Daily Kos

The veep menu

by kos

Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:17:00 PM PDT

I wish Kerry would just pick already. But he hasn't, so all we can do is speculate.

Edwards and Gephardt are seemingly the top two contenders. Edwards is garnering strong institutional support, while Gephardt makes labor (but no one else) swoon. Vilsack is not far behind. Two Catholics on a ticket? Would anyone give a damn? Clark is an outside possibility, but he probably blew his veep chances with his presidential run. Dean is the longest of longshots, but who wants to rehash the Rebel Yell?

Richardson has put himself out of the running, after it seemed the job was his. Good for him -- he kept his promise to his constituents to serve a full term before considering a job change. The two Florida senators appear to be way out of the running.

Mark Warner would dig the job, and Virginia is teetering on the edge of being competitive. Sen. Rockefeller would guarantee WV, and give a boost to the ticket in Virginia and Ohio. Good thing that Kerry is tall because Rockefeller is tall too. But would that ticket sound too, um, patrician?

McCain talk is finally dead, and Hagel talk was just silly.

No women seem to be under serious consideration, which likely has something to do with the current obsession over national security. And it's not like Kerry has trouble garnering women votes. He can take them for granted, at least for this cycle.

The few names have been bandied include Kansas governor Kathleen Sibelius and Arizona governor Janet Napolitano. Neither have served a full term yet, and Sebelius would bring nothing to the ticket.

In the non-white category, Richardson had a monopoly. Not a hint of another potential candidate of color. There's something very wrong with that.

Kerry/Rockefeller is my preferred ticket, I think. It's the closes we get to a candidate that can have a material impact in Ohio. And as Ohio goes...

  • ::

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 328 comments

  •  Kerry-Rockefeller (2.75 / 4)

    The Heathers will portray it as the Forbes/Heinz/Rockefeller robber barron ticket.

    To which I say, bring it on.

    by steve on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:20:19 PM PDT

    •  How about (none / 1)


      ..some sort of Heinz/Cambell/Hershey/Wrigley/Dole ticket to round out the old-school american foods angle?

      Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in blood. --Lu Xun

      by snarkey on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 11:22:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Standard Oil? (3.00 / 2)

        I did not see this anywhere on this thread. John D. Numero Uno must be spinning in his grave...

        Only thing, is that SOHIO, ESSO, etc. are all now BP (British Petroleum).

        Again, I think the moat (Ohio River) and the cultural disconnect (Southern Buckeyes tell West Virginia jokes, even though they are "family", mostly the of the same Scots-Irish/Appalachian extract) keeps any concepts other than the free flow of pork rinds, pickup trucks, and cole slaw on a chili dog from crossing west into the Ohio Valley.

        Perhaps a few people in Cleveland remember the name Rockefeller?

        Kerry/Rockefeller is the "doppelganger ticket".

        People in Eurasia on the brink of oppression: I hope it's gonna be alright... Pet Shop Boys: Introspective

        by rgilly on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 03:01:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  On Dole. I have to admit something. (2.66 / 3)

        I was working as a copy editor, and there was a niggling part of me that almost wanted him to win just so someone could use the headline, "Dole: Top Banana."

        And someone would have, too.

        Please support .Beyond the Storm: Shadows of the Big Easy

        by Magenta on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 04:40:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Wrigley (none / 1)

        Isn't there a wrigley who's been in the political news within the past year?  I seem to think he/she is gay maybe... or was talking about a gay issue.  Any memories?

        by skiddie on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 06:52:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hormel (none / 0)

          Maybe you're thinking of James (?) Hormel, heir to the massive Hormel meat empire ?  Clinton tried to appoint the Spam magnate ambassador to some small Western European country (Belgium ?), and Republicans blocked it because he was openly gay.  This might not be what you mean though, since this was in 1998.  And of course, political discourse has gotten so much better since then, and Republicans wouldn't dream of doing something so openly bigoted now.

          by MattT on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 12:11:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Fafner and Fasolt? (none / 1)

      Comparisons to Wagner's giants in Das Rheingold would be too excruciating.

      "Folly is wont to have more followers and comrades than discretion." -Cervantes-

      by Don Quixote on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 05:56:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Kerry/Rockefeller? (2.66 / 3)

    Egads.  Really?  Wow...

    by reef the dog on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:20:26 PM PDT

  •  No help in Ohio (3.25 / 4)

    I live in Ohio, the southern part not too far from WV, and no one I know knows anything about Rockefeller.  I don't think he would add a point in Ohio.  The person, as a campaigner, will matter more than geographic neighborly goodwill.

    Want a revolution behind the eyes?
    We got to get up and organize!

    by Leftie on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:21:54 PM PDT

    •  Thanks, Leftie. . . (3.40 / 5)

      This is a point I've been trying to hammer away at in various blogs.

      The Midwest is NOT the monolith that the South is.  Folks in Ohio could not care less if a VP candidate is from another Midwestern state.  If I see one more "Vilsak or Bayh could help in the Ohio" opinion I may scream.  We don't know who the bloody hell they are and there is no cultural regional Midwestern "pride."   The national names associated with labor and blue collar concerns, yes (Gephardt - sigh; and Edwards) could help. But geographical nearness does not matter in the Midwest.  

      Too bad there is no Ohio "name" that would resonate and be fairly well known outside of Ohio.  (Keep your eye on Sherrod Brown, though.  Sometime down the line he could be a contendah!)

      eileen from OH

      eileen from OH

      by eileen from OH on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 11:52:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Geographic nearness in midwest is different (2.50 / 2)

        I won't pretend to speak for Ohio, since I've never lived there.  I have lived in many parts of the midwest, though, and I think that nearness does matter a little bit.

        People not from the "midwest" either don't know or don't remember how big it is.  I've heard Colorado and Ohio both referred to as "midwest", but the two states are so far apart, they are pretty distinct economically and even culturally.

        To get any bump at all, I think the states need to be adjacent, and the population centers need to be close (i.e., they have to watch each other's TV programming).  A candidate from western Missouri may get a boost in Kansas, since Kansas City television broadcasts there.  Since Gephardt is from the St. Louis area, he doesn't really get that benefit.  Most voters in Illinois (i.e. Chicago metro) could care less about Gephardt's "local" roots, though I don't know if East St. Louis would be significant enough of a voting block to matter in the Illinois total.

        So, by the "political influence reaches as far as VHF TV signals" metric, I'm agreeing with Eileen.  I'm betting not many folks in Ohio watch the Indianapolis or Des Moines stations ;-)

        Rob

        by robla on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 01:06:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  OH looks down its nose at WV (none / 1)

          OH has 3 big-league cities (Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland) a bunch of smaller ones and more colleges than any other state (so I've heard). Also a fair amount of big industry. WV is 2nd only to Mississippi on all things rural-poverty-related. Lotta hick jokes at WV expense.

          Reality - Humanity - Sustainability

          by Em on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 09:37:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  colleges (none / 1)

            more colleges than any other state (so I've heard)

            Sorry, just not true.

            1. California  413
            2. New York 309
            3. Pennsylvania 260
            4. Texas 198
            5. Illinois 184
            6. Ohio 178
            7. Florida 166
            Ohio does have the 5th most Public 4-year schools (19).
            http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/tables/dt244.asp

            I agree with your point about Ohio looking down its nose on WV, though. I think most of the US does that, heh.

            by get ready on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 10:14:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Not hardly (none / 0)

            Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland as big-league cities?  Maybe only if you haven't been to a real one.  At least two of the three have big-league baseball teams, but Columbus. . . . Attended college there.  Definitely bush league.  And Cincinnati is definitely Bush League.

            "A class of experts is inevitably so removed from common interests as to become a class with private interests and private knowledge." -- John Dewey

            by Vico on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 12:32:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Sherrod Brown (none / 1)

        kicks ass.

        But in his book he talks about how he decided not to run for Senate.  He may just not be interested in going higher than the House?

        How can we get over it when people died for the right to vote? -- John Lewis

        by furryjester on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 07:52:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Shrimp (2.33 / 3)

    Kerry and Rockefeller are both realllly tallll...

    by steve on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:23:56 PM PDT

  •  Kerry-Rockefeller (3.25 / 4)

    An all-blue-blood ticket?  Although I'm not lobbying for him, by any means, I think Gephardt would have more of an impact in Ohio than Jay.

    Two names that are never mentioned, that I wish would be: Dianne Feinstein of California, and Joe Biden of Delaware.

    More Wagster!

    by Wagster on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:23:58 PM PDT

    •  No Feinstein (3.00 / 2)

      She's not great to begin with, California is safe, and Schwarzenegger gets to choose her replacement.

      Kerry-Hart maybe as an out of left field choice.

      But I think the most electorally appealing is still Kerry-Edwards.

      I want to die like my grandfather, peacefully in my sleep, not screaming in terror like his passengers.

      by incertus on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:27:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Feinstein, no (3.50 / 4)

      Biden, probably no.

      Feinstein is too right wing (pro war, pro corporate) to appeal to the "base," but also carries the "independent SF Bay Area woman" tag that hurts in the heartland. She adds nothing - she simultaneously alienates the center and the left. Essentially, picking her would be like choosing a combination of Patty Murray and John Breaux.

      Biden, he's OK. But I sense he would not appeal to voters in the all-important "retail politics" scheme of things. He seems too unstable, too impetuous as a person to be effective - he'll have trouble staying on message.

      Ben P

      -3.25, -3.85

      by Ben P on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:31:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  hmmm... (none / 1)

        Where do you get that he's unstable?  I'm not necessarily disagreeing.  I kind of sense something, but I can't figure out what it is.  Not that stealing speeches nonsense, either.  He seems quite confident and calm on TV... I can't put my finger on it.

        More Wagster!

        by Wagster on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:40:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Biden ain't bad (3.66 / 3)

          I lost a lot of respect for him way back in the Anita Hill mess.  It wasn't until I heard him on Air America (O'Franken Factor) a month or so ago that I was reminded of what an articulate, accessible, an informed guy he can be.  Despite his lengthy beltway experience, he's still able to communicate in a way that makes sense to the public, at least in my opinion.

          -6.38/-6.26 Bush is studiously anti-science, a man of applied ignorance who has undernourished his mind with the empty calories of comfy dogma. - Richard Cohen

          by mofus on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:50:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Biden, like Gephardt, would be a slap in the face (2.50 / 2)

            He was so happy to bring Howard Dean down.  On the Daily Show he kept talking about how you couldn't win by being angry.  Then he was positively beaming after Iowa--noy that the people had seen fit to pick his friend JOhn, but they had put two candidates so far ahead of Howard Dean.

            by abbyv on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 07:07:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Again..... (none / 1)

              The VP selection need not consider what Howard Dean thinks is "a slap in the face".

              And it was the Dean camp that started that suicide pact with Gephardt with all the negative ads. Gephardt was in a desperate situation and if Trippi would have been smart enough to ignore him we could be looking at Dean vs Bush. That HUGE blunder is what ultimately cost Dean, the scream was just the final nail.

              What makes Gephardt a slap in the face isn't the way he treated Dean, its the fact that you would be pandering to the unions who can't even deliver their membership anymore because they are more worried about guns and gays than their jobs.

              And you can't win by just being angry. Ultimately you need a positive vision about what you are going to do not just "I'm not that guy"

              by savvyspy on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 07:42:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, I suppose it doesn't need to (none / 1)

                I mean I will try to get Kerry elected no matter what.  What I object to about BIden wasn't just anti-Dean..  It was anti-democracy in politics.  He was so glad that the media and the power brokers were able to take control away from the grassroots.

                In the long-run, I think that this is deadly.  I think that if people feel halfway good about the ticket, then it will make governing easier once Kerry gets in office.

                Gephardt offends me because of his work on the war resolution.  

                Gephardt or Biden will make me want to run a challener in 2008 or even consider voting for a Republican president.  Assuming that we get a Democratic Congress before then.

                by abbyv on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 10:54:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  So the VEEP has to be pro Dean?? (none / 1)

              for whatever reason?

              All extremists are irrational and should be exposed

              by SeanF on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 07:46:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Biden more important where he is (4.00 / 2)

            He'd be crazy to accept the VP slot; and Kerry crazy to offer it -- He's going to need Biden in the Senate and on Foreign Relations.  That will become the most important committee (along with intelligence) in the coming days.

            You also have to think about what you are taking people away from, not just what they bring, when considering the veep slot.

            By that token someone like Gary Hart would be a good choice and an excellent "outsider" pick.

            Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

            by a gilas girl on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 07:18:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Biden = Kemp (1.50 / 2)

        Picking Biden would be like picking Kemp - big play to insiders, meaningless to voters

        Strateg(er)y for Du(DEM)mies

        by daunte on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 01:43:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  and another reason Feinstein is a "no" (none / 1)

        Is Arnold would be appointing her successor, and does any of us really want that?

        -C.

        by Neutron on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 10:36:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah (none / 1)

      The Bush/Cheney blue-blood ticket went nowhere...

      by WVUDemocrat2 on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 12:31:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Dianne Feinstein is trouble (3.66 / 3)

      Scorecard here.

      I was shocked to hear a so-called liberal (from cali no less) is signing her name to the damn flag bill they keep dragging into congress.

      ACLU:

      Supporters of the amendment continue to spend millions of dollars on lobbying candidates and members of Congress. This year, the amendment has been introduced in the Senate (SJ Res 4) by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Diane Feinstein (D-CA), and in the House (HJ Res 4) by Reps. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) and John Murtha (D-PA).

      --

      I'm using the ACLU as a metric, yes, yes they are not perfect I agree.

      Don't laugh at this bill, in '95 they were FOUR votes away from AMENDING our constitution with an anti-speech amendment. FOUR. VOTES.

      dont visit my blog!

      by skallas on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 01:55:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Biden, e-gads (3.50 / 2)

      He has to steal a speech from a labour leader and kisses the GOPs ass everytime he can.
      I can't think of a more self absorbed person in the Senate, although there certainly are many there.
      To me at least he is a complete hypocrite and everything he does is for the publics and the other Senators perception of him, he is all about himself and nothing else matters.
      SORRY!
      PEACE! ABB&B!!!

      by PC on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 04:04:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Biden. (none / 1)

      I've posted a number of compliments to Biden all over dK.  He has the foreign policy gravitas, both in his record and in his persona.  He can and does attack Bush strongly, and moreover he does it in a way that seems dynamic and that I think can grab the average voter's attention better than Kerry.  He can make it seem so obvious that the Bushies are just being idiots.

      I really don't understand why some here say he kisses GOP ass.  He's ripping them all the time, and very effectively.

      I think he'd be a great presence both in terms of his resume and his physical presence on the campaign trail.  He might invigorate the Kerry machine a bit.

      "Efficiency is the steak. Renewables are the sizzle." --Carl Pope, Sierra Club

      by Red Herring on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 07:06:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Slap in the face (none / 1)

        I posted this before upthread, but it would be a slap in theface to us Dean supporters.

        I'm looking forward to the day he retires.

        by abbyv on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 07:10:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why? (none / 1)

          Why would it be a slap in the face to Dean supporters?

          "Efficiency is the steak. Renewables are the sizzle." --Carl Pope, Sierra Club

          by Red Herring on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 08:01:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh. (none / 0)

            Nevermind, I just found your comment above.

            OK, so Biden didn't like Dean.  I wasn't a Dean guy, but I liked him.  Frankly, it's over.  Water under the bridge.  Dean is done and somebody else got the nomination and gets to pick VP.  I just don't think anything pertaining to Dean need factor into the decision.  What matters is who makes a good combination with Kerry and who could make an appealing ticket.

            "Efficiency is the steak. Renewables are the sizzle." --Carl Pope, Sierra Club

            by Red Herring on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 08:05:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Vilsack (3.00 / 3)

    I loved what Rob Corddry had to say about Vilsack on The Daily Show -- you don't want someone with the word "sack" in their name on the ticket.  

    Seriously, as well, can someone tell me what exactly is the argument for this guy?  He's always mentioned as a possibility but I've never heard a really coherent discussion of the plusses and minuses.  Which makes me worry that he's a kind of offend-no one pick that would just reinforce the idea of Kerry as boring and cautious.

    by MissLaura on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:28:40 PM PDT

    •  isn't liked in Iowa (none / 1)

      ... why would he be a plus anywhere else?  the last poll of iowa voters i saw showed that with vilsack on the ticket iowa voters were less likely to support Kerry.  how's that for an endorsement.  plus he sucks as a campaign speaker

      i'm an edwards delegate to the convention so I'm obviously biased, but i really hope it's him.  

      by Minnesotan on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:31:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Edwards delegate! (none / 1)

        Wow, you're lucky... we will have to meet up in Boston, I had to go Kerry just to get a ticket. (not that I dont like Kerry... I just like Edwards a little more... maybe it's his smile)

        But seriously, With Richardson out I see no reason why Kerry dosent just go Edwards, unless they have uncovered something serious in the vetting.

        Gephardt I feel is an overall loss... I like the guy but jez, he will put you to sleep (from everything I have seen of him). We dont need that, we need some excitement.

        Im biased I know... but I think that a charismatic draw helps across the board. Bush (for as much as I hate him) connects with the common man somehow, Cheny was the Gravitas and expirence... Well now we have the Gravitas and Expirence in Kerry, we need the common man connection.

        by Doren on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 11:19:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Vilsack (none / 1)

        Just a reminder, don't believe every poll you read.  Actually, that could be written "don't beleive any poll you read"  All polls are good for are trends, and that was just one small poll out of the blue.  

        That being said, I don't think Vilsack is all that popular in IA, simply because he's gotten no where in dealing with the GOP state house and senate.

        Finally, where do you get the idea that he's not a good campaign speaker.  By no means do I think he should be the VP candidate, but I've always found him to be a good speaker.  His style would be a good contrast to the egalitarian style of Kerry.

        "They're trying to fool you. They're trying to scare you. And they're not telling you the truth." Obama '08

        by bawbie on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 07:41:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Not that it really matters to the conversation, (3.00 / 2)

      but during the Iowa caucuses, I saw Mrs. Vilsack recite on C-Span all the lyrics to that damn Lovin' Spoonful song "Did You Ever Have to Make Up Your Mind?" like it was Shakespeare or something. The first two lines would have been fine, but she finished the verse. Then she started on the second verse. This was very early in the morning, I'd been up late doing caucus stuff and it left me with a freaky and not altogether pleasant impression of the Vilsacks.

      I'm just saying....

      tragically un-hip
      ..- .... --..-- / --- -.- .-.-.-

      -5.88, -6.82

      by Debby on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:54:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  he's a good governor (none / 1)

      Dems in Iowa like him pretty well, he's not ugly, he's dealt as best as he could with the right wing freaks in our state lege.  His wife is great.  He's prez of the governor's association.  He was adopted and has a good backstory of making something of himself to balance Kerry's privileged upbringing.  Absolutely no skeletons of any kind.

      The things I would fault him with are not delivering the state legislature to the Dems and being one of those "new dems" (DLC).  

      by Tomato Observer on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 05:58:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Indeed (none / 1)

    In the non-white category, Richardson had a monopoly. Not a hint of another potential candidate of color. There's something very wrong with that.

    Why is this?  Why, in this day and age, can the party of racial minorities not find a non-white candidate?

    I'm sure part of it is the lack of non-white representation in the government as a whole.  But even then, it seems that any time a minority politician gains some prominence, he or she is faced with ethical standards and scrutiny far greater than those of their white colleagues.  How can we end this?

    Read James Loewen's "Sundown Towns"!

    by ChicagoDem on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:32:16 PM PDT

    •  The bubba factor (none / 1)

      Dems have to appear more "heartlandish" as a means of clearing a psychological hurdle with some voters, just as Rs have to appear "compassionate" - I think this is what it has to do with.

      How, for example, do you think Carol Moseley Braun would play nationwide?

      Another major factor is the lack of minorities who are governors or senators, where most of the VP picks come - historically and perhaps even more so currently.

      Ben P

      -3.25, -3.85

      by Ben P on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:36:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  lots of reasons (none / 1)

      I think it goes beyond even the lack of non-white representation in the gov't as a whole.  If you look at who does reasonably well in national electoral politics, it's an awful lot of rich people, and the pool of rich people of color is smaller.  I suspect there are other, similar reasons I'm not thinking of.  

      Then you get to things like the kind of politics that's going to bring a minority politician to their initial success.  That's probably going to be to the left of where a successful national candidate needs to be on many issues; it's quite likely going to involve politics on race that make a lot of middle Americans uncomfortable.

      And of course there's plain old racism.  

      It sucks, but there you go, at least in part.

      by MissLaura on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:40:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the cost of entering politics (3.50 / 2)

        I think one problem is just the cost of entering politics. To climb the political ladder nowadays you need to have some sort of educational pedigree, the more expensive the better, and a good amount of charisma. And you must be willing and able to take that expensive education and charisma -- which could be used to rake in the bucks elsewhere -- and instead use it in a series of low-paying (or NON-paying) menial political jobs when you're first starting out.

        The easiest way to do that is to have parents who can afford to pay for your education, and can continue to support you well into your late 20's or early 30's.

        There are other ways to go about it, but an individual has to be driven and intensely motivated to put up with the hardships along the way, which is pretty rare these days. Al Sharpton is one of the few people I can think of who came up "the hard way".

        The world won't get no better if we just let it be.

        by drewthaler on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 07:39:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Remember the Racists (none / 1)

      We can't avoid thinking about play in the South.  Remember that Jindal lost the LA governor's race to Blanco because of the David Duke voters defecting (that and the Dem machine, but there was a significant factor of racism in the vote).  If we nominate a minority, the Repub smear machine will go "THE DEMS ARE WRITING OFF THE SOUTH", hurting us in marginal-southern states such as Florida, Ohio, WV, or Missouri, who would feel, well, marginalized.

      It sounds awful, but it's (probably) true, and we have to keep that in mind, or have a rebuttal ready (probably coming out and calling them racists or something worse).

      Or maybe I am underestimating the American voting public.  Please tell me I am mistaken.

      by Power on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:47:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  hmmm.... (3.66 / 3)

        Probably the way to get in a minority (or woman) VP is this: have a popular incumbent running who has had a white guy VP who can't run/needs to be replaced.  The VP is much less important in an election like that, because, duh, you have a popular incumbent running, and any attacks on the ticket that didn't come up in the previous election with the white guy on the ticket are much more clearly racism (or sexism).  

        My grandfather was a local politician in Missouri in the 1950s and 1960s.  He integrated the courthouse by the simple means of, as probate clerk, hiring a black woman to work in the office.  A lot of lawyers didn't like it, but if they wanted to be able to file things with him, they had to deal with her.

        by MissLaura on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:54:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  A little odd.. (4.00 / 2)

        Considering that the vast bulk of black and hispanic voters are IN the South.  And that the states with the most African-American and Hispanic representation are in the South.

        Read James Loewen's "Sundown Towns"!

        by ChicagoDem on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:57:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's CW (none / 0)

          Nobody ever said that conventional wisdom was wise.  But it seems less likely that Kerry/John Lewis could win in the South than Kerry/Edwards.  And if we are accused of "writing off the South", we will be attacked for that, and lose votes for that as well.  The thing is, it's only the first time that it is a problem, after that it is OK.  If Bush weren't such a disaster and the Dems had Congress, there wouldn't be any problem with that, as there would be far less to lose.

          by Power on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 11:02:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You confuse the census numbers with voting rolls (none / 0)

          If they're not registered and organized they can't be mobilized!

          -Hope never cost Corporate America a dime -Somebody blow Bush so we can impeach him already.

          by DWCG on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 01:45:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So come on down (none / 0)

            and help us get more of them registered.

            I just got the rubber stamp I ordered from Mailboxes Etc with the county BOE's addresss on it. Now I don't have to hand-address the stupid things.

            This weekend is stamp fest. Next week, the stamped and addressed forms start going into local businesses.

            God bless America. God bless our troops.
            God damn George Bush to the fires of eternal damnation.

            by Bill Rehm on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 10:53:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sure (none / 0)

              Lets start with South Carolina.  For about 5K a month and a $750K budget I'd be glad to do it.

              The bigger question is why aren't the state Democratic Party organizations in the South investing heavily in such voter registration programs?  Oh yea, they're too busy sucking up to the local Chambers of Commerce.

              -Hope never cost Corporate America a dime -Somebody blow Bush so we can impeach him already.

              by DWCG on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 11:20:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Gerrymandering (none / 0)

          "And that the states with the most African-American and Hispanic representation are in the South."

          Over the last twenty and more years the Republicans in the South have turned the Voting Rights Act on its head by cramming blacks into oddly shaped majority-minority districts.  While the effect has been to put more minority Reps in the House, the overall result has been a Republican lock on the South and in its Congressional delegations overall.  The recent Texas redistricting worked the same way, the Rethugs targeted white Dem moderates while steering as many solid Dem voters into safe (often minority) districts as possible.

           

          Pollkatz: Bush Approval

          by Bruce Webb on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 05:22:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The quick answer? (none / 0)

      We dare not offend the racists.  We have to make sure they are still willing to vote for us.

      by Chik Patty on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 11:53:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  House of Rep problems (none / 0)

      I think the Dem party has shot itself in the foot repeatedly in redistricting. A lot of states have gerrymandered "black" or "hispanic" districts. So instead of, say, having several partially-black districts where black candidates would be competitive, you have one certain all-black district, and no minority representation in the surrounding ones.

      Since the views, concerns, etc. of these districts diverge somewhat from statewide concerns, the congresspeople from these districts are less viable candidates statewide and nationally. That's not really PC, but I think its true.

      Personally, I think it would be better to have the population more spread out across districts, so the issues would matter to a higher % of congress. However, it would mean fewer minority representatives, at least in the short term.

      (Of course, as a white guy, easy for me to say.)

      Strateg(er)y for Du(DEM)mies

      by daunte on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 02:05:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Harold Ford, Jr. (none / 0)

      Here's the guy I'd like to see on the ticket someday.  Extremely impressive guy.  Won a congressional seat at the ripe old age of 26.  I think he's about 34 or so now.

      He's been a leader on a number of issues, many dealing with business issues.  Well respected in both Washington and Memphis, holding a seat on the budget committee and financial services subcommittee.  

      I think he probably doesn't make the constitutionally mandated age of 35, but I bet he'll at least get some consideration someday.

      by Buckland on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 07:09:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I've been a big fan in the past, (none / 1)

        but Harold Ford, Jr. is being a big-time DLC appeaser in this election cycle.  Here in TN, he keeps showing up at events telling us not to be so angry - that's no way to win.  He's in the safest seat in America - inherited from his dad.  He could be caught with a young boy and keep it, but he votes DLC because his eye is always on the next prize, in theis case the Senate.  I think he should be a better Dem before we start pushing him for Pres.

        by RosieNac on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 07:28:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  A better Dem? (none / 0)

          What does that mean?  I've read this about Harold here before, and I don't get it.  Because someone happens to not agree with you on a couple issues, he's not a "good Democrat"?  This is why no one can ever keep control of the government for a while.  Sometime they hold their noses and vote for someone who isn't "perfect", but once they are in power, it's goodbye big tent, hello bickering.  Let's accept anyone who wants to call themselves democrats into the tent, and then civilly work out the differences there, we will get a lot more done that way.  </rant>

          As for the angry thing.  He has a point.  I'm not trying to say one shouldn't be angry, Lord knows I am, but no one ever won an argument because they were angry.  I think(I haven't heard him say it) that is Harold's point.  

          "They're trying to fool you. They're trying to scare you. And they're not telling you the truth." Obama '08

          by bawbie on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 07:49:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I dodn't say he should leave the party, (none / 1)

            I only said I'm not ready to support him for national leadership until he's ready to say that Bush is bad in every way imaginable.  Or at least in some ways.  He talks like Joe Lieberman, and it's very annoying.

            by RosieNac on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 11:11:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  vilsack english only ends him (none / 1)

    Kerry is really getting me angry if he really believes this shit about picking the best guy for the job....that should be lip service ------THE JOB IS TO WIN ----AND ONLY TO WIN how the hell does picking Gephardt give you a better chance to win than edwards....sure you may win anyway but how can you not pick the guy who will heklp you m,ost....Gore atleast believe Leiberman would help him the most, Kerry's got to know that the guy is Edwards

    After Obama's eighth straight victory, Penn told reporters: "Winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who can win the general election.

    by nevadadem on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:32:56 PM PDT

    •  what you state as fact (4.00 / 2)

      others may view as opinion, and differ.

      I think Edwards offers very little to the ticket and fear he would be more interested in advancing John Edwards than electing John Kerry.

      Patriotic, flag waving, radical centrist Howard Dean Democrat. Until we stand on principle and lose our fear of defeat we will never win.

      by rusrivman on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:39:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  even so (none / 0)

        Suppose Edwards is largely self-interested.  Wouldn't it be in his interest to be vice president, rather than a former vice-presidential candidate?  

        The question of what he would add is debatable, but it's clear that he is a gifted stump speaker who would bring a personable, charming side to the ticket.  (Since you're big on the distinction between opinion and fact, let's say that you might not find him personable and charming, but the media narrative is that this is how he is, and it seems to be reflected in people's responses to seeing him in person.)

        by MissLaura on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:44:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yes, I would think so (4.00 / 2)

          my concern is if Kerry falls behind in the polls, Edwards may be more concerned with positioning himself for 2008 than helping Kerry recover.

          Veeps are suppose to be hard hitting truth tellers willing to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the team.  It's hard to picture Edwards performing that service, especially if times get tough.

          Patriotic, flag waving, radical centrist Howard Dean Democrat. Until we stand on principle and lose our fear of defeat we will never win.

          by rusrivman on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:52:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It sounds like you're describing... (4.00 / 4)

            Howard Dean!

            tragically un-hip
            ..- .... --..-- / --- -.- .-.-.-

            -5.88, -6.82

            by Debby on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 11:01:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hardly! (3.71 / 7)

              Dean started busting his butt for Kerry the day after he withdrew, and it pissed off a lot of his supporters!  He told us in no uncertain terms to get over it and get on the Kerry team. (easier for some than others)  No other wannabe this year has busted their butt for Kerry half as hard as Howard Dean.  Most are just busy positioning themselves for VP.  Dean isn't even in the running, and he's busting ass for Kerry.

              Howard Dean is the guy who challenged the others in a debate to promise to support the eventual winner.  While the others waffled, Dean shot his hand straight in the air and has kept that commitment.  I wonder how hard Kerry would be working for Dean now if the roles were reversed.

              Howard Dean has more class, integrity, guts and honor than the rest of them have in their little fingers.

              You Dean haters better prepare yourselves for a looooong bitter hatred, and get used to being wrong.

              Patriotic, flag waving, radical centrist Howard Dean Democrat. Until we stand on principle and lose our fear of defeat we will never win.

              by rusrivman on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 11:24:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I just realized you may have stated (none / 1)

              Howard Dean as a compliment!  I'm sorry, I guess I'm a little worn out by all the Dean bashing of the past six months.

              I apologize if I misunderstood.  :)

              Patriotic, flag waving, radical centrist Howard Dean Democrat. Until we stand on principle and lose our fear of defeat we will never win.

              by rusrivman on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 11:27:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You did misunderstand. (none / 0)

                Watch the hair-trigger there, bucko.

                tragically un-hip
                ..- .... --..-- / --- -.- .-.-.-

                -5.88, -6.82

                by Debby on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 11:35:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  yeah, Debby, sorry (none / 0)

                  with all the trash talk about Dean, I'm sure you understand my flash of anger.  Unlike Howard, I have a temper and the nerves get worn thin.

                  (and you're right - I was describing Howard, though not intentionally.)

                  Patriotic, flag waving, radical centrist Howard Dean Democrat. Until we stand on principle and lose our fear of defeat we will never win.

                  by rusrivman on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 11:56:01 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I was just about to post this (none / 0)

                I think that Debby meant to say that Howard Dean ranks among the "hard hitting truth tellers willing to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the team."

                by abbyv on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 07:21:37 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  agreed (none / 0)

        you want the veep to reduce the tickets unfavorables -to counteract misgivings about the candidate.  someone perceived as resolute, solid to counter washington flip flop meme - not another senator!

        by webfoot on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 09:56:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  EXACTLY!! (none / 0)

      I wanted Howeard Dean.  I wanted a change.  I wanted to take back my party and put some straight talk in the WH.  I didn't get what I wanted.  I'm not going to cry or vote for Nader. I'm sighing, shrugging and voting for Kerry.  I even sent him money once - when Howard asked.  I expect all of the people who think Kerry owes them something or who want someone who won't run next time or who want a choice that for whatever reason makes the Beltway happy to SHUT UP AND GET WITH THE PROGRAM.  If I have to vote for John Kerry, then they can damn well accept an exciting Veep choice with a smile on their faces!

      by RosieNac on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 07:04:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Sighing Won't Help (none / 0)

        I was a Dean supporter, too.  Sighing and holding our noses while we vote for Kerry is not the kind of help that we need to give.  The Democratic Party has chosen its candidate; he is a good and decent man.  He deserves our unqualified support.  It's not just Kerry's reponsibility to beat George Bush--it's all of ours.  How many liberal-minded folks today still blame Al Gore for losing [sic] because of his supposedly "lackluster" campaign?  Let me tell you, the guy was working 16 hours a day for two years to win the election.  And what did we do--besides whine that he wasn't perfect?  

        Don't wake up on Nov. 3 blaming Kerry because he didn't campaign enough in such-and-such state, or because he wasn't liberal enough, or articulate enough, or didn't eat enough pork rinds.  Make sure that you did every damn thing you could to get him elected.  Which means talking him up to your liberal friends and generating enthusiasm about his candidacy.  Do you think that whining helps?

        Howard Dean has shown a lot of class in the way he responded to defeat.  He's kept his eyes on the prize--winning the presidency this year, and building a strong, progressive Democratic Party for the future.  Those of us who supported him should do the same.

        That being said, Howard is not the man for VP.  The only advantage he offers is to fire up a portion of the base, a portion which already should be fired up (see above) and which he will work hard to fire up anyway.  He doesn't pull any new states into our column.

        I could definitely see him in the cabinet, though.  HHS or Surgeon General?  

        by doginfollow on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 11:28:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  VP just doesn't matter that much (none / 0)

      When the goal is winning, the VP just doesn't effect the outcome of the election that much.  I know people like to complain about Lieberman, and I was disappointed with that choice, but I still voted for Gore.  People vote for the president, not the VP.  

      Its fun to speculate but on the list of important factors in determining the election, I don't think VP is anywhere close to the top.

      "They're trying to fool you. They're trying to scare you. And they're not telling you the truth." Obama '08

      by bawbie on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 07:57:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Landrieu and Harmon (4.00 / 3)

    I don't know why Landrieu and Harmon are not getting more attention.  I understand Harmon is no help geographically, but she has a lot of military experience.

    Landrieu on the other hand has defense and intelligence experience, is from a potential battleground state and she would instantly add 10 points in the looks category to the ticket ;).  In fact she may be the only candidate better looking than Edwards.

    by allan on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:34:00 PM PDT

    •  Kerry/Mary in 2004 (none / 1)

      I like that Landrieu gets little mention...makes her a more likely choice in my book. But by that measure Kerry/Ben Wallace could happen as well...

      For lots of Kerry/Landrieu links check the links in this post.

      John McCain

      by joejoejoe on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:43:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Kerry/Mary = Hari/Kiri (none / 0)

        Sorry, couldn't resist.

        -6.38/-6.26 Bush is studiously anti-science, a man of applied ignorance who has undernourished his mind with the empty calories of comfy dogma. - Richard Cohen

        by mofus on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:53:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, I know (none / 1)

          Edwards is a more reasonable choice..after all he has more experience in the Senate, has served in State government as well and has a strong record supporting our Troops, Guard, and Reserve and has cosponsored several pieces of legislation with John Kerry.

          Oh wait...all of this applies to Landrieu and not Edwards! But I guess a women can't be President now in these serious times..because of course women are unserious. Edwards has gravitas because he has testicles!

          Landrieu is a good speaker and attractive..two qualifications that apparently many think are unique to John Edwards. I like John Edwards but he is not the only person in America who speaks well and has a positive story.

          John McCain

          by joejoejoe on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 11:13:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I'm with you on Landrieu (none / 1)

      except that because she's from Louisiana--and I voted for her in 1996--she has to be, by definition, a conservative Democrat. I know the progressive wing of the party is on board for this election, but I'd like to see that continue beyond 2004, and I fear Landrieu might not help in that regard.

      I want to die like my grandfather, peacefully in my sleep, not screaming in terror like his passengers.

      by incertus on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:45:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is a tradeoff (none / 1)

        She is a conservative Democrat, but she is also a woman, which I think will appeal to progressives.  Realistically progressives will have to acknowledge that to get a woman on the ticket, she will have to be conservative.  

        That's just the culture we live in now.  As long as the media spits out GOP talking points ad nauseum we have to play the game...

        by allan on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:55:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Landrieu may be good looking... (none / 0)

      But she's a conservative right wing Dem.  I'd much rather have someone like Rockefeller on the ticket.  I don't want someone whose positions I disagree with, whether female, black, Hispanic, or white.  Shouldn't this liberal blog want a liberal progressive like Rockefeller or Clark or Edwards (or Richardson, but he took himself out)?

      by teenagedallasdeaniac on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 08:09:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Edwards not progressive (none / 0)

        I like Edwards, and I was shocked to find that, since I thought he was so much of an empty vessal at first.

        but he's NOT a progressive liberal in any way shape or form, he's a populist leaning moderate.

        -C.

        by Neutron on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 10:42:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  gep (none / 0)

    I met with a friend of mine who works on the Kerry campaign today and tried to get him to assure me that Gephardt wouldn't be picked as VP.

    According to my pal, the campaign insiders are obsessed with winning Ohio.  He concedes that Missouri probably isn't winnable, but union support in Ohio would be critical.  Picking Gep would be the culmination of this belief.

    Still, there's lots to be said for how comfortable Kerry is with his pick.  Apparently he thinks of Edwards as something of a lightweight and is only giving him consideration because of his primary results and popularity with party insiders.

    When it comes down to it, Kerry is unpredictable.  At the verge of making a well thought-out decision he can be swayed by a last-minute surge of conviction, or, in the case of his buddy Gep, personal comfort.

    by demgoon on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:38:22 PM PDT

    •  Ohio and Unions (none / 0)

      But fer crissake, are the Dems in danger of actually losing the unions with or without Gephardt on the ticket?  Are they going to go Bush if the-man-with-no-eyebrows is not the second banana on the ticket?

      Unbelievable.

      by Bailey on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:50:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not a Chance (none / 0)

        of going against the anti-christ

        ... the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country - when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." - Carl Schurz; Oct. 17, 1899

        by NevDem on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 12:53:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not "losing" (none / 1)

        but there's a big difference if they put a big get-out-the-vote effort behind the campaign or just offer a tepid endorsement.

        Strateg(er)y for Du(DEM)mies

        by daunte on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 02:15:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Bush is a union buster (none / 0)

        and the only success he had in working with any unions, some dirty little deals with Hoffa, Jr., he backed out on.  So the unions are going to be working hard against Bush - they don't need a gift as Veep.  Gep is too boring and brings NOTHING to the ticket.

        I like Clark because he brings the hope of a quick Kosovo-like resolution in Iraq, as well as making the people who think Dems are pansies feel comfortable with the ticket.

        I like Dean because he shores up the left flank and plays the Veep role, of exciting attack dog and fundraiser, to perfection.

        I like Edwards because he brings charm and personality, and the press would probably call him Reaganesque - thus taking away any chance Bush might have (slim already) of taking on that mantle.

        I like Richardson because he wold boost the Latino vote, but he says he won't take it.

        Rockefeller is the only one guaranteed to bring a home swing state, but two patricians are too many.

        Edwards, Clark or Dean.  And I vote Clark.

        by RosieNac on Fri Jun 18, 2004 at 07:16:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  If they want Ohio, the answer is Jerry (none / 1)

      Those campaign insiders probably already know that the best way for Kerry to win Ohio is to pick Jerry Springer as his VP.  Not only would it secure Ohio, it would demonstrate that Kerry can make a bold choice,  bring on board a dynamic teammate who can communicate well on TV and help attract more of the swing bubba vote.

      by finocchio68 on Thu Jun 17, 2004 at 10:58:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]