VEEPstakes!

In My Humble Opinion
1

Haven’t seen a thread on this topic in here so let’s kick one off. It looks like Kerry, barring some unforeseen disaster, will be the Democratic nominee for the top half of the ticket. Who do you think will be the second half? Some possibilities:

Howard Dean: Pluses–large base of support. Minuses–from a small state with few electoral votes that the Dems will win anyway, the implosion of his presidential campaign and the “Screamin’ Howard Dean” image.

John Edwards: Pluses–large base of support, from the South to “balance” the ticket. Minuses–inexperience as a one-term Senator, would create an all-Senate ticket which doesn’t show much diversity of experience, has categorically refused it which would open him to flip-flop charges if he takes it, the whole trial lawyer issue, he’s “too nice” to be in the attack dog 2nd slot during the campaign (I saw this criticism leveled in some magazine).

Wesley Clark: Pluses–has a base of support, from a Southern state, definitively answers the “soft on national defense” attack. Minuses–has praised the Bush amdinistration very recently, questions about his dismissal as Supreme Allied Commander, no experience in government, rocky campaigner.

None of the other presidential candidates are IMHO remotely suitable. Some other names to throw out:

Mac Cleland: Pluses–Decorated war hero, outspoken critic of the Bush administration, Southern. Minuses–Lost Senate re-election bid, would make for another Senate-Senate ticket. Also, while I don’t accept this at all, there may still be segments of the population unwilling to vote for someone who’s disabled. There is a reason FDR wasn’t photographed in his wheelchair and while I hope that attitude has dissipated in the intervening 60 years I’m not so sure.

Jennifer Granholm: Pluses–Governor of a battleground state (Michigan), who would also bring a diversity of government experience to the ticket. Female candidate and the country may be ready for a woman VP. Minuses–lack of national reputation. Female candidate and the country may not be ready for a woman VP.

Jim Doyle: Pluses–Governor of a battleground state (Wisconsin) who has also held a variety of other state elected offices. Minuses–Lack of national reputation, first-term governor, “career politician.”

Anybody else?

2

There’s a thread about this in GD. Other names that have been tossed out there include Dick Gephardt, Mark Warner (VA Gov.), Bill Richardson (NM Gov.), Evan Vayh (Sen. IN), and others. I think John Edwards is good, but I’m starting to think a double-Senate ticket is a bad idea. If what I’ve read about Warner is true, he sounds appealing… very smart, but able to appeal to Southerners, etc. Dean has said himself that he and Kerry would be a bad ticket because they’re both from the Northeast. It’d be hard for them to attract swing votes, and Dean’s star has fallen so hard that I’m not sure what he’d add to the ticket.

3

<bump>

4

I think Edwards is a good choice. But so are many others. Breaux, for example. Or Graham out of Florida. He’s a flake but he’s a popular flake in an important state.

I don’t think Gephardt, Cleland or any of the others are real alternatives (maybe Richardson).

This one’s going to be close so I think the choice for VP will be driven on a tactical level.

5

Otto, I believe Jennifer Granholm isn’t eligible, as she’s Canadian born.

My short list would be this:

Evan Bayh
Gary Locke
Wesley Clark
Barbara Boxer
Tom Harkin
Herb Kohl

6

Jennifer Grahnholm is Canadian by birth. That leaves her out, doesn’t it? Or is the VP position a “back door” for a foreign-born President?

7

I saw an article somewhere (Salon? Slate? Of course I can’t find it NOW.) that raised the notion of W. J. Clinton himself as Veep. That would, at the least, be amusing. :smiley:

I doubt it’d even be considered…but it’d be interestin’.

8

I solemnly swear never to answer a post about a female politician that uses the words “back door”, “foreign”, and “position.”

9

Yes, but will you comment on Kerry’s “hard working staff”?

10

Article II, section 1 states

so a foreign-born person could serve as VP. Should the president die or be removed from office, the question then becomes what happens since the VP would be constitutionally unqualifed to assume the office as specified by the 25th Amendment. Under the laws governing presidential succession the Speaker of the House would become President, which were the VP to be Grahnholm and were the House to remain in Republican hands it would mean that the President and the VP would be of different parties. Also interesting to contemplate is whether a foreign-born person may serve as “acting president” under the terms of the 25th Amendment in the event of the president’s incapacity. I would say yes, since the Constitution differentiates between “President” and “acting President.”

11

Why would the Democrats nominate a Republican for VP? Yes, I know he’s registered as a Democrat but Breaux fancies himself a dealmaker and power player and votes with the Republicans on many issues

I don’t know anything about Locke and know very little about Bayh (except he has twins and looked really hot at the last convention). Clark I already talked about, and considering he’s cited as the source of those “intern” rumors somehow I think his stock may have fallen since then. Boxer and Harkin both have the Senate-Senate ticket problem. So does Kohl, and honestly he’s such a nothing in the Senate I can’t imagine what he’d bring to the ticket.

I hear Iowa governor Tom Vilsack’s name being bandied about. I don’t know too much about him other than my parents in Iowa seem to like him. He issued an executive order banning discrimination against gays in state jobs which the Republican legislature promptly had overturned in court. He’s a Midwestern governor in a battleground state so he brings that geographical and experiential diversity to the ticket.

12

Otto, at the end of the 12th amendment:

[quote]
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.**

I think not Edwards, by the way, or anyone else that campaigned for President. Perhaps a western or southern sitting or former governor.

13

Just got off the phone with my father, who is somehow convinced that Hillary Clinton is going to get the Veep nod from Kerry. He thinks that HC being from Arkansas will overtrump the fact that she’s Senator from NY, thus adding the Southern component to the ticket, and that she’ll of course use it as a springboard for a Presidential run. My father loathes Hillary from the bottom of his heart, so this is a doomsday scenario for him that would prevent him from voting Kerry in 2004.

I personally don’t think Kerry will risk such a controversial running mate. I’d go with Edwards if I were him.

14

D’oh! I always forget about that in the 12th. That’s the boring amendment anyway.

15

Well, exactly. What better way to bring in the southern male cohort.

And I think Clark has been offered SecDef or SecState by Kerry.

16

I think Richardson is the best choice. First of all, this would allow Richardson to concentrate on campaigning in NM, AZ, CA, CO, NV, and make runs into west TX. Put a bit of a scare in Bush on his own turf. This leaves Kerry to fight in the Midwest and Florida. This will help Kerry avoid a lot of cross-country flights which cut into campaign time. Kerry will ignore most of the South except for Florida and perhaps Louisiana.

I just don’t see what Edwards brings to the ticket. The South isn’t going Demorcratic.

17

I’d worry about Edwards since not only are the Democrats wanting to take back the White House but the Senate and House as well. Why risk losing a Democratic senator from South Carolina when his replacement will probably be a Republican?

Hilary’s not from Arkansas, she’s from Chicago.

I think the best he can do is choose someone that makes people feel good about the choice. Much like Lieberman did in 2000, only Kerry should get something with more presense. How is Richardson in person?

18

Never mind. I am in error. I really should be paying closer attention. Ah well.