why not mikeie er jesse jackson lol, they are libbies rite!! should git along just great

__________________
Made in the USA and proud of it

As far as the debate over possible Veeps goes, I think far too many people out there are talking about people who have recently gained media exposure (Edwards, Clark, Dean?, McCain?, ect...) rather than real contenders.

Remember where Veep candidates have come from in the past? Dick Cheney? Joe Lieberman? Jack Kemp? Al Gore? Dan Quayle? Lloyd Bentson? Geraldine Ferraro? These were not bested primary contenders, and it is unlikely that Kerry would pick anyone who ran, with the exceptions of Dick Gephardt and Bob Graham.

Here are some more realistic options. And my ratings.

Sen. Bob Graham (unlike Joe Lieberman) carries Florida, meaning Bush has to go after Pennsylvania or Michigan (remember, new electoral math after the 2000 census), but the story is "Who the heck is Bob Graham?

Fmr. Sen. Max Cleeland (D-GA) mobilizes Dems and gives the south a chance to atone for the 2002 election, when they basically bought into Bush's nonsense about Dems lack of patriotism. No one can question his patriotism, and it further ties into the Kerry "Vietnam Angle"... a nice contrast if your opponent was...um...less than fully invested in America's security at that point.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) or Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) give Kerry gender parody and bring moderate voting records to the table. Both would almost certainly carry their state (both of which went "red" in 2000) and skyrocket female turnout for Kerry. The only downside is that the big question would be: Did Kerry pick them for the same reason Mondale picked Ferraro? I would love to see Blanche Lincoln be the nominee.

Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) has said he won't run for Veep. We'll see. As a hispanic he locks up NM, AZ, and CA...and could maybe help in FL. He has strong experience in international relations (fmr. UN Ambassador) and has been a successful governor, although only for two years.

Gov. Tom Vilsack (D-IA) didn't endorse Kerry during the Iowa primary, but his wife did. He locks up the Midwest for Kerry, but he looks kind of goofy, and no one knows much about him. Plus, Kerry probably will carry the Midwest anyway.

Rep. Dick Gephardt is tough to figure out. You'd think he would be very helpful with Missouri, but that state is trending Republican. You'd think he'd be good in Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Michigan, but would he turn off moderates and pro-business in other regions due to his strong pro-labor ties and opposition to free trade? Plus, like it or not, Gephardt has the "aura" of a loser. But... If he could carry Missouri and Ohio, Kerry is the President.

Fmr. Veep Al Gore. It would be a bold pick, and it would get a LOT of attention. Kerry gets a running mate with credibility and the most experience on the table. Yes, Gore lost last time, but if Florida had 500 more people who were smart enough to fill out a ballot, he would President, and on his way to losing a landslide election to John McCain. I think this would be similar to the Cheney pick in 2000, which showed Bush was willing to name a running mate on the basis of merit. Downside. Hmmm? The story could degenerate into the bitterness we were left with at the end of the 37 days in 2000, and Kerry gets lost in the message.

Fmr. Sen. Gary Hart (D-CO). There's a blact from the past. Lot of experience with foreign policy, and he's tied into the Kerry-Kennedy wing of the party. He's also not a bad looking man. The downside is that he's a blast from the past, and he got caught screwing around with Donna Rice on a little boat (no joke) named "Monkey Business". I'm not sure that will play well in the "red states", but it sure would firm up my support of Kerry.

Fmr. head of the Office of Management and Budget, and current Chair/CEO of Fannie May Franklin Raines. As OMB head ('97-'99) he presided over the only budget surplus in my lifetime, and now is doing great things at Fannie May. His biography is very strong: born in the projects of Seattle and pulled himself up to graduate Magna from Harvard. He's tied to Kerry, and he would be a huge asset in terms of budget and economic policy. Now...the kicker. He's an african-american. I think America is ready for a black Veep, and this is the guy. But, I could be wrong...

Rep. Harold Ford (D-TN) is young, attractive, and has been visible over the past several years. He's a leader in the HOR's, but lacks the gravitas of other potential picks. Again, he's black, and with his resume that may be a tough hurdle to overcome. He'd be a wild card. Look for him down the road.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) is about as non-offensive a pick as Kerry could make. Bayh doesn't hurt Kerry, except maybe the pick shows a little lack of boldness. This is who I'd look for if Kerry thinks it'll be close and other candidates would hurt him.

Donald Trump. Yeah, Donald Trump. I doubt very much that the Donald is on Kerry's short-list, but it would be interesting. Trump brings a lot of non-voters in to play (something I'm not too fired up about), and could actually alter the entire dynamic of the election. The downside is simple. Trump almost certainly has a history that would bite him, and he really doesn't give you the impression that he has a grasp of what it would take to be President. But, he's Donald Trump, and you don't get to be Donald Trump if you're an idiot.

Finally... Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). Yes, she's given the Sherman denial (read your history books), but as I recall, in 1980 Bush said the same thing, in fact he said "Sherman squared". For all the crap about her being a polarizing figure, bear in mind the reality. Bill got elected twice, and her views aren't that different. She might be the first woman in history who could run for an office like this without the justification of gender being a major factor. Kerry is going to win this election (yes, he is...I will guarantee you that, and I'll put my money where my mouth is), and that means Hillary doesn't get to run on her own until 2012. She runs now, she gets to be Veep, and no matter what happens in 2008, she's in good shape for 2012. She'd probably be fine in eight years, but who knows? I think Hillary would be unlikely, but (unlike John McCain) it's not out of the question.

Sen. Bob Graham of Florida

Who are you? You "speak" with such assurance that it almost seems like you're an insider or something.

So, the media reports that Edwards has all the buzz is just media chatter?

Look forward to your response.

I'll admit, I'm not all that plugged in to the Kerry campaign, but I do some consulting and research work for a fairly big name Dem in the Midwest, and have a number friends scattered around the country and DC who have better connections in the party. Basically, everyone knew back in 2002 that Kerry would be the Democratic candidate, and right now, while it's not quite a lock, people are starting to game plan for Graham. (In fact, I've seen sample signs already)

As far as Edwards... Yes, that is a media creation based largely on the fact that the media (CNN, Fox, MSNBC) has to respond to the fact that the viewers really don't know much about people other than Edwards. Plus, at some point a whispering campaign got started that Edwards was really only running for veep, and that began to be brought up in the news. It's the classic story... The loser of the primaries is the presumptive choice for veep. Rockefeller in '68, Reagan in '76, Hart in '84, Jesse Jackson in '88, Bob Dole in '88, Bradley in 2000, and McCain in 2000 are all similar examples. I think it's still rooted in the old tradition of using the veep to give a consolation prize to the defeated wing of the party, which hasn't been the case in a while.

Look, it's this simple. Edwards doesn't help Kerry. He doesn't add stature, his credentials are really weak, he doesn't help with swing independents, he can't deliver a single state that Kerry doesn't win already (including his own), and the power Dems, including Kerry, don't like him. Also remember, the candidate for veep will have to debate Cheney on some pretty serious issues, which means that substance matters. Edwards may have a nice smile, but it would be the Democratic version of Dan Quayle.

General Wesley Clark...

The thought of TWO candidates on the same ticket that have more combat experience and more medals for valour than bush's entire cabinet makes my heart race....The debates would be highly entertaining...

Kerry has to walk a fine line with his choice. This election is going to be about the swing voters, each candidate will have no problem shoring up their base's, it will come down to the swing voters, and the moderate republicans that have SERIOUS concerns about Jr's fiscal policies, that will determine who wins (not counting on the Diebold factor).

And therein lies Kerry's predicament. How to appeal to the moderates without pissing off the looney left, and at the same time still tap into the deep anger and resentment felt throughout the country about the polarizinf effect chicken george has been.

Gephardt is a non-starter. The bush campaign is having a blast painting Kerry as some sort of Uber-Liberal..why would Kerry send them into paroxyisms of delight by picking someone equally as "liberal"...??

Graham is even less exciting than Kerry (if that's possible... ) which would bring boredom into the race..plus he co-authored the Patriot Act which has NOT endeared him to the ultra-libs..

Richardson is an unknown, and Byah is as well..but we (the Dems) need as many people in positions of power as possible, so cherry-picking from already elected Dems is NOT a good strategy..

John Edwards is an interesting idea. His speeches are excellent, and he has a true passion about what he says, but the bushies are licking their lips at the thought of a trial lawyer as a running mate...Plus, if I have to hear him talk about his impoverished upbringing (AGAIN) with that (occasionally) annoying twang of his I think I'll spit!!

Dean....Iowa....'nuff said

Hillary...not a chance. She is only interested in sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office, not in front of it...(or under it...oh no..she doesn't do that... )

Mary Landrieu is an intesting thought...

It all boils down to whether the Democrats just want to win this fall, or whether they want to win this fall and further down the line...

Kerry/Clark '04, Kerry/Clark '08, Clark/Clinton '12.....

Like I said, my pick is General Wesley Clark...he shuts down so much of the republican attack machine before it gets out of the starting blocks, he is doing an awful lot of campaigning for Kerry right now, and it would DEFINITELY take the edge off the "Democrats are weak-wristed pansies" mantra.....I just wonder if John Kerry is too much of an Alpha-male to have someone as strong and as qualified as General Clark on his ticket..

__________________
The last time this country mixed politics with religion, people got burned at the stake.

First off, pissing off the looney left is not going to be a big problem for the Dems this year. Lefties are so angry at the thought of Bush that they'll take whoever the Dems throw out there. Plus, it's not like a people really vote for veep anyway, it's all about the perception the running mate conveys about the presidential candidate.

I think you make a valid point about Gephardt, although his problem is not that he's a lefty as much as he's associated with past HOR Democratic causes, trade protectionism, and has the "loser aura". Obviously Kerry would love to put Geppy on the ticket if he could ensure against the downside (mainly planting seeds of doubt on Wall Street about a potential President Gephardt weakening NAFTA and trade with China). Gephardt would probably deliver Missouri and Ohio, and would lock up Michigan and Pennsyvania. I'm not really sure where he tips the balance back on a blue state, but he must. He'll definately be staked out in the Midwest and industrial states till November, and then probably a return to DC as Labor Secretary.

Yes, Clark addresses the "weak wristed pansies" problem, but Kerry isn't a huge fan of Clark. The conventional wisdom was that Clark only got into the race when it looked like the Dems might field a weak candidate (Dean) or deadlock so that he could lock up the veep slot in 2008 with Hillary Clinton. I doubt she'll be running, so perhaps that isn't the way things will shake out. Clark might make a solid veep, but the whole issue of electoral math comes up again. Where does he tip the scales for Kerry? Arkansas? Maybe. Louisiana? Maybe. West Virginia? Maybe. Throw in the fact that Clark was a Republican until, like, five minutes ago, and I'm not sure that he's the best choice. It's possible that he could head up the Defense Department, but his lack of legislative experience would make him a little ineffective. A more likely role for Clark would be National Security Advisor, Special Envoy to the Middle East, or some role in Iraqi reconstruction. We'll see.

Graham may not be exciting, but how exciting were Dick Cheney, Jack Kemp, Joe Lieberman, Dan Quayle, Lloyd Bentsen, or Al Gore? Graham absolutely, absolutely delivers Florida. He was Governor twice, and Senator three times. In his last two elections he won with 65% of the vote. How does Bush win if he loses Florida's 27 votes? What's more, Graham doesn't hurt Kerry anywhere. He's been chairman of the Intelligence Committee, he's RMM of the Energy Committee, he serves on the Finance Committee, and he's been moderate on some issues that Democrats traditionally appear too "weak wristed" and "pansy" on, such as the Patriot Act, the Cuba embargo, crime legislation, and social security reform (as a FLORIDA Senator, he backed means testing and raising the retirement age... talk about only Nixon being able to go to China). His record is spotless and scandal free, and from what I can see, he doesn't appear too cozy with and big interests. He comes from the right kind of family, which is not crucial in determining my vote, but it matters to the establishment (His older brother is where Katherine Graham got her last name). Is he exciting? Maybe not. But in an election that is going to be about competence, this is the right guy to put on the ticket. If you're not crazy about him, I'd have to ask if you've ever seen him campaign, or how much you know about his biography. This guy is the perfect balance to Kerry. Plus, he's not running for re-election in Florida, which is probably because Florida law prohibits a candidate from running for Senator and Vice-President at the same time (like Joe Lieberman).

I'm telling you, this is the guy Kerry's running with. If you think he scares off the left, bear the following in mind: this election is going to be about telling the radical left to get their collective heads out of their ***es. They didn't believe us the last time, and they got Bush. Think they'll make that mistake twice? I wouldn't bet on it.

There is no argument to this?

Come on.

__________________
Any man who can render himself unconscious with a pretzel isn't smart enough to lead the free world.

I don't personally buy into the media driven myth that a candidate has to be exciting to get the votes, but having not one but TWO stiffs on the campaign trail is NOT a good idea...

__________________
The last time this country mixed politics with religion, people got burned at the stake.

What constitutes a stiff, in you're book?

__________________
Any man who can render himself unconscious with a pretzel isn't smart enough to lead the free world.