Ah, but you don’t understand- Cleland won Georgia, it was those evil Diebold machines combined with the dirtiest campaign ever run in the history of mankind full of lies lies lies lies lies lies about Cleland’s well of patriotism and how he lost three limbs fighting to pull survivors from the 9/11 wreckage which Dumbya and Cheney planned in order to build massive pipelines in…
er. Sorry. Channeling Evil Captor there for a minute. Better now.
Cleland couldn’t win Georgia, but that was during the build-up-to-war. As Dems are fully expecting the deflate-from-war to be the trend coming up, Cleland seems a much more solid candidate. And again- he’s perfectly designed to bring out the partisan vote and solidify the vet vote.
Of course, I also predicted that there’d still be some fight in the nomination process right now, so we’ll see.
OK, I was trying to be delicate about this because I think Cleland really is a super-nice guy, but he is, um, not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
He won his first Senate race (barely) against weak competition. It was unsurprising that he lost the second time out.
Frankly, what limited success Cleland has enjoyed is due in part to sympathy votes. The sacrifices he has made for his country are painfully obvious. He has never been a strong campaigner or a strong debater.
I don’t think anyone here has ever regarded Cleland as a “force to be reckoned with” politically or intellectually. It pains me to say that, because I like Cleland. You can’t help but like him.
Oh jeez, I’d forgotten about Sam Nunn. With his experience as the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, this could strike some fear into the hearts of those in the administration that might find themselves in a post-Bush era, what with investigations into intelligence and 9/11.
I googled this little bio , and I’m even more intrigued seeing what he’s been up to lately. It’s interesting that he’s both on the boards of some major corporations, and yet he and Ted Turner head NTI, a charitable cooperative that has the aim of eliminating nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons multilaterally. I’d heard Ted Turner suggest a 10% per year multilateral disarmament contingent on strict verification of everyone signed to the nuclear proliferation treaty going along with it, and persuading all nations to sign on. Senator Nunn must have something of a handle on WMD’s in a climate where that has raised huge concerns. He’s also been involved in international policy and education reform.
He’s certainly an insider, and yet it looks as if he probably pedals influence in all aspects of the Democratic party. I believe he was quite popular in the party and respected outside of it. But then, might he scare away the stray Republican vote more than Dean or Kucinich?
Oops, my bad. I misread Sam Nunn’s bio, and Nunn is not listed as being involved in education reform, although he is a professor at the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs at Georgia Tech.
I think simplistic ticket-balancing has been pretty much obsolete ever since Clinton picked Gore (2 Southern policy wonks), and Cheney had Bush pick him (2 Texas oilionaires). That just doesn’t sway many votes anymore - people vote for the top of the ticket, and all they want from a running mate is that he can step in at a moment’s notice and continue the top guy’s policies. To claim that Kerry has to pick a Southerner to win Southern votes, or a Hispanic to win their votes, is simple paternalistic condescension, and southerners and Hispanics aren’t obtuse enough not to see that.
No, I think his best choice would be another moderate with an air of populism to him (to help counteract the damage Bush’s hard-rightism has done), with enough of a leadership background of his own to make him interchangeable with Kerry if necessary. A non-career-Washington pol to help offset Kerry’s insider image would help, and so would someone with a good resume of domestic policy accomplishments to offset Kerry’s foreign-policy background, and all that points toward a current or recent state governor with whom he still gets along well enough personally. There’s a long list of those and I wouldn’t try to handicap it.
I’m surprised at the number of people limiting their consideration only to presidential candidates. That is not necessary, and is even uncommon, since the nominee is likely to have been the target of some pretty serious jabs from any of them and won’t want to overlook it if he can avoid it. Kerry wouldn’t ask Dean even if it made political sense, for instance. Edwards isn’t as likely a choice, either, since his true support in the South has been revealed as shallow.
I also don’t think any VP candidate is going to deliver The South. It was shown in 2000 the Democrats don’t need The South to win. As long as Florida is won.
I think Senator Bob Graham of Florida, my fraternity brother, might warrant consideration. Gov. Bob, as he’s still refered to in Florida, is still very popular down there.
If he can deliver Florida by enough votes so the US Supreme Court doesn’t stop vote counting again, he should be considered.
The New York Times ran a piece about Bill Richardson yesterday and detailed some of the reasons he might be appealing. Today, they linked to a CQ piece that (in addition to Cleland and Gephardt) mentioned Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia and Hillary Clinton. Didn’t offer support for either theory aside from the potential good points of each- though the author says he doesn’t think Kerry would mind being “overshadowed” by Hillary, I doubt that’s true (he’s been in politics for years, and she’s only in the Senate because she was the First Lady). The writer also seems to believe the Edwards camp is sincere in not wanting the job. At the present, much as I like Edwards’s personality, I think the idea of two serving Senators might not be a good one.
Zell Miller is regarded as a cynical traitor among Georgia Democrats these days.
He was a moderate Democrat as governor of the state, and fought hard against Republicans on a populist platform. He helped Bill Clinton carry Georgia in '92.
When he made it into the Senate, Miller mutated into a pseudo-Republican, voting almost in lock-step with the GOP. For this he is a despised figure among Georgia Democrats.
Zell’s nickname for years has been “Zig Zag Zell” because of the 180s he has taken over the years on various issues. You can see why.
Kerry should stay as far away from Miller as possible.
He might be dead, but he’s shown that he can beat Republicans regardless.
I think I’m actually leaning towards Edwards or Cleland. One has oodles of charisma, and the other seems like a genuinely nice guy. I think there are a large number of voters where these are the only types of things that matter. Edwards is the more likely of the two to be able to continue the Democratic hold on the presidency if Kerry should get elected twice, so he’d probably be the first choice.
I had a wild thought, even though Republicans seem to hate the man, but isn’t Jimmy Carter still eligible? He’s still highly respected down here, and is probably the main reason that Georgia isn’t teaching “Biological changes over time” in its classrooms.
In the 13 years I lived in Bloomington/Columbus, I always saw Indiana as a solid, fixed Republican state (until Evan Bayh was elected, causing hell to freeze over). Bloomington was a liberal oasis. There also seemed to be a very conservative belt that ran from Martinsville through Indy to Kokomo.
He still denies categorically that he’s interested in the spot. Chris Mathews tried to nail him on this a few days ago, and he was insistent that he’s going to finish up his term as governor of NM.
At any rate, I think I was probably wrong in my initial prediction.
Sam Nunn would be terrific if he’s still vital enough to campaign effectively. He’s got tons of credibility and he’s southern.
Someone mentioned Gephardt. I think he only helps if the economy doesn’t pick up and job losses/protectionism continue to be big issues. I expect these issues to subside somewhat as the year progresses. And to be honest, Edwards addresses this same issue better than Gephardt, who is a lot like your father’s Oldsmobile.
It would be hard to find a better candidate if issues and national stature were the key elements in choosing the VP. If it comes down to “who can deliver which key states”, I’m not sure he’s the guy. But I do personally agree that choosing Nunn would make me look at Kerry all the more closely whereas Gephardt would pretty much shut the door for me.