The ideal candidate will balance the ticket in geography, personality, ideology, knowledge of or experience with particular issues or in particular arenas, and perhaps gender/race/ethnicity or interest group. They will also be someone who would be a credible President and Commander-in-Chief, who would get along with the nominee, and who would serve a useful purpose in the office. On the trail, they would be someone who would look good on a stump/stage with the nominee, and who would preferably help draw attention/excitement to the campaign. In general, there should be some caution about overcompensating, i.e. picking someone who calls attention to the weaknesses of the nominee. Finally, perhaps obviously, the candidate shouldn't have major weaknesses that threaten to outweigh their benefits (a nonentity may be better than a potential liability), and shouldn't significantly hurt the party through the opportunity cost of giving up their day job (i.e. giving up a Senate seat that they would otherwise keep or run for).
For Dean, the geographical balance favors someone from outside the Northeast (and not from an upscale urban precinct in another part of the country). The experience balance favors someone who has national security and foreign policy experience, and someone who has Federal experience, who knows Washington, Congress in particular. The ideology balance favors someone who is or appears more of a centrist, but they need not be in the further right wing of the party because Dean isn't in the further left wing. The personality balance favors someone who is more Middle American in temperament, more sociable, more religious or expressive of religiosity, and either less abrasive or more confident in their aggressiveness. The need to look good next to the candidate may mean that you need someone somewhat short (Dean is 5'9, I think).
I'll go through my proposed candidates, in order of preference.
Top Tier:
1) Bill Richardson
The positives are just so long. His political resume is almost as broad as Bush 41's was. He was a longtime member of the House from New Mexico, became Ambassador to the UN, then a Cabinet Secretary (Energy), and is now Governor of New Mexico. He has both foreign policy and national security experience, serving on the House Intelligence committee, and being called upon to negotiate with Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea, among other places. And he knows energy, an increasingly important issue. He's energetic and knows everyone in Washington and is well-liked. He's a guy's guy type, not a metrosexual, and a moderate hawk, which would compare nicely with Cheney. He's a West/Southwesterner (born in CA). And he's hispanic, raised in Mexico, and fluent in Spanish. He'd go a long way to helping Dems win NM, AZ, NV, FL and maybe even CO.
The negatives. Some people just aren't going to vote for him because he's Hispanic. I have an older family member, a lifelong Democrat, who might be among them. How many people, I don't know. Also, some have suggested that blacks will be angry that a latino candidate is on a ticket before a black one is. There are some Clinton-era Energy Dept scandals, which I don't know a lot about, though they don't seem major. He's 6 inches taller than Dean, and a big guy, which might look funny. The big thing is he may not do it. He has said he isn't in the running, but I don't put too much stock in that. But maybe he thinks Dean will lose and he wants to wait four years, when his term expires in 2007.
2) Bob Graham
The positives. He's an obvious choice, having been considered by every Dem nominee since Dukakis. A longtime Senator, he's well-respected and well-liked on both sides of the aisle for his moderate temperament, collegiality, niceness and intelligence, if undistinguished in his legislative record. He was Chairman of the Intelligence committee and harshly criticizes the administration on its non-response to the terrorism issue. He's a moderate hawk (perhaps more hawkish than the Bush admin) who nevertheless opposed the war. He's the most popular politician in Florida, arguably the most important state (though I think it's trending Republican and while we should fight for it we should focus more on the Southwest and the Mississippi River states), who has potential appeal throughout Appalachia and the South and in the Sun belt. He's a bubba of sorts, who will appeal to cultural conservatives, and a "regular guy" who's made a practice throughout his career of going on "work days" in different jobs to learn about what people do. He's in his mid-to-late 60s, and could appeal to older voters. He appears to get along with Dean (and appears to be actively running for his veep spot). And he's friends with Jimmy Buffett, so maybe we'd get the parrothead vote.
Negatives. He isn't that old, but he seems it. There's nothing scintillating about him in the slightest, and in the debates/talk-shows he sometimes looked out of it. His terrorism-alarmism cuts both ways. And he has a habit of obsessively recording minutiae of his daily activity (e.g., 8:17 AM, what kind of cereal he's eating for breakfast), which was considered weird enough for him to lose his status as frontrunner to be Gore's veep. Together, these things make him look a little weird/nuts/early-Alzheimers. And he's had heart problems in the past (though clearly that's not prohibitive in nominees today). Those don't seem like that much, so perhaps he's the safest net-positive/negative choice. However, while his niceness/mildness pairs well with Dean, it may not create much excitement compared to the Lieberman announcement or on the trail. Then again, perhaps the genius Dean campaign will find a way to make him exciting. Maybe he and Dean can get a lot of attention by going on "work days" together.
3) Wes Clark
Positives. Well, duh, the resume. Successful General who's also experienced in foreign policy and reasonably well-versed in domestic political issues, not to mention a brilliant Rhodes scholar. Beyond that he's temperamentally at least compatible with the Democratic mainstream and with an empathetic capacity (or at least the appearance of same). Good tv skills. Aggressive, but non-descriptly middle-American with the potential to help pick up Arkansas (maybe), and perhaps other parts of the South or the Midwest.
Negatives. More than a few. He's never been in government before, or elected to anything. Moreover, you can be the smartest guy in the world and still not be a good politician. He certainly isn't a bad one, but he has a long way to go. Put him on the spot when he's unprepared and it has the potential to be a disaster. Get him away from his advisors and you realize how much he relies upon and is molded by them. And there's such a thing as too smart with some people. He, like Clinton, will be easily painted as slick, a flip-flopper, untrustworthy. I'm not sure I don't feel that way about him. Clinton won twice of course, but he was helped twice by Perot and had an appeal to core Democrats that Clark does not. And there are lots of people in the military who will speak out against him and suggest that he almost started World War III in Kosovo. I think that he's been very successful in the military but in certain fundamental ways is not of its culture. Finally, he's run against Dean and there may be enough moments from the primary campaign that can be used by the other side in the general. His strengths are significant, but he's missing a key one, and I'm not sure I'm willing to take the risks.
My alternative choice would be Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, CentCom prior to Tommy Franks, who has become a harsh critic of the Administration and who, like Clark, has significant foreign policy negotiation experience, especially in the Mideast. The problem is that he said today in the Washington Post that he's sworn off politics. Not to mention the fact that he's a Republican. He endorsed Bush in 2000 (though this is what led to his current distrust of any candidate), and considers himself best aligned with moderate GOP hawks like Powell, Lugar and Hagel. But maybe it's time for the Democrats to be open to such moderate foreign policy Republicans. The larger issue though is I have no idea where he stands on or what he knows about anything domestic. So it's a nice idea, but probably not.
Second Tier
4) Dick Gephardt/John Dingell
Relatively unexciting, but not necessarily disastrous, choices whose advantages are that they're experienced Members of Congress (Gep as Majority leader, Dingell as the longest-serving member of the House) from the Big River midwest region, which Democrats won last time and are most in danger of losing in 2004, for demographic/trend reasons and because Dean is going to have a tougher time with the culture of this region than elsewhere. More importantly, perhaps, they have very strong union support, and we want the old-like manufacturing unions heavily involved in this election and in this region. Many think that these unions' strong turnout efforts in 2000 are the reason Gore almost won, and some think that they will be dispirited if/when their man Dick loses the nomination, and will have little incentive to work for Dean because they won't get the credit due to his campaign skills, internet operation and media presence. Giving them more of a stake in the campaign could be a good idea. Both have moderate tendencies, Gephardt as a hawk, and Dingell as strongly pro-gun, but are otherwise mainstream to liberal Democrats. But neither have serious foreign policy experience.
Gep has lots of negatives of course, as a wimpy, boring Washington politician with no eyebrows. And again, he's a primary opponent who attacked Dean harshly (for Gephardt). But back in 1988, Dean supported Gep's Presidential campaign, which was run by Dean's current campaign manager. Maybe they can heal their wounds. And maybe boring is irrelevant if the unions' get out the vote effort gets the job done.
Dingell may be problematic with women and the gun control lobby, people Dean may need help appealing to, and is not a moderate on economic issues. And I'm not sure he wants to go anywhere from his House seat or if he has any interest in Dean.
Alternate Big Riverians include Sen. Tom Harkin and Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa, but I'm not sure Iowa will be a problem in 2004. While Harkin can be tough, he's not tough enough and may be too liberal and boring. While Vilsack gets decent "regular guy" marks and can be energetic, he's probably too inexperienced. I'm not sure we want to give up either of them.
5) Bill Nelson/Mark Warner/John Edwards/Mary Landrieu
These guys are all less experienced rising stars in the party whose value as a nominee would be in their Southernness and moderation and in their broad cultural appeal. It would be a risk to take them because they leave big holes in the ticket, so they're probably not great choices, but it's possible they could refresh the ticket the way the Lieberman choice did.
Landrieu and Edwards both have real Southern appeal and are attractive. And Edwards is very smart and has a creative policy program.
My exciting guy here is Bill Nelson. He's a first-term Florida Senator, on the Armed Services committee, who was previously a Congressman and Florida Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner. He looks like an authentic, but not flashy Southern guy, Trent Lott without the helmet-hair. The kicker is he was an astronaut. But it would be a real insult to Bob Graham to take the other guy from Florida, and we probably don't want to give up his seat.
Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia wouldn't be a bad choice either. He won in a State that Dems conceivably could pick up, in part by appealing to the new tech corridor in Northern VA's Fairfax county. He could help with the moderate, male, economy-focused "investor class." But in his first term at the State level, he's probably a little green.
― g@bbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 24 December 2003 05:57 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 24 December 2003 05:59 (twenty-one years ago)
Jay Rockefeller - talked up because he's very popular in West Virginia, and perhaps in surrounding states like PA and OH, and is an experienced, moderate Senator on the Intelligence Committee. I say no because he's dorky-looking and "Rockefeller" will not play well anywhere he doesn't come from (but what of the Roc-a-Fella vote?).
John Breaux - well, he wouldn't do it, I wouldn't think. Might get some broad appeal and surprise out of it, but would be outweighed by dismay from supporters. While a real Democrat, a bit too far to the right.
Sam Nunn - again, I don't think he'd go there. Perhaps less of a Democrat than Wes Clark? Not exactly gay-friendly, and we won't win GA no matter what. Then again, if he's a Republican, he's the acceptable kind on foreign policy and is well-respected and smart. But, don't think it would work.
Bob Kerrey - he fits the Washington and foreign policy/national security bills and has war experience, but the Vietnam questions would be too distracting at worst, and he left politics for NYC and he wouldn't bring any excitement or constituency
Ann Richards - would appeal to the elderly and perhaps the culturally conservative and women but not even all that popular in Texas anymore and no foreign policy or Congressional experience (though DC connections).
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 24 December 2003 06:27 (twenty-one years ago)
I don't know Dean's strength in California, but if he can't win it on his own merits he can't win the presidency. Picking someone like Barabara Boxer might be tempting, but it would leave him much too vulnerable in the border South, because he'd look too 'liberal'.
Ideally, Wes Clark will figure out that he can't win it all and will begin to tailor his campaign for a veep bid, by making himself as the ultimate "security without stupidity" candidate. Clark also needs to show well in the border South primaries. Just being from Arkansas won't be enough. He needs to embrace his southerness and his military credentials as his main appeal. That would make Clark the ideal veep for Dean, by protecting his flank.
Once he's on the ticket, Clark would need to rip into Bush and Cheney's military policies from a military POV. The USA is throwing a vast amount of blood and treasure into Iraq, with no publically articulated policy of what constitutes victory or how we get there from here.
No other veep could do this vital job as well as Clark could. It would free up Dean to talk about Bush's corrupt domestic policies, which is where his best credibility lies. Domestically, Bush has done nothing but crap on the poor and middle class.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 24 December 2003 20:58 (twenty-one years ago)
― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Wednesday, 24 December 2003 21:20 (twenty-one years ago)
― Aimless, Wednesday, 24 December 2003 22:57 (twenty-one years ago)
clark's military background will help in west va, and he's from ak
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 25 December 2003 19:24 (twenty-one years ago)
not sure i feel comfortable with him as VP anyway; the guy voted for reagan and both bushes
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 25 December 2003 19:32 (twenty-one years ago)
I heard Richardson will prob not be in the running as he lobbied too hard for this post in 2000 and annoyed some folks in the party establishment.
Graham is possible. Dean's been saying he needs someone to fill the foreign-policy experience spot on the resume. Who else would be suited to that?
― daria g (daria g), Friday, 26 December 2003 08:00 (twenty-one years ago)
― teeny (teeny), Friday, 26 December 2003 13:17 (twenty-one years ago)
Ah! There is the beauty of the vice-presidency. Once elected, the president can utterly ignore the veep, should it please His Majesty to do so. A veep is a shade less powerful than the man who powdered the king's wig.
― Aimless, Friday, 26 December 2003 19:54 (twenty-one years ago)
am I the only person that think graham comes across as kind of, uh, buddy hackettesque? And not foul-mouthed Las Vegas buddy hackett, but "Love Bug" Buddy Hackett. He seems too lumpy and cuddly to be on the ticket. This is really shallow, I know. Also, I don't really know jack about him.
― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Friday, 26 December 2003 21:04 (twenty-one years ago)
i really dont think vp's mean squat in the general election. it depends on circumstances i suppose. someone mentioned liberman being gore's hope to win florida, and look how that went. i think cheney might have leant some credibility to bush but only in some circles. i mean look at how many vp's get smoked when they try and run for president when their boy is done with their term.
― bill stevens (bscrubbins), Friday, 26 December 2003 21:11 (twenty-one years ago)
― g--ff (gcannon), Monday, 5 January 2004 06:27 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 5 January 2004 13:14 (twenty-one years ago)
Note the short-list shockers:- the presence of Kerrey- the absence of Richardson
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 16:55 (twenty-one years ago)
I really want Richardson to be a possiblity, boo.
I worry about the Kerry/Kerrey possibility, it's just going to take up valuable media time with explanations about which one we're talking about.
NOBODY LIKES DICK GEPHARDT, EVEN IN MISSOURI.
― teeny (teeny), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:02 (twenty-one years ago)
right.
so do I. there's no good reason to think he's not.
hey, it gets free media coverage.
well, what about Ohio? Michigan? Minnesota?
one of Gep's advantages is that he can be an attack dog without ever coming close to looking mean. whether he's effective is another question. I don't think it's going to be him, though I do think he will be in the Kerry administration.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:07 (twenty-one years ago)
― bnw (bnw), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:12 (twenty-one years ago)
― Girolamo Savonarola, Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:12 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:15 (twenty-one years ago)
― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:16 (twenty-one years ago)
― Girolamo Savonarola, Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:20 (twenty-one years ago)
Meet Southern Comfort. No way Dems win it, but someone like Graham might change the discourse there a tiny bit, with butterfly effects.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:20 (twenty-one years ago)
― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:22 (twenty-one years ago)
― nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:24 (twenty-one years ago)
― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:26 (twenty-one years ago)
you think if Kerry "kicked it" McCain would change the policies of his administration?
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:31 (twenty-one years ago)
― donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:33 (twenty-one years ago)
Then again, I wasn't involved in politics enough to remember if Lloyd Bentsen went through the same thing when he accepted Dukakis's nod for veep.
― donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:34 (twenty-one years ago)
― teeny (teeny), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:35 (twenty-one years ago)
Does Bush HAVE to keep Cheney? Given Cheney's heart problems, there could be an amicable decision to drop Cheney as veep choice, and have Bush choose McCain as veep.
*shudder*
― donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:39 (twenty-one years ago)
Lloyd Bentsen was a lifelong Democrat, no?
Given Cheney's heart problems, there could be an amicable decision to drop Cheney as veep choice, and have Bush choose McCain as veep.
McCain loathes Bush. He is friends with Kerry. Would never happen in a million years.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:45 (twenty-one years ago)
― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:59 (twenty-one years ago)
― donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 20:09 (twenty-one years ago)
The article suggests to me that Kerry, if he follows the historical trend, will pick someone 1) with significant experience, including experience in Congress, 2) with a sense of seriousness/gravitas, 3) who preferably has served in the military (though he might be able to substitute governmental experience with military or intelligence or foreign policy issues).4) who is regarded as a straight-shooter5) who does not have substantial ideological differences with Kerry (but perhaps experience will override this factor).
This is the list, including marginal candidates, that I think the article dictates:Max ClelandDick GephardtBob GrahamBob KerreyJohn McCain (who isn't an option)Bill NelsonSam NunnBill Richardson
The list dosn't include, of course, John Edwards or anyone else age 55 or younger (Bill Richardson just makes the cut), such as reported candidates IA Gov Tom Vilsack, VA Gov Mark Warner, AZ Gov Janet Napolitano and KS Gov Kathleen Sebelius. I don't think any of these people are seriously being considered. Kerry's people are probably throwing them out as thanks for support and to build up names for the future and to keep the other side off the trail. But maybe I'm looking at things the wrong way - I assume Kerry will want to emphasize his experience by adding to it, but is it possible that he wants to do so instead by contrasting it with someone younger?
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Sunday, 11 April 2004 15:40 (twenty-one years ago)
Max Cleland - 30 to 1 (the suicide pick...zero upside)Dick Gephardt - 35 to 1 (zero freshness, the eternal campaigner)Bob Graham - 10 to 1 (I just don't get the appeal of this guy)Bob Kerrey - 5 to 1 (I think his problems in 'Nam are way overrated)John McCain (who isn't an option) - 1 zillion to 1Bill Nelson - 15 to 1 (what Gabbneb said re: dicking Graham is OTM)Sam Nunn - 5 to 1 (good on paper, not a great campaigner)Bill Richardson -5 to 1 (Is he really out of the running or what?)Evan Bayh - 5 to 1 (my "favorite" of the bunch)
― don carville weiner, Sunday, 11 April 2004 16:50 (twenty-one years ago)
― suzy (suzy), Sunday, 11 April 2004 16:58 (twenty-one years ago)
Bob Graham - I'm really not sure how strong a candidate he is. He doesn't have much appeal to anyone I know, though I think he could appeal a bit to older folks and Gulf Coasters. But he wouldn't get picked for appeal, he'd get picked for being a relatively safe choice who could do the job. His service on the Intelligence Committee and the Cong Cmte investigating 9/11, as well as his economic experience, including as Governor and a businessman, are relevant.
I think Bob Kerrey's Nam problems are overrated too.
Nunn - good point re campaigning. Dick Cheney isn't exactly Mr. Stump Speech either. Then again Kerry doesn't connect (vomit) like Bush. Maybe that really is a hole for him to fill (his people claim there are none other than regionalism but that may be disinformation), but he also doesn't want someone who upstages him.
Bill Nelson - I think he has enough experience, just not a lot or as much as others. And while he'd be a fresh (but not all that exciting or attractive) face, the fact that he isn't known wouldn't do much for gravitas. I'm not sure how relevant the Graham thing is, though. Graham is 67 years old and he knows the five-years-younger Nelson is on the list.
Richardson hasn't taken himself out of the running - you say you don't want it when you do want it. But if he's said that there are better choices, he may be honest, and I'm beginning to think that he'd be right. But he's done a lot more than those in his age cohort - even Hillary hasn't been a Congressman, Cabinet Secretary, UN Ambassador, negotiator with a nuclear state, Governor, and Nobel Peace Prize nominee. Admittedly, some of these involved short terms.
Bayh - He has been high if not on the top of my list. I did consciously leave him out of this one, though, based on the factors in this article. But maybe I shouldn't have. He's a Senator with a bit of a record and (recently?) on the Armed Services Cmte as well as a former Governor. But he's 49 years old, and while he looks older than the (actually older) Edwards, I'm not sure he gets up to the gravitas stage. And he's never been close to battle. And this article says balancing ideology isn't so important. If you want a moderate, I think Nelson might be a better pick on most of the fronts that this article says to me should be relevant.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Sunday, 11 April 2004 17:22 (twenty-one years ago)
You do want an eternal campaigner, but you want want that is fresh. Gephart = voter confusion = ball & chain. Yes, familiarity is nice in the beginning but in the long run Gephart is Washington Establishment. And you already have that on the ticket, so that's another reason Gephart isn't the right person.
I think that jacking up the military cred is waaaaay overrated, or at least overrated in terms of being a difference. Look at what Clinton did with his military record vs. Poppy. Look at Bush 43 and Cheney. It's a non-issue. You don't need "credibility" as a military to give the country a plan on how to stabilize (er, exit?) Iraq. You just need a plan that people can reasonably buy into.
I also think gravitas is way overrated, or at least in this election. You cannot out-gravitas the President, and if you make gravitas an issue then you are wasting energy and money. Plus, Kerry's got enough of it. It would be awesome if there was a younger pitbull type that would go after Cheney and make him look like an old man, rather than see a wonk-off with a dude like Richardson in the debates.
Napolitano is okay. That gov from Kansas wouldn't be good. I'd like to see a woman on the ticket if she was a fireball. This may be sexist, but if there was a really attractive woman on the ticket, do you think it could be a difference maker? I do. Who is the hottest female pol, anyway?
Also, I like the idea of that Ford kid from Tennessee on the ticket. But he's too young, right?
― don carville weiner, Sunday, 11 April 2004 18:05 (twenty-one years ago)
― Dan I., Monday, 12 April 2004 01:03 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 12 April 2004 01:06 (twenty-one years ago)
http://estelle.jppss.k12.la.us/Landrieu_files/image002.jpg
Well, he asked!
― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Monday, 12 April 2004 01:27 (twenty-one years ago)
― don carville weiner, Monday, 12 April 2004 10:27 (twenty-one years ago)
― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Monday, 12 April 2004 15:23 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 02:42 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 02:46 (twenty-one years ago)
― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 20:17 (twenty-one years ago)
― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 20:18 (twenty-one years ago)
― don atwater weiner, Wednesday, 14 April 2004 21:10 (twenty-one years ago)
Whatever happened to Tim Wirth? He was starred as the "next Gary Hart" and kind of thought to be a future presidential contender in the late 80's (also from Colorado) but after serving in the state department under clinton, it seems he disappeared.
― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 00:38 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 00:41 (twenty-one years ago)
While in Colorado, Kerry made a quick stop in Aspen for a $500,000 fund-raiser at the home of Michael Goldberg, president of Miami-based airline leasing company Aerolease International. Kerry invited Aspen resident and writer Hunter S. Thompson to ride in his motorcade and brought three copies of Thompson's book about the 1972 presidential race, "Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail" for autographs.
"Just to put your minds all at ease, I have four words for you that I know will relieve you greatly," Kerry told the fund-raiser. "How does this sound — Vice President Hunter Thompson."
― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 06:03 (twenty-one years ago)
― Dan I. (Dan I.), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 06:12 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 16:38 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 16:51 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 16:55 (twenty-one years ago)
― rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Tuesday, 22 June 2004 16:55 (twenty-one years ago)
Winner - NunnRunners-Up - Breaux, Edwards, VilsackWild card - Bradley
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Sunday, 27 June 2004 20:07 (twenty-one years ago)
Winner: VilsackRunners-Up: Edwards, Nunn, RichardsonWild Card: Bradley
Though a significant amount of this may be wishful thinking.
― j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Sunday, 27 June 2004 20:16 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Sunday, 27 June 2004 20:19 (twenty-one years ago)
Kerry/Anonymous 2004
If we told you, we'd have to kill you.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Sunday, 27 June 2004 20:27 (twenty-one years ago)
http://img16.photobucket.com/albums/v48/w1nt3rmut3/J_Edwards.jpg
http://img16.photobucket.com/albums/v48/w1nt3rmut3/Snun.jpg
http://img16.photobucket.com/albums/v48/w1nt3rmut3/VILSACK.gif
― Dan I., Sunday, 27 June 2004 22:18 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Sunday, 27 June 2004 22:25 (twenty-one years ago)
― Dan I., Sunday, 27 June 2004 22:27 (twenty-one years ago)
http://www.northlibertyiowa.org/images/governor/standlobby.jpg
...but you have a point.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Sunday, 27 June 2004 22:36 (twenty-one years ago)
― Dan I., Sunday, 27 June 2004 22:38 (twenty-one years ago)
― Dan I., Sunday, 27 June 2004 22:43 (twenty-one years ago)
And did Kerry really ask McCain to consider running with him?If you take Kerry's word for it, he did an interview on Nightline a couple days ago and told Ted Koppel point blank that he hadn't asked anyone yet to be his running mate.
Winner - VilsackRunnersup - Edwards, Gephardt, Nunn
― daria g (daria g), Monday, 28 June 2004 01:04 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 28 June 2004 19:32 (twenty-one years ago)
― dan carville weiner, Wednesday, 30 June 2004 20:34 (twenty-one years ago)
― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 20:40 (twenty-one years ago)
― dan carville weiner, Wednesday, 30 June 2004 20:46 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 21:04 (twenty-one years ago)
― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 21:13 (twenty-one years ago)
My brother is an attorney in KC. He doesn't think much of Sebelius, but when I asked him about it last week, he was so woeful about Bush that I think she would worry him on the Kerry ticket.
― dondan atwater weiner, Wednesday, 30 June 2004 21:22 (twenty-one years ago)
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/gallery/2002/12/17/Xkerry.jpg http://www.ifs.physik.uni-stuttgart.de/Icons/ernie.bert.gif
Official Washington and the entire press corps will be rocked when Sesame Street's Bert and Ernie are picked as Kerry's VPs and a massive sunny-day-fest will begin!
So predicts a top Washington insider, who spoke to the DRUDGE REPORT on condition he not be named.
"All the signs point in their direction," snuffled the insider, one of the most influential and well-placed in the nation's capital. "It is the solution to every Kerry problem."
MORE
"There are three issues that this campaign will be decided on -- national security, the letter C, and the number 8, not necessarily in that order."
"Kerry believes that no one is better on national security than he is, he served in Vietnam after all, so he has that covered and the suggestion that he needs to strengthen the ticket with someone who has national security credentials is dismissed as foolish."
The insider continues: "The Democrats feel like reading and math are the domestic issues. But how to make them the dominant topics of conversation -- break through war and terrorism? Get two experts at once! Bert and Ernie catapult the issues out front through their use of humor and their colorful fuzzy exteriors. When they last tried to bring their message to America, Cookie Monster ate their letter- and number-shaped pecan sandies. Republicans will use the 'Monster issue' against them, saying that if Bert and Ernie can't manage other Muppets, they won't be able to tackle real issues. Their response -- Grover's Cookie Monster memoir/expose Leaving a Trail of Crumbs Behind. The book reveals Cookie Monster's dirty 'Oscar' ties as well as his youthful indiscretions with former associate 'Animal'. Plus, Bert and Ernie will benefit from powerful surrogate Elmo, who will bring their message to the morning talk shows.
"There are differences of opinion about how this election will be won but one school says its all about the base. Republicans are bumping up against the ceiling with support from their base and Democrats are sitting on the floor. Bringing two fresh faces to the campaign would change that, as Democrats unify their two key consituencies when Bert and Ernie tell Main Street how to get to Sesame Street.
"Official Washington and national media will fall in love with the idea immediately letting Kerry/B&E dominate the news through July and up to the Republican convention. They will say they are doing it for the good of the country. I am convinced this is going to happen."
"But what about having to wait to run for president? If Bush wins then Bert and Ernie are co-nominees for 2008 because it will be all Kerry's fault (who could blame one Muppet, let alone two?). If Bert and Ernie win they are tied as the first Hispanic VPs of the United States, which would help them become the first Dominican and first Puerto Rican co-presidents, respectively. It would be historic in its own right and change the nature of politics in this country, and mark their place in the history books for ever."
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 22:04 (twenty-one years ago)
― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 1 July 2004 04:04 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 1 July 2004 20:35 (twenty-one years ago)
― kyle (akmonday), Thursday, 1 July 2004 20:48 (twenty-one years ago)
― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 1 July 2004 20:56 (twenty-one years ago)
― Dan I., Thursday, 1 July 2004 21:55 (twenty-one years ago)
according to my sources, which are quasi-reliable, kerry is looking to get gephardt as his runningmater. i'm going to keep the typo because it's more amusing that way.
― j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Friday, 2 July 2004 01:47 (twenty-one years ago)
― kyle (akmonday), Friday, 2 July 2004 06:30 (twenty-one years ago)
― Dan I. (Dan I.), Friday, 2 July 2004 08:51 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 16 July 2004 14:11 (twenty-one years ago)
I like Edwards as far as his charisma goes. He blew Kerry off the set on 60 Minutes.
― dan carville weiner, Friday, 16 July 2004 14:35 (twenty-one years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 16 July 2004 15:14 (twenty-one years ago)
― Symplistic (shmuel), Friday, 16 July 2004 15:49 (twenty-one years ago)
― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Friday, 16 July 2004 16:06 (twenty-one years ago)
― kyle (akmonday), Friday, 16 July 2004 16:16 (twenty-one years ago)
As for the 'bounce', with some subscription to Pleasant Plains' divided-electorate caveat above, there certainly is one. The evidence is as follows (remember announcement was 7/6 AM; * indicates poll included Nader):
NBC poll (7/6): Kerry 54-43
*NBC/WSJ poll (6/25-28): Bush 45-44*NBC poll (7/6): Kerry 49-41
*IBD/TIPP poll (6/14-19): Bush 44-41*IBD/TIPP poll (7/6-10): Kerry 47-43
*Gallup poll (6/9-30): Bush 45-44*Gallup/CNN/USAT poll (7/8-11): Kerry 50-45
Rasmussen poll (7/6): Bush 47-46Rasmussen poll (7/10): Kerry 49-45
Time poll (6/2-4): Bush 49-48Time poll (7/6-8): Kerry 49-45
Newsweek poll (7/8-9): Kerry 51-45
CBS/NYT poll (6/23-37): Kerry 45-44CBS poll (7/6): Kerry 49-44
*Zogby poll of Tennessee (6/15-20): Bush 57.4-38.6*Zogby poll of Tennessee (7/6-10): Tie at 47.5
*Zogby poll of Ohio (6/15-20): Bush 50.5-45.1*Zogby poll of Ohio (7/6-10): Kerry 48.6-47.9
*Zogby poll of New Hampshire (6/15-20): Kerry 46.2-42.9*Zogby poll of New Hampshire (7/6-10): Kerry 49.3-40.3
*Zogby poll of Wisconsin (6/15-20): Kerry 50.6-46.2*Zogby poll of Wisconsin (7/6-10): Kerry 53.3-43.9
*Zogby poll of Missouri (6/15-20): Bush 48.6-47.9*Zogby poll of Missouri (7/6-10): Kerry 50.1-46.8
*Quinnipiac poll of Pennsylvania (6/21-22): Kerry 44-43*Quinnipiac poll of Pennsylvania (7/6-11): Kerry 46-41
Mason-Dixon poll of North Carolina (5/14-17): Bush 48-41Mason-Dixon poll of North Carolina (7/12-13): Bush 48-45
The big poll cited to show that there was no bounce was the AP/Ipsos poll (7/5-7) that showed Bush up 49-45. The AP/Ipsos poll has never shown a Kerry lead (except in a pre-Edwards poll that included Edwards as the prospective veep). While Bush did go up 3 points in that poll since the pre-Edwards poll, Kerry's support stayed the same - Bush's jump came entirely out of Nader, who went down 3.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 16 July 2004 17:21 (twenty-one years ago)
Some more state polls:
Florida (SUSA 6/12-14): Bush 50-43Florida (SUSA 7/9-11): Kerry 47-44
*Florida (Zogby 6/15-20): 50.3-46.1*Florida (Zogby 7/6-10): Kerry 50.8-44.2
*Michigan (Zogby 6/15-20): Bush 46.8-46.1*Michigan (Zogby 7/6-10): Kerry 50-44.1
South Carolina (SUSA 7/10-12): Bush 51-44
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 16 July 2004 17:43 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 16 July 2004 17:45 (twenty-one years ago)
― Symplistic (shmuel), Friday, 16 July 2004 19:38 (twenty-one years ago)
― Symplistic (shmuel), Friday, 16 July 2004 19:42 (twenty-one years ago)
nader is such a putz.
― amateur!st (amateurist), Friday, 16 July 2004 19:43 (twenty-one years ago)
I heard the Nader/Dean debate. Not that exciting, but it did have one great moment (paraphrased, perhaps)...
Moderator: "Governor Dean, do you have any advice for Mr. Nader?"Dean: "Yeah, lighten up."
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 16 July 2004 19:56 (twenty-one years ago)
― amateur!st (amateurist), Friday, 16 July 2004 19:58 (twenty-one years ago)