards, if he can’t pull off getting Clark.
If not Clark, then Graham would be my choice for Veep. A good attempt at throwing Florida into contention.
I hope for Powell/McCain, but oh well.
I don’t think it will be any of the current candidates other than possibly Wesley Clark or John Edwards (especially if Dean loses a lot of Southern primaries to them). He will probably choose a Southerner or Westerner, someone with some “national” reputation (Senate, former Cabinet), and with some weight on military or foreign policy matters.
One interesting choice might be Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico - but the Los Alamos scandal during his leadership as Energy Secretary damaged his national reputation.
I think if the Dems go with two anti-war candidates (Dean/Clark), they will get trounced. According to a November '03 LA Times poll 30% of Democrats think the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over. Dean is pretty far to the left to attract many Republican cross-overs, but if he makes the Iraq war a major issue (which seems likely), he’ll probably lose quite a few Dems to Bush.
I think Clark would be an awful choice, unless he somehow manages some convicing wins in southern primaries. Otherwise, what is the point of having an underperformer on a Dean ticket? Clark took his four stars and all the fanfare around his entry into the race and, so far, has nothing to show for it.
I go back and forth on Richardson, for the reasons syncrolecyne noted, but he would be a good pick to making the Southwest a new political battleground.
I’m not sure if either one would really be interested in the job, but I think John Breaux would be a great choice, and Evan Bayh a good choice. Breaux has a considerable amount of gravitas, and Bayh seems to be, well, a smarter version of John Edwards.
And as far as John Mace’s point, I don’t think it matters at all if the Dem’s ticket is loaded with anti-war candidates or not. If the Iraq situation suddenly rights itself, Bush will almost certainly have the election sewn up. If the situation stays bad, people will want to know what the candidates are going to do about it; not what they thought about it two, two and a half years before the election.
Just look at Nixon in 1968: it mattered hardly one whit what Nixon thought about initially getting involved in Vietnam; all that mattered is that he made it a big part of his campaign that he would have “peace with honor,” and he rode that to electoral victory.
Gotta be a big-state guy. Graham seems perfect. Florida is crucial, he’s got no real negatives, and he doesn’t have a big personality that would compete with/overshadow Dean.
It should not be overlooked that this did for lying what Stonehenge does for rocks.
Mr Mace:
You have to be kidding. Democrats voting for Bush? Ha. Bush used up all of his cross over votes in 2000.
As for the OP. Don’t forget about Mrs. H. Clinton.
Don’t confuse “average Democrat” with “average SDMB Democrat”. Only a fool would think there will be no crossover votes. Operate on that premise and the election is over right now, with a Bush victory certain.
I agree with Spectrum that either a Dean/Clark ticket or Clark/Dean ticket will be formidable. I think that national security will be a big vulnerability for Bush and Clark is ideal to go on the attack on this issue. It’s not just his military credentials but that he is a thoughtful and knowledgable analyst on US foreign policy, probably among the best in US politics today. Dean’s big asset is his campaign operation and fund-raising prowess.
http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
BTW these polls about Iraq are instructive. On the plain vanilla question of whether they support the war there is about 55% support. However on the more specific (and IMO more relevant) question of whether the war was worth the cost, support drops to about 45% with 50% saying no. My guess is that the 50% who say no are going to be pretty reponsive to someone like Wesley Clark. Certainly I don’t see anything in those numbers to suggest that the Clark/Dean combination is electoral poison because of their opposition to the war.
I don’t know where y’all get your information, but Dean is not a liberal. Not even close. Well, maybe if you’re a John Birch-er…
Dean will choose Clark. Clark will accept. Here’s why:
Why will Dean choose Clark? Conservatives will vote for Bush and liberals will vote for the Democratic candidate. It’s only a fairly narrow portion of the middle that’s in play in this election. So Dean needs some issues that appeal to the middle. On the defense issue, as we’ve seen, it’s about even. A few people may shift based on how things go for the next year, but most folks have already made their decision. To get the middle, Dean needs some other big issue to swing people.
Well, he’s got an issue: spending and the deficit. Shrub promised balanced budgets, he’s failed to deliver, and he’s signed big spending increases that some centrists, libertarians, and moderate conservatives aren’t too happy about. Unlike the other Dem candidates, Dean can criticize this and promise to do better while maintaining credibility, because his record in Vermont backs him up. Choose Bayh or some other Dem Senator and he loses that credibility because Senate Dems don’t have a record of shooting down spending measures. Choose Clark and he keeps the issue. Clark is a General, hence he’s never had to vote on spending measures before.
Will Clark accept? Yes. His goal, presumably, is to be President, and after the fanfare and his numbers died down, it’s plain that he’s not going to do it this year. But if he runs as Dean’s VP, then he’s in good position in '08 if Dean loses, or in or '12 if Dean wins.
Assuming Dean gets a chance to choose a VP, I’d think Bill Richardson would be a better choice. Clark had a chance to come out like a house afire and basically muffed it.
Richardson has actually won elections, one of the few former Clinton folks to do so and Clark hasn’t. I don’t think Richardson would hurt the ticket in any state Gore won and that seems to be the most likely way to victory – hold the states Gore won and try to pick up a few he narrowly lost.
Richardson and Dean also share two views not common among liberals, luke warm toward gun control and both fairly strong on balancing the budget.
But you forget that Dean already asked Clark to be his VP