Hey Outsports Voters. Who would you like for John Kerry to choose as his running mate? General Wesley Clarke was asked by a C.N.N. reporter if he would accept it, and he skipped around the question saying "that is so far away to think about." Many have said Edwards, with his boyish good looks and Southern charm, would make a great running mate. Howard Dean probably would not accept it, even though many have said he could help bring some energy and pep into the sluggish style of the Kerry campaign. Outsports, who is your pick??

Edwards wouldn't be a good pick...Kerry will want someone who can go on the attack, but Edwards hasn't done that so far in the campaign and probably wouldn't go all-out to preserve his pretty-boy, positive image for 2008. Besides, he probably couldn't even deliver his home state. Some swing-stater like Evan Bayh, even though he's deathly boring, would be a better pick.

I'd go with a dark horse... Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas. Profile What do the midwesterners think about that choice? Personally, I'd let the convention a la Adelai Stevenson '56 decide the running mate. It would be great political theatre to keep the spotlight on party and the convention. Better than Bush's State of the Union speeches.

I would think it would either be a Kerry - John Edwards ticket; or a John Edwards - Howard Dean ticket. The major Democratic players (Hillary) don't want to be second fiddle to any of these guys. I hear Kerry might be in trouble already; something about another sleazy intern?

Im still waiting to vote for the Presidential candidate. Its only February and nobody has won.

REMINDER

PRIMARY MARCH 9 IN TEXAS (and early voting starts Feb 23rd!)

[ February 13, 2004, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: DallasUNC ]

It won't be Evan Bayh; he's too deadly dull (and less than the sharpest pencil in the pack) & has a fairly safe seat in the Senate for the Democrats--in a heavily Republican state, no less.
One name I'd throw into the Veepstakes is Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm, who is seen as a rising star in the Democratic party. Even if she's not selected, she'll make the short list and will play an important role at the convention.

~Adam

Isn't Granholm the one born in Canada so she can't be on the ticket?

You're all safe, I can't become US President.

Gov. Granholm, being born in Canada, would not qualify under our Constitution from being President. She might be able to be Vice-President, as Article II doesn't list qualification for being VP, only President. I doubt though that the Democratic Nominee would select her as they would not want Denny Hastert a "heartbeat away" from the Oval Office.

Easy pick for me, Edwards. He has youth, charm, vigor, exuberance and he is from the South.

Two of you guys have mentioned women as possible running mates. I am not keen on that idea. Do you think that would be good idea? We musn't forget the Watler Mondale/Geraldine Ferraro fiasco. I am not sexist, but I would be somewhat apprehensive with a woman on the ticket.

Mondale seemed desperate to pick Ferraro as a running mate; he knew he had no chance to win; it remains to be seen whether Kerry will be in the same situation, but I don't think he will make that mistake. Personally I would vote for a woman, but not Hillary.

Nascar007, I think it is an overdue idea to nominate another woman for Vice-President. Your unease with my selection of Kansas' Governor confirms the need to have a woman on the ticket.

In your post, you mentioned the Ferraro selection in 84. Mondale knew that he was going to be horse whipped by Reagan, so he decided to make history by selecting a woman. He picked the wrong one. Ferraro is a horrid... HORRID candidate ( FOR ANYTHING eek! ), and I saw her campaign first hand during her failed 1992 Senate Run. Fritz would have been better off with Diane Fienstein, still mayor of SanFran at the time.

IMO, it appears that people who have an issue about women as a candidates for elected office, or holding positions of authority, have these issues because they don't feel women can be leaders. I personally don't think its a sexist thing, as other women would agree tha view. The problem is we, as a society, cannot get past the view of women as "weaker" than men. We have a lower expectation of a woman's performance than we do a man in similar jobs. Women who work hard, take leadership and responsibility, and succeed STILL get villified.

Bush and the Republicans have done a great job in spinning low expecations, and then exceeding those low expectations. This is how they get people and heard them like cattle by the rings in the noses to vote and support W. I'm sure Karl Rove would draft a press release about the President being able to pee without getting any on the seat, if 3-year-olds could vote.

A strong woman candidate can use the Bush model of exceeding low expectations to influence the electorate and win votes. I'd like to see Dick Cheney in a debate go head to head against a woman candidate. Diane Fienstein would have wiped the floor with Bush-41 in the 84 VP debate.

The reason I picked Gov. Sebelius, (who I wouldn't recognize if I fell over) is for that reason. I have NO EXPECTATIONS of her performance, so she could do nothing but exceed them. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but winning as a Democrat, in Kansas no less, tells me that Gov. Sebelius has the ability sway independents and Republicans over to a Democratic candidate. That is something any Democratic Presidential nominee would want to have.

I'm not sure where you get your information but I don't think very many Democrats or women hate Hillary. But as much as I like her, I've always thought she should stay in the Senate for now and build up a record there.

This country is ready for a woman to hold this high an office. Hmm, I wonder if Oprah has any political aspirations?

Dont rule out Dianne Feinstein.Since there is now a republican governor in CA there is some concnern, however slight, that CA might not be as easy this time around. Since the deomcrats absolutely need CA, do not rule her out.

Kerry has to pick someone that's not too controversial or polarizing (like Hillary) and that can deliver their home state - the Dems will need the electoral votes. I've mentioned in other posts I think Gephardt would be a good choice: he's popular in his home state; brings lots of Union support; is very well liked in the party - but most important - would deliver Missouri's 11 electoral votes to the Dems - votes that went to the Repuliscans in 2000.

Edwards won't deliver North Carolina - the South will go Johnny Reb-publican again. The best bet is a border state - like Missouri. It would be suicide to pick another New Englander (like Dean) for the second slot. I like Feinstein here in California, but since the state will go Dem anyway Kerry needs to think strategically. I like Richardson in New Mexico - but the state only has 5 electoral votes and went Dem in 2000. Dark horse's would be Sam Nunn or John Breaux, which would help in the deep South - both Georgia and Louisiana went for Mush - but they're both practically Republicans, especially Nunn.

Keeps leading me back to Gephardt.

[ February 12, 2004, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: Undercenter ]

Joe in Philly-- Hillary is loved by Democrats and admired by women. However she is a truly polarizing politican, like her Husband, Jesse Helms and W himself. Not a good choice.

Feverdog-- I don't follow her, but isn't Oprah is a Republican.... eek!

Billybob-- I wouldn't rule out Fienstein either, but there are other potenial Veeps who could do the same, and with Boxer running for re-election, she'll draw plenty of Democrats out to vote.

Undercenter-- I totally agree that Kerry (or Edwards) should pick someone non-controversial. But having said that, there is no reason to make a bland choice. Whoever is chosen should someone who can both energize the "Anyone But Bush" voter as well as someone who shows the Democratic party is an inclusive, national party, that welcomes anyone into the party. AKA - The Big Tent Theory. The difference can't be too huge (Dukakis/Bentsen) to be exploited by the other side.

I'll say that Gov. Richardson would be a fine choice. As the first Hispanic nominee he helps carry NM (which Gore didn't win by much -- Parody Link ), locks down California, and probably forces the GOP to spend extra cash to hold AZ and NV.

Gephardt is not a good choice IMO. Sure he's popular with the ABB base, but there isn't much difference between Him and Kerry... a little more with Edwards. Plus he is DULL! Why count sheep when you can listen to the collected floor speeches of Dickie G.? eek! And I seriously doubt he can pull enough of his St. Louis area constituency over to the Democrats to carry Missouri. Most already would vote for the Democrat.

General Clark really has no charisma but seems like a decent man. Not much pull power there IMO. Same with Bayh.

Other possibilites not mentioned: Gov. Rendell of Pennsylvania, Sen. Bob Graham (age and health may be an issue there), Sen Landrieu (but then you have two Catholics and a woman!), Gov. Vilicek of Iowa, Rep. Harold Ford of Tennesee (1st black, but more conservative than others) & Gary Hart (ok that's a stretch )

Rendell is a good choice. Life was good when he was my mayor...

...but isn't he planning on running for President sometime? He should be.

As a Kansan, I personally like BPT336's pick of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, but there is a big question of experience with her. She's only been governer since 2002, and before that was in the state house for a few years and served as insurance commisioner. She is an "idea person", strong on education and fiscal responsibility, and she was elected in a VERY Republican state, and is pretty popular so far. But I think her lack of experience could be a big drawback in a national campaign.

How old is former Texas Gov. Ann Richards? Too old, I suppose.

One of the news websites is saying VA Gov Mark Warner is on a short list. What's he like?

As much as the time has come for a woman or ethnic minority to be on a Presidential ticket or the actual nominee, I'm not sure this is the election to do it if the main goal is to oust the incumbent.

Every time it's been suggested he says he could never be elected because he's Jewish. But if Bush wins in 2004 I'd love to see Rendell go for it in 2008. When he started his run for governor the pundits gave him very little chance to even get the nomination, let alone win the general election. I think he could win over a decent number of those who lean towards Republicans nowadays but aren't hard-core GOP loyalists.

BPT336 wrote:
I'll say that Gov. Richardson would be a fine choice. As the first Hispanic nominee he helps carry NM (which Gore didn't win by much -- Parody Link ), locks down California, and probably forces the GOP to spend extra cash to hold AZ and NV.

I also like Richardson, Dems can count on New Mexico's electoral votes with him, and yes, his presence on the ticket would help to put Arizona and Nevada more in-play. Richardson's effect could also energize Latino voters across the country and provide some small effect in many areas - like Florida - which are currently solidly Red.

BPT336 wrote:
Gephardt is not a good choice IMO. Sure he's popular with the ABB base, but there isn't much difference between Him and Kerry... a little more with Edwards. Plus he is DULL! Why count sheep when you can listen to the collected floor speeches of Dickie G.? And I seriously doubt he can pull enough of his St. Louis area constituency over to the Democrats to carry Missouri. Most already would vote for the Democrat.

Trust me when I say Dick Gephardt is not my first choice to bring to a party - his speeches are about as exciting as watching Astroturf grow - but he is an excellent strategic choice for Dems. Gephardt delivers a state with 11 electoral votes (more than twice the votes of Richardson's New Mexico), a state that very narrowly went for Forrest Gump in 2000, and ensures strong Union participation in "get out the vote" efforts. One thing’s for sure – he won’t upstage Kerry.

I like the fact that both Gephardt and Defib-Dick have Lesbian daughters - which could be a very interesting point if he brings it up in the VP debate: “lets talk about our Lesbian daughter’s Dick, and how your administration’s policies support discrimination, bigotry, and second class citizenship for yours….”

it's going to be bad enough if Kerry wins--his seat goes Republican without DiFi's seat going Republican as well--Ahnuld would be naming her replacement

Mary Landrieau from Louisiana is my pick and has been my pick all along--she's young bright and has already dealt with the Bush/Rove slander machine in her re-election bid last year

and her seat would stay Democratic due to a new Democratic governor in Louisiana

I must agree with George_Vikingfan on this one. Now is not the time to expiriment and put a woman or ethnic minority on the ticket.George_Vikingfan, I fully agree. If the main purpose of all this is to get a Democrat in the White House, this is not the time to test the waters with a woman or ethnic minority.

Well, when would a good time be to put a woman/minority on the ticket? The main purpose of any party should always be to get their candidate in the White House; there's nothing so special about this election to prompt this line of reasoning. There will never be a perfect time for testing the waters.

Feinstein has privately told people she is not interested in the veep spot (remember, she was the other woman on Mondale's shortlist when he selected Ferraro--anyone else recall them being called Fritz and Tits?) Being senior senator from California is a power position she doesn't want to relinquish.

~Adam

[ March 04, 2004, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: Nascar007 ]

Mary Landrieu, what a great choice! Supposedly Kerry, like both Clinton and Gore, is well ahead of W in terms of women voters. So picking a moderate, Southern Catholic legislator whose state they need to and could win might not be a bad choice. But would two Catholics on the ticket also hurt in the South?

Edwards also would help solidify Southern and female support, but again, I'm not sure if he could help Kerry win North Carolina. He just has to get a bit tougher, though, against the likes of Cheney. But he also is being careful not to alienate Kerry, since he realizes he just might be picked.

Clark would help win over some veterans and possibly Arkansas, so he still might be a good choice.

Dean, though I love his fire, wouldn't be an asset. Kerry would win all the states in which Dean's appeal is strong, including Vermont.

Perhaps another option is Dick Durbin of Illinois. He's pretty liberal, Roman Catholic, a decent speaker, and a nice man. Kerry is likely to win Illinois, but I think Durbin would be able to go up against Cheney, and also would help solidify Catholic and moderate support in states like Pennsylvania, Delaware, Missouri (he was born just across the river from St. Louis), Wisconsin, etc.

If Durbin were to resign to run as VP, Illinois has a Democratic governor who would appoint a Democrat (one of the ones running for Fitzgerald's seat, like Maria Pappas or Barack Obama), thus allowing the other Democrat to go head on against whomever the GOP nominates to run for the open seat in November.

Richardson, as many have said, brings New Mexico and possibly Arizona. (I heard on NPR yesterday that if black and Latino voters vote in the same (low) proportions as in 2000 for the Democrat, he would win almost 3 million more popular votes than W, as opposed to the half a million. The problem is that many of those new votes would be in states that W would still win comfortably (Texas) or that are very likely in the Democratic column (California, New York). The key ones would be Florida, Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado.)

Yet another option is Mark Pryor (is that his name?), the junior senator from Arkansas. His father was a popular U.S. senator, he's a fairly conservative Democrat and would win that state over. Then there's West Virginia's governor, Bob Wise, also a Democrat. I know nothing about him, though.

Whomever Kerry picks has to bring some electoral assets to the table.

[ February 16, 2004, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

I haven't seen anybody else mention it out loud, but I think Max Cleland would be a dynamite choice for running-mate. He has a stronger resume than most of the other names under consideration. I agree with the other posters in that selecting a southerner wouldn't likely deliver any southern state--John Edwards probably wouldn't be able to deliver N.C., & Cleland wouldn't likely be able to deliver Georgia--but it would give the ticket regional balance & strong appeal to veterans, which might be helpful in some of the border states & swing states. Also, it wouldn't cost the Dems a Senate seat, since he is no longer a sitting senator, a factor worth considering in view of the disaster that could befall the Democrats in the Senate (possible loss of 5 or more seats). The manner in which the Republicans slimed him in '02 (impugning his patriotism & saying he was on the side of Saddam Hussein) would, I am confident, backfire if they tried it under the intense scrutiny of the national media during the presidential election.

Other than this, I think Edwards is the best choice. I like his liberal populist message & have been impressed by his ability to attract working-class white voters who have tended to vote Republican. As a debater & orator, he is first-rate. Again, the chances that he could deliver N.C. to the Democratic column are slim, but he might make a difference in Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas or Louisiana.

[ February 17, 2004, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: BillyBones ]

Assuming Kerry is the nominee, I think Edwards or Richardson are the best picks for VP. Either adds regional balance. Rendell, while an interesting guy, is out of the running with Kerry as nominee -- too tilted toward the northeast.

Bob Wise isn't running for re-election in WV because he was busted having an affair

now Mark Warner would help the Democrats pick up a few southern states--still wouldn't pick up his home state of Virginia though.

Has anyone here mentioned Bob Graham from Florida? Is he too old? Does FL have enough electoral college votes to be a significant swing state? I would just LOVE for the Dems to pull FL back - the symbolism would make political scientists cream...

Hey B Man! It would be great if the Dems could take back Florida. Florida is surely going to be a battleground in this upcoming election. And this time around I am sure that ALL the votes will be counted and that Governor Jeb Bush will be under 24 hour survellance on Election Day. wink

"The Nation" recently suggested Congressman Lloyd Doggett from my district here in Austin. It would be interesting to see another Boston-Austin connection, but we need someone else who can really pull in a win...and the VP doesn't have to be from Florida for that to happen. Could Al Gore be the VP, again?

Florida has the fourth most electoral votes after California, Texas and New York. After California, it's always one of the most sought after. I heard that W is leading there, but if Graham were on the ticket, that might change things. He's not a good debater, though, and though he's very smart, he gets muddled easily.

Texas is going to go GOP, New York is going to go Democrat, California is still leaning Democrat, so if the Democrat were to win Florida, he'd have it sown up (since a number of the other electoral rich states--Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Maryland, Wisconsin, etc.--probably will go Democrat, and would put the Democrat over the top).

Kansas's governor may be great, but the Democrat winning that state is a long shot, and it isn't an electorally rich state. A better option might be the Democratic governor of Arizona; I can't remember her (his?) name--is it Janet Napolitano? She's kind of tough-looking too. If she ran with Jennifer Granholm, they'd definitely have a Cagney-Lacey deal going.

How about this - On the CBS Evening News yesterday, Dan Rather threw out this name as a potential wild card candidate for Kerry's running mate: Colin Powell!

I don't think it would/could/should happen, but for him to say that -- somebody somewhere must be talking about it.

Governor Warner is a great guy. He is getting a bad rap though. The budget situation he came into was devastating. He has been quite proactive in fixing the problem though. He wouldn't help Kerry though. Virginia will still go to the Republicans. The governorship is his first political office. He was a business man before this (computers up in Northern Virginia). He has a good reputation for weighing everything out before he makes a decision and is a real visible governor. He plays recreational basketball at my alma mater (VCU). He is a real education supporter to!

There is a wealth of talent to pick from. John Edwards, Wes Clark, Bob Graham, and Sam Nunn all are outstanding names to mention but a few, also the current (female) Gov. of Arizona is being talked about.

My sincere hope is that Kerry names and picks a V. P. choice in the very near future, like within the next month. Then he can unleash his V.P. choice on Mr. Perfect himself, (the) Dick Cheney. And if I were Kerry I would quit responding to the ridiculous questions the media keep asking him about his so called medals controversy. Just tell them John, "I have said all there is that needs to be said, and what I will talk about is the need for every American who wants/needs a job, can find one, and not in manufacturing a hamburger at their neighborhood McDonald's either!" He should also keep talking about the 35 million Americans who have no health insurance, the 40 million Americans living in poverty in the country and the sad shape of our environment, as well as how he will meet the high need to keep our country as secure as possible from terrorists!

Unlike some writers stated earlier, I think that putting a woman/minority on the ticket would be an excellent choice. Look at the demographics of this country--about 30% of the vote is now minority (Black, Hispanic, or Asian). The Republicans usually take about 2/3 of the white vote, so why put up 2 more rich, old white guys? There's no need to try to beat the GOP on their own turf -- go for the votes you can win. Minority voters usually turn out in low numbers, so offering a ticket that will energize the electorate (liberals and anti-Bush people are already energized) will be a boon to the Democrats. I think Kerry should analyze the 10 most important battleground states and decide what demographic would give him the most boost. (yeah, that sounds a lot like profiling) If there is an acceptable running mate that fits that profile, then go with it.

And something to be aware of, since the first JFK, Democrats have only won the White House when they've had a Southern ticket (LBJ from Texas, Carter from GA, and Clinton-Gore from ARK/TN). Might be that Edwards, Landrieu, or Graham are good choices if the minority scenario above is rejected.

Unlike some writers stated earlier, I think that putting a woman/minority on the ticket would be an excellent choice. Look at the demographics of this country--about 30% of the vote is now minority (Black, Hispanic, or Asian). The Republicans usually take about 2/3 of the white vote, so why put up 2 more rich, old white guys? There's no need to try to beat the GOP on their own turf -- go for the votes you can win. Minority voters usually turn out in low numbers, so offering a ticket that will energize the electorate (liberals and anti-Bush people are already energized) will be a boon to the Democrats. I think Kerry should analyze the 10 most important battleground states and decide what demographic would give him the most boost. (yeah, that sounds a lot like profiling) If there is an acceptable running mate that fits that profile, then go with it.

And something to be aware of, since the first JFK, Democrats have only won the White House when they've had a Southern ticket (LBJ from Texas, Carter from GA, and Clinton-Gore from ARK/TN). Might be that Edwards, Landrieu, or Graham are good choices if the minority scenario above is rejected.

Kerry is going to have to name a VP soon. The VP candidate plays Bad Cop while the candidate plays Good Cop. Right now, Kerry has to play both roles in fending off the GOP's Worse Cop/Bad Cop duo. (I'll let you decide which is which.)

My choice for VP is either Gov. Bill Richardson or Sen. John Edwards. Richardson is good demographically: Latino, from a state Gore squeeked into the blue column, and he could help garner votes in Nevada and Arizona and Florida which are typically red states but could possibly tilt given the tightness of the races in each in 2000. Edwards is good from an overall strategy perspective: he delivers no states, but is a great public speaker - a skill Kerry lacks - and is popular with swing voters in states like Ohio and the midwest which Kerry will need to pick up.

Why not John McCain?

The more I look at him, the more I like him, and he and Kerry would wup The dick and The bush's butts.

Here's one reason: they disagree fundamentally on virtually every issue of public concern in America today.

There's this perception out there that McCain, because he's a maverick, is some sort of moderate. He's not. He's doctrinaire conservative on most issues, campaign finance reform excepted (And even there, his bill, as passed, is actually an incumbency protection plan more than real reform).

McCain says he won't do it -- interesting comment about Rather tossing out Powell's name but that seems like a stretch.

I like Graham but agree with Fantamos' comment about him getting "muddled". But -- if he can give an edge in Florida that is huge.

Edwards has the ability to raise large amounts of money - he is a master debater (or something like that) and has shown that he has a ton of energy.

I also hope Kerry makes this decision soon.

I was kinding of hoping to stir the pot by making my comments about Kerry, and it seeems that is just what is happening. Good points all. It is agreed, Kerry should name one and soon. It is vital and critical now that Kerry seems like he has to answer both Shrub and (little) Dick. I still think Bob Graham would be an outstanding candidate. Lots of experience in critical areas of importance to Kerry, like intelligence and foreign policy, and of course I would love nothing better than for Graham to carry Florida for Kerry and embarass that other bumpkin in office down there, Homer...I mean Jeb. wink

[ April 28, 2004, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

Mary Landrieau will not deliver enough votes for Kerry. I don't think she is a good choice. A woman or ethnic minority on the ticket is too risky at this point.

[ April 29, 2004, 02:16 AM: Message edited by: Nascar007 ]

Kerry seems patient. That's a good thing IMO. It may appear indecisive, but I hope he doesn't let that charge goad him into a precipitous action he doesn't need to take. It frustrates me a bit just like it does many others, but all in all it's a good trait in a president. This country is a huge boat that has to be turned slowly.

I continue to disagree that putting a woman or minority on the ticket is "too risky". The only people who will be turned off by a solid female, Black, or Hispanic candidate will be racist or sexist white males. And they're already voting for Bush! Putting a "mixed" ticket up against those two rich, old white guys would make the GOP look as narrow as they really are.