Yeah, it’s a shame that nobody suggested a moderate black congressman as a potential VP.
[Hel-lo! Those links are provided for a reason, you know!]
Nitpick: Not necessarily. If one or both of her parents were U.S. citizens, then she’s a “natural born” citizen (as opposed to a naturalized citizen) and is eligible.
I like Kerry/Clark or Kerry/Edwards. I don’t think Clark is a new Democrat; he just hasn’t been politically active in a visible way. This situation isn’t new. Remember the frenzied speculation by both parties that Colin Powell was in their camp? Military guys that high up don’t make a lot of noise about party affiliation. They owe it to their troops to keep their mouth shut about such matters, because declaring party affiliation that is contrary to the admininstration currently in charge could appear to hostile foreign governments that the military does not back the president. Very bad position to put the country in. Military men of this level feel patriotically and personally obliged to keep their opinions to themselves. Now that he’s retired, he’s free to extend himself politically. I don’t think his lack of specifics on the campaign trail is a negative for VP. If Kerry/Clark won, he’d have 8 years to acclimate himself to political life and form his own platform in '12.
Although Clark is my choice, Edwards is the better choice. Charming and smart, he’s wowed audiences that would otherwise be inclined to avoid a rich trial lawyer. Truth be told, I would love to see an experienced lawyer like Edwards (who is used to not only arguing the facts but convincing the jury, different things) debate Bush. Bush’s off-the-cuff skills are so poor that I think Edwards would wipe him out. For this reason, if Edwards were to win the Democratic nomination, I think he could beat Bush. However, I think it unlikely; Kerry’s got too much mo.
Gephardt’s through. Time to polish his role as elder statesman and do good by his constituents. His time has past. Ditto Lieberman, plus his hometown is too close to Kerry’s. Dean? Don’t make me laugh. I don’t think a Midwesterner is needed, nor do I see any good choices. Gephardt, a Midwesterner, got trounced in Iowa, so I think the Midwest is open to a New England/Southern thing. Only 1 state, true, but ya gotta wonder…
Art
I’m a Democrat who agrees with you, on that point at least.
OK, “conspiracy theory” time.
Edwards has been running for VP the whole time. Hence, his strategy not to criticise any of the other candidates. He probably knew that Dean or Kerry both had way better odds than he did at getting the nomination, and that either of those two “New England Liberals” would need a “Southern Moderate” on the ticket.
Dean and Edwards are both problems as long as Kerry tries to run on his war record, and run against Bush’s. After all, Howard Dean was a charter member of the, “My back hurts too much to go to Vietnam” Aspen ski team.
Clark would make a good choice, were it not for the fact that Clark has been busy the last couple of weeks making sure he was completely unelectable.
Minty said:
Harold Ford Jr. will be an EXCELLENT choice for a running mate in 2012, or maybe even 2008. He’s an extremely impressive politician.
Harold Ford Jr (Although we all know what Chris Rock said about a white pres with a black veep 
)
Bill Nelson
Gary Hart
Bob Graham
I would skip Clark, he’s been too back and forth. Edwards is charismatic, but then you’ve got the traditional trial lawyer mudslinging. Gephardt is pretty much only attractive in the industrial belt. And I doubt Lieberman would go for it. Then again, all they really have to do is go on TV once, for like an hour, and look less evil than Cheney, which is not exactly Nobel Prize work.
John Edwards did very well in Iowa. Maybe Edwards does not have the same union credibility that Gephardt does, but he does good job of articulating issues of concern to working people. In fact, despite his accent, Edwards may actually have more impact in a couple of close Midwestern states such as Ohio and Indiana than in most of the South.
I am now nearly certain he will be picked, unless he goes very negative against Kerry for some odd reason.
Bill Richardson is another possible choice, I think I’ve mentioned this a million times before. There is a problem with his past though, the Republicans will definitely bring up his tenure in the Department of Energy during the Los Alamos scandal.
I seriously doubt John Breaux is interested in the VP slot, but he may be the best choice. He could carry Louisiana, which is about the most Democratic southern state left - and give the ticket genuine balance to the center. He strikes me as an effective leader, and could win over voters in the midwest and west as well.
He’ll certainly be on the short list for Secretary of State if he isn’t the Vice President, but I suspect its way to early to draw up a Kerry cabinet.
I meant Richardson will be a likely secretary of state…
Damn, I wanted to start this thread. Oh well.
In addition to Edwards and Gephardt, a Time article I just read mentioned Evan Bayh of Indiana and also Max Cleland as possibilities. Personally, I don’t like Gephardt and I think he’s very dull. I’d take Edwards for sure - I don’t know much about the other candidates, but I think he seems to have the right qualities.
Not Lieberman. When Gore chose him, a lot of people noted that he wouldn’t bring any new states to the table, and that’s probably even more true for Kerry. Also, taking Lieberman was part of the “distance myself from Bill Clinton” strategy. That strategy didn’t work for Gore, and Kerry doesn’t need to use it because he wasn’t Clinton’s VP.
SteveEisenberg, I wouldn’t accuse you of being disingenuous. Just wrong. The Democrats aren’t going to treat this race like it’s already lost when everything indicates they’ll have a very good chance to win it.
Well, Clark is available.
Good question. I dunno, but one thing is for sure, if Kerry tries a " check" and so chooses that junior squench Senator from New York - Hillary Rodam Clinton, then President Bush will drop Chaney and “checkmate” with Condoleezza Rice.
This election, my friends, is gonna be hard for President Bush to lose.
Thank God.
Evan Bayh is an interesting candidate. But he was unappologetically pro-war, and as far as I can see, still pretty much is.
You must be kidding.
I said it before any pundit, and I say it again: Max Cleland.
He’s another Vietnam War Hero to articulate Kerry’s war hero status and Bush’s lack thereof. He’s a Southerner, and may be able to pull it the states that Clinton could- Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia, and Tennessee. He’s a moderate on the issues, but because he lost re-election to what Democrat partisans call ‘dirty tricks’ and foam at the mouth about it, his name on the ticket will rally those faithful without having to move left.
I’m glad to see that he’s working at it though…
I think it would be of benefit to the Dems to have at least one candidate on the team who has some charisma. And while Kerry seems to have occasional flashes of passion, the key word is ‘occasional’. So I want Edwards.
While I’ve got a great deal of respect for Gephardt, the snooze factor there is undeniable.
Richardson would strengthen the ties between Dems and Hispanics, which would be good this year. But Minty, who’s closer to that end of the country, says he’s not much of a rousing speaker. So while Richardson would be better than most, he’s not the one I’d pick.
Clark: can’t see the need for playing the military card twice on the ticket. And that’s all Clark gives you. If Edwards had won the nomination, Clark would have been a good veep for him.
Breaux…well, I know who he is because I’m a political junkie living near DC. But only because of that. And even then, he’s nearly invisible to me. Which suggests to me that he won’t add that much either.
Another thing to consider in a veep is what you want with respect to age and career arc. A comparatively inexperienced candidate might well want an experienced caretaker as his veep: think Bush/Cheney, Kennedy/Johnson, and even Dukakis/Bentsen. But if you’re clearly ready on Day 1, like Kerry is, you want a guy who’s potentially the party’s future. That would point to an Edwards or possibly a Richardson.
Finally, I’d say the veephood is one of those things that it’s possible to overthink, and Lord knows it’s been done before. I think Lieberman in 2000 and Quayle in 1988 were two instances of that. Pick a guy (or gal) to win a particular state or voting bloc, IMHO, only if s/he adds to your appeal with the bulk of voters as well.
Since there’s been a fair amount of discussion here about that, I started a thread about it.
That is a man to watch. I’ve been keeping an eye on him for a few years, I believe.
If it wasn’t for Edwards’ positive publicity and existing name value, I’d point him in a heartbeat. But Edwards is a name and a half to watch now, he’s weathered the beatings and he’s looking damn good with people.
He’s veep material now. Next election, if Bush wins, he’s presidential material.
With all due respect, John, Max Cleland couldn’t even pull Georgia. He’s a super-nice fellow, but he’s not really regarded as a political heavyweight here in his native state.
The only VP choice that might be able to pull Georgia would be Sam Nunn, if he could be coaxed out of semi-retirement. He’s still reasonably young. (In his 60s, I believe.) Don’t see that happening though.
Actually, I agree that Kerry may be planning to make Cleland his VP. (Lord knows Cleland has been shadowing him on the campaign trail.) I just don’t think Cleland will help him.