Congratulations are way in order for John Kerry who to date has raised about $180 Million dollars to put him, keep him toe to toe with the Mis-Leader Shrub. There are news headlines today that Kerry may name his Vice President pick next week. I am betting/hoping for Edwards.

I've also heard that next Tuesday is tentatively set for the VP announcement, followed by a quick three-day bus tour by Kerry and the chosen one. More & more I think it will be John Edwards; his "two Americas" stump speech has proven highly effective, especially to the (few) swing voters and the all-important Democratic base.

Favorite aspects of these past couple of days have been Bill Richardson's pulling his name out of consideration (gee thanks, Bill, but you were already out of consideration) and the inane rumor (Drudge Report) that the VP will be Hillary Clinton. Kerry and HRC are both too smart to think that pairing has a chance in hell this time around! She knows she's an easy target for the Bushies and would cost the Democratic ticket support in some of those few swing/independent voters.

~Adam

Hillary won't be veep cause she would get more attention than Kerry. That's a no-no.

I'm still not sold that it will be Edwards......that's the obvious choice, but VP's are usually not obvious choices!

I would be shocked if it were anyone but Edwards. It is a little too obvious, but this election is so tight, Kerry won't take any chances--he'll get the guy with the most name recognition.

The other two contenders of course are Gephardt, and the Governor of Iowa. I still like Edwards the most, because of his youthful exhuberance, and because he has always been so positive in stark contrast to Shrub/Cheney.

I still wouldn't count out Bob Graham either.


Edwards definitely has done everything he can to get the job.......he's been very successfully fundraising for Kerry.

I think he is highly qualified, and extremely intelligent, but I do not recall hearing that Kerry has been doing any kind of backround checks of him, but he has been involved in some crucial committee's, foreign intelligence and something else.

Read that he may make the announcement by e-mail to millions of supporters.

Gimmicky technique apparently borrowed from the success of Howard Dean's internet success.

Should get a few folks on his e-mail list I suppose.

Then if thats the case, I will let you all know when I do. wink

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE let it not be Gephardt.

I hope it's Edwards also -- he brings a lot to the ticket. In addition to those things mentioned in other posts - he has a formidable intellect and excellent communication skills.

This is the main reason why it never could have been McCain, either, despite some of the drooling over him by several Outsporters.

The names discussed are quite interesting. Edwards seems like the obvious choice to many, but it's well-known in many political circles that Kerry doesn't like Edwards. Kerry feels as if Edwards is some newbie who has yet to prove himself.

DNC Chairman McCauliffe and the Clintons have been trying to get Hillary on the ticket. If Kerry doesn't choose Hillary and chooses someone like Edwards and wins, this could pose a serious roadblock to Hillary's desire to be president. Kerry could conceivable be in office until 2012, with Edwards attempting to vie for the nomination then. This leaves Hillary out potentially forever--she isn't going to wait until 2016 or 2020, that's for sure.

With Hillary on the ticket, it's a win/win for her. If the ticket loses, she's primed for 2008. If the ticket wins, she will be a very visible VP who will go for it when Kerry's term is up.

I'm not saying it's Hillary, but IMHO, this is a rather precarious situation for Kerry. There are so many people outside his camp that have selfish interests here, which is a shame, since HE is the nominee here.

One name mentioned--former Senator Nunn of Georgia. The big problem with him? He's pro-life, and the radical extremists who define the party would never, ever stand for a pro-lifer on the ticket (so much for tolerance, I guess).

[ July 04, 2004, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Nunn was also the driving force within the Democratic Party (then majority, I believe?)to undo Clinton's attempt to end the ban on gays in the military, being outspoken against it from the start. Still feeling tolerant?

I wouldn't say Kerry "doesn't like" John Edwards. The fact that he is younger/unexperienced is what Kerry aides will say is his drawback.......but that doesn't by any means say that Kerry doesn't like him. There are drawbacks to every single candidate.

and... he's pretty damn cute too!!!
wink :cool:

John Edwards Story

Why not? Gephardt is very experienced, well spoken, and has a gay daughter. Of course he never seems to show up in my VP sexual fantasies whereas Edwards does, often!

Gephardt is far too bland and whiny, he's too closely linked with the Big Union crowd among the Democrats (though they couldn't help him win a primary and supported Kerry, Dean and others far more), he became increasingly ineffective in his Congressional leadership role, and he wouldn't even be much of an asset in winning his home state of Missouri. He exudes exhaustion. I like Gephardt, but I think Kerry would do better to choose someone either with gubernatorial experience, like Vilsack, or an attractive and dynamic campaigner from a working-class background, like Edwards.

McCain simply was not going to run on a Democratic ticket. He's far more effective being a maverick Republican in the Senate than serving as VP. I'm sure he also realizes that if Kerry is elected and if either the Republicans retain control of the Senate or the Democrats retake it, he won't exactly lose power or influence.

What political circles are these? Have you spoken with Kerry, because you're discussing his \"feelings\" here, and I'm not sure anyone outside his immediate circle knows what he truly \"feels\" about Edwards. This sounds like a rehash of what the mainstream media have latched onto.

McAuliffe

More right-wing nonsense. Hillary is not trying to be the VP or P in 2004. Right-wingers should just can this. I know it's fascinating to keep tossing it up, but it ain't happening. The Democrats want to WIN, not drive away voters, and there is absolutely nothing Kerry gains from running with Hillary. He has got New York State sewn up--I believe his lead is 20 points or more. Put Hillary anywhere near the ticket right now and the Democrats lose in a landslide!

Not happening.

Are you joking? Nunn is too old, too conservative, and brings nothing; Kerry's likelihood of winning Georgia at this point quite low, while the political climate in North Carolina is quite different. Moreover, Edwards would also help in many border states. Does anyone under 30 even REMEMBER Sam Nunn? Is there anything appealing about the man--I mean, in a public sense? Nunn's candidacy is DOA, and not simply because he's anti-abortion--I know that's your idée fixe.

The political circles with which I spend too much of my time. I've spoken to many Democrats both in Illinois and D.C., and while many of them are excited about an Edwards VP, just as many tell me that Kerry doesn't like him. Of course, this doesn't mean Kerry won't choose him.

Well, I'm no right-winger, but don't discount it completely. And of course Hillary on the ticket would lose. That makes the path easier for her in 2008. If she's on the ticket and loses, she comes across as the experienced woman on the ticket who has suffered so; therefore, she rides into town in 2008 in a much better position than if she had never run and a Democrat won in 2004.

So was Dick Cheney.

MIB- I completely agree with your Hillary comments/analysis.

I was watching one of the news programs last night and they reported that Kerry had a secret meeting at Albright's house in DC recently where he met with his choice. They then went on to report that Gephart was the only candidate in DC that night.

I guess we'll find out soon enough.

Mdphl: I saw the same story on the news this morning. They showed a silouette of supposedly the candidate watching the fireworks show in D.C.. It looked alot like Gephardt. But when asked about any "secret" meeting Kerry denied this, so we will see.

Now why would a "Federal Judge" with your leanings & "credentials" be spending SO much time in the inner circles of Democratic politics?

OH, the lack of credibility!

[ July 05, 2004, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: HornFan ]

Obviously you have little knowledge of who's in attendance at all these official functions. Earth to horny: Even S.C. Justices attend several government functions at which many politicians and other activists are present.

Selling any bridges today there "judge"?

Oh wait, it *sounds* as though you are AGAIN claiming to actually BE a Federal Judge. Careful now. Just which "official functions" were you attending?

[ July 05, 2004, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: HornFan ]

Well, for one, there are always functions involving groups of lawyers, and politically speaking, there are many more Democrats and Democratic activists at these then there are Republicans, though in Illinois, most of the Republican leaders are Democrats anyway. Sometimes I even speak at these functions. wink

As a "Federal Judge"?

And your point is???

VP will be revealed at a rally in Pittsburg Tuesday morning. CNN reports this. VP will not be at the rally.

Point well taken Marcus. wink

Okay, he's made this charge more than once. So you're going to tell this entire board that people like Stephen McGlynn, Mary Alice Erickson, Dave Syverson, Mary Jo Arndt, Gary Skoian, Steve Rauschenberger, etc., are "Democrats"? Come on! How far to the right do people have to be in your book to qualify as Republicans?

Or is it that all of these Republicans, many of whom are conservative in various ways, are not fixated on the anti-abortion issue like you are? The Illinois GOP is hardly the Democratic Party; if it were, it wouldn't have put its support behind fako-phoney like Jack Ryan, it would have supported a true social moderate Republican (aka Clinton/DLC Democrat) like that Major General Borling.

I mean, Illinois has REAL liberal Democrats running things, so to claim that the Republicans are Democrats is just...well, let others be the "judge."

If you bothered to read my post--the persons whom you mention above are not the GOP leaders to whom I referred, but let's not stop you from putting words in my mouth--and perhaps actually lived in this blue state full-time like I do, you'd be intelligent enough to know that Topinka, Edgar, Thompson, Kjellander and their peers are RNO's--Republicans in name only. They're Democrats when it comes down to it.

Topinka is one of the worst of them all. On every issue there is, with the sole exception of SOME tax issues, she has the same position as the Democrats. So, just what the hell is the difference? Why would I vote for her when I can vote for a real Democrat? She's a worthless piece of celluloid, and so are most of the GOP's leaders here. I'd take the party regulars any day. The same goes for the Democratic party regulars--the regular voters.

Topinka and her ilk are the same ones who stood by our state's former Liar-in-Chief, Gov. George Ryan. Edgar and Thompson, along with Cook County's totally worthless GOP Chairman Manny Hoffman, all supported George Ryan to the end. They still do! Meanwhile, the Republican rank-and-file were furious with Ryan.

A similar situation exists with Sen. Peter Fitzgerald. The GOP leaders can't stand him, but the GOP rank-and-file love him. Why? Because he dares to stand up against the state GOP leaders' demand for doing things the usual way, that being back room, often corrupt, ways.

[ July 05, 2004, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

As of this morning NPR reports that the VP will still be announced over the internet to those on his subscriber list. They also say that his "mysterious" meeting in Washington said to have been with his eventual choice was actually with Edwards and not Gephardt who was reportedly the only "known" candidate in DC at the time. This has taken more twists than a bad spy novel.

To no one's real surprise, I guess, Kerry has chosen Edwards. Watch for instant polls to now show the ticket with a big lead over Bush, which will happen after the convention later this month. Big Labor is quite upset, as they were demanding Gephardt. Big Business is not happy, since Edwards is a trial lawyer.

It will be quite interesting to see if Edwards overshadows the person at the top of the ticket--not good if that happens. Bush fans ought not to jump for joy over this, just as Kerry fans ought not to think this cements the election.

I remember another young, good-looking, "telegenic" individual who was selected as a nominee's VP candidate. Dan Quayle didn't really help the ticket after all, did he? It's all about the main person at the top. This will be interesting.

How fun. The spinning has started already.

From the Bush supporters we hear, "Only one term in the Senate--he's too inexperienced." (So was Dan Quayle), "He's a trial lawyer.", "He only won one primary."

From the Kerry supporters we hear, "He's young, he's vibrant, he's exciting, he's a better speaker than Kerry." (So is Cheney when compared to Bush.), "He will help in his home state of North Carolina." (Al Gore didn't help much with Tennessee, did he? And he was running for president.) And the most annoying one we're going to hear, "He's fought for the little guy."

Democratic Susan Estrich this morning when asked whether this selection will win it for Kerry, "No, because I don't believe this is an election where Kerry will win it. Instead, this is an election where Bush will lose it. If events in Iraq are thought to have gone bad by November, Bush loses. If events are thought to be going well, Bush wins."

She might be right.

Okay, let's see. Your insiders claimed it would be Hillary--which was just so preposterous I had to laugh.

Now you're saying that big labor was pushing for Gephardt...come on, MIB! This is standard conservative talk-radio crapola. The labor unions also supported Dean and others during the primaries! I guess the NEW YORK POST bought this line so completely that they actually put it on their front cover today! Talk about egg on their faces...

BTW, I'm not plugged in like you are, but I--like millions of Kerry supporters!--told Mary Beth Cahill clearly to PICK EDWARDS! Fortunately she listened to us and not to the powerbrokers you are so tied in with.

I'm glad it's Edwards. He's smart, he's young, he's progressive, he relates well to and understands the experiences of a wide range of Americans, he has a strong track record in the Senate, he can easily go mano-a-mano against that hate-spewing Cheney, and with Kerry he will certainly mark a dramatic and positive improvement over what we have suffered through for the last four years. Comparing him to that blithering idiot Dan Quayle just shows...well, if you don't see it the difference, I guess we'll just all pray we don't end up in your "court"!

GO KERRY/EDWARDS 2004!!!

Well MIB, I guess you did a little too much talking and not enough listening in those political circles and functions in which you claim to swim and "speak".

OH, the lack of credibility!

Typical of Shrub and the Dick. They have already gone negative yet again, in now attacking the Edwards selection. Repuglicans just don't seem to get it and never will, will they? Nothing positive again, so lets go negative. How pathetic.