Clark, my favorite, appears to be done. He’d make a good VP, IMO, but has said he’s not interested. Edwards is more competitive, will give Kerry a run for his money, but I think he is done as well. Edwards has also said he has no interest in the VP slot, very foolish IMO. He’s so young that after 8 years he’d still be plenty young enough for President.
Art
Of course one never professes interest in the VP position while campaigning for the presidency. My gut feeling is that Clark will not be offered the job. Edwards very well might get the nod. He seems to be the rising star of the party and would be the front runner in 2008 should Kerry lose or in 2012 should Kerry win. I still like Dick Gephardt for the VP slot as he would solidify the Democrats’ home turf rather than make perhaps a failed attempt to win over Dixie.
Edwards has the only chances to upset Kerry for the nomination, but those chances are slim and none. Kerry would have to make a major blunder and that just isn’t going to happen. My only questions are who will be the VP and will Bush manage to get more electoral votes than Dukakis.
I’d have a hard time arguing with that reasoning. I stated in my own thread on the subject that I thought Bill Richardson would be the VP choice, but he flat out said in an interview yesterday that he wouldn’t take it if offered. I know he can backpedal on that, but it was enough for me to rethink the situation. Gephardt makes a compelling candidate, although from my own personal perspective it would almost certainly prevent me from voting for Kerry in Nov.
Any idea if Gephardt would accept the VP slot? I think his presidential career is over (even if he serves as VP), so I don’t see a lot of motivation for him to do so.
IF Edwards continues to carry the bulk of the South, not just a single state in his own backyard, then yes, I agree he’d be convinceable to take the #2 slot. The South is critical, the Midwest is not and Gephardt doesn’t have as deep a following there as the talking heads used to say, so there’s no value to going there.
Kerry ran well in SC, even among blacks, despite all the trash talk we’ve seen here. I don’t worry about it - the driving issues are national (economy and war), not regional interests anyway.
I think a Kerry/ Edwards ticket would do well. I wish Dean would drop out of the race. Now.
(I also mentioned this in the Predictions thread…) I think Clark’s win in OK badly hurt Edwards. It keeps Clark in the race, and now Clark and Edwards will split the vote of Southern Democrats. That may well allow Kerry to slip in some victories in Southern states. Virginia in particular comes to mind.
I see looming disaster if the Democrats nominate Kerry. The Democratic Party seems to have somehow hypnotized itself into believing he is electable. We saw the same phenomenon with Dukakis a few years back. Kerry will not win over moderate voters (IMO) and Lord knows he won’t take a single Southern state (including Florida) after the remarks he’s made.
But electability is a relative, not an absolute term. Can you make the case that either Clark or Edwards is more electable than Kerry? Clark’s candidacy is in self destruct mode, and do you really think this nation is going to elect a guy to the presidency with only 1 term as Senator under his belt? Bush is lucky to have slipped in before 9/11/01. I think it’s going to be quite awhile before we elect another novice to that office.
I believe an Edwards/Clark ticket would do the trick for several reasons:
Clark as VP would provide foreign policy cred.
The ticket would take at least two Southern states out of the Republican column, possibly as many as 5 or 6. (North Carolina, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Tennessee and Georgia would be “in play.” Possibly others.)
The ticket (unlike a ticket with Kerry at the top) would appeal to moderate voters. This would help in swing states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri.
At the same time, Edwards’s energetic, populist campaign message could mobilize the base. (Note that Kucinich threw his support to Edwards in Iowa at the last minute.) If Kerry wins, I fear the Deaniacs will stay home in November. I believe Edwards could bring them out.
Edwards is much better than Kerry at connecting to working class voters. Kerry has no common touch. Example: Trying to imitate Edwards’s populist message, Kerry remarked (in sonorous tones) that we “must end the politics of privilege!” “Politics of privilege?” What the hell is that? That’s the title of a doctoral thesis, not a way to connect to Joe Voter. That sort of phrasing leaves most people scratching their heads. Kerry may connect with Democratic primary voters, but that campaign style will kill him in the general election.
Edwards/Clark could effectively lay claim to the Clinton mantle, since both have received Clinton’s implicit blessings at different points in the campaign. I believe Clinton would campaign hard for this ticket.
After yesterday, Dean is at best an extreme long-shot to come back. As someone or other noted, he had been pinning his hopes on Michigan and Wisconson, but the polls in Michigan show him wayyyyy back in the pack. I’m not sure what is going on pollwise in Wisconson, but if he doesn’t win at least one state in the next round, he’s toast.
Curious, isn’t it. In Iowa, his much-vaunted organization just didn’t come through for him. But, I think it is likely that he would have taken New Hampshire if not for the scream. Had he won New Hampshire, he would have had momentum going into yesterday, and probably would still be in contention, if not the actual front-runner. Amazing how a single moment can turn events around like that.
And, no, the media didn’t play the scream out of proportion. Ordinary people who saw it live were making jokes the next day around the water cooler, on the 'Net, etc. The media replayed the scream ad nauseum because it resonated with the public. Had it not touched a nerve it would have been dropped after the third or fourth showing.
Kerry will never pick Dean as VP; he brings little to the ticket. Edwards would be a good pick for Kerry, for geographical balance and as a bit of eye candy (God knows Kerry needs something to brighten up the ticket!).
At this point, I still think Bush is likely to take it, but there are many months between now and November. Either he or Kerry could have “Dean moments” of their own – not necessarily a scream, but a major gaffe that resonates with the voters. If that happens, all bets are off.
The short answer to this question is yes. It is. As a Bush supporter, Kerry has my unwavering support as the nominee.
Ah, I get it. You’re concerned about Bush’s health and you think Kerry would be the way to get your man an early retirement.
It kind of peeves me that the media appoints a likely winner so early in the primary season. Right now it is realistically possible for almost any of the nominees to take the nomination. Actually, as someone whose primary isn’t until next week, it really peeves me.
Interestingly, Clinton had a lot of naysayers during the 1992 campaign. It’s kind of funny to go back and read these articles and then see how very wrong everyone turned out to be.
In 1992, a man by the name of Tom Harkin handily wond the Iowa caucus. Anyone remember him? Paul Tsongas won New Hampshire. Clinton wasn’t even in first place by early March 1992. Does the name Jerry Brown ring any bells?
I don’t understand why anyone drops out this early in the game. And I really don’t get why anyone feels safe making any pronouncements about the winner by early February. The states with large numbers of delegates haven’t even voted yet.
Clark is giving a Town Hall meeting here in Clarksville, TN tonight (ha ha–Clark, Clarksville…nevermind.) My husband called and told me he barely got in–standing room only. This is Fort Campbell land, home of the 101st Airborne, and they are mighty interested in hearing what the General has to say. He’s not out by a long shot. And for that matter, Dean really isn’t out, either. At around this time in 1992, Clinton was known as a pot smoking womanizer who wore boxers and got out of military service in Vietnam. Let’s just see how this all plays out.
Lack of money, primarily. It’s hard to pay for TV commercials without any funds.