If it's Gephardt, we are DOOMED

Kevin Drum (Calpundit) is reporting the appalling news that Kerry insiders are leaning toward Gephardt for the Veep slot.

The bland leading the bland. Oh god, please no. Please let Kerry be smarter than that. He already has the "Senator-itis" vulnerable spot in spades. Never use one word where fifty could say less. But pleeeeeeeease let him be smarter than this. Oh the gods could not hate us that much could they? Pleeeeeeeease say it's not so.

edit: can't type when I'm pissed off. And oh GOD am I pissed off that they would even trial-balloon this.

No!

No doubt about it, putting Gephardt on the ticket is a sure sign Kerry wants to lose.

People have Gephardt for President burnout. He's run and lost so many times he's kind of like the NY Mets of presidential races.

Kerry needs somebody relatively inexperienced with a fresh face to guard against his image of being a "lifelong politician." Gephardt is certainly NOT that guy. Edwards? Richardson? Clarke? Sure, but not Gephardt.

edited for spelling

Kerry campaign letting it out and see how the Dem's respond. I'm negative too - he's too bland for me too.

I agree ... a big NO on Gephardt. Great man, but not great on this ticket.

...we must communicate in every way possible that the answer is

NNNNNOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

is pretty clear evdience of incompetence. Are these guys really this out of touch?

they're not even sure if this is a rumor?

we just as well put Holy Joe back on the ticket. Better yet, let's dig up Dukakis. If they don't have someone like Clark or Edwards in the veep slot, the fix is in.

It's just gotta be Edwards, in my opinion. We need a passionate veep candidate, out fighting a second front, keeping it positive, intelligent, and on-topic.

I would yawn my way through a Kerry-Gephardt ticket. Kerry's bad enough, as it is.

"I was reading DU and it mentioned a rumor that Gephardt might be picked for the VP slot. We will lose if you do that."

Kerry is already back to his ho-hum self. A sad sack. I thought he had changed. Well, he had changed for about 3 weeks. Now he's all sad and boring again. Oh how I miss Dean. I miss Dean so much. I miss him. I really, really miss him. AND I am afraid that he will pick Gephart too. What will I do if that happens?

My gosh, I miss Dean too. Very, very, verrrrryyy much. :cry:

It might be wrong. But it's true.

Gephardt .......hmmm. A stronger speaker than I would have thought. He would be loyal rather than striking out on his own.

Yah. There are pluses but I'm still not at all sold.

however, Gephardt is very, very popular in the Midwest. In the Ohio polls (until he dropped, obviously) he was way ahead of everyone else.

At our caucus,next to Dean, he had the largest number there (including a lot of kinda scary-looking teamsters).

eileen from OH

nononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononoNO!!!

be better choices in IMHO in the battle of the border states+Ohio.

PREFERABLY not a Senator, although we have two good ones: Edwards and Graham. Two REALLY good ones.

I wish they'd let it slip that Gephardt is gonna be Secretary of Labor or some such intriguingly intelligent and well-reasoned positioning.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

can't stand the idea. It's a loser. Big time.

and a way of garnering support.

NOT.

What is your real problem with him?

...on the ticket.

Sorry. It's an emotional reaction. Know what elections are decided on? Emotion.

Gephardt is the most boring Dem since Mondale. Who I also think is a fine guy.

It's about losing. Okay? I don't want to lose.

wouldn't want to hurt my party's chances of winning this fall. Which is just what Gephardt would do. He'll be great in a cabinet-level position, some one mentioned Sec. of Labor, great.

If they run Gephardt, you might as well stay home because the Democratic Party would stand no chance whatsoever.

without losing a lot of other states. Kerry needs Clark or Edwards or Gore(who is NOT boring!)

then Clark can be Sec of State and Edwards can be Attorney General

Not Gephardt!!! That combo WILL put the country to sleep! If Kerry does that then sadly we DESERVE to lose!

if that be the case they can kiss this democrat goodbye----have voted a straight democratic ticket since 1984----do not intend to pull any lever with gephardt name anywhere on the ticket

John McCain?

and Gephardt got Dean kicked out so maybe Kerry owes him?

And they wonder why people vote Green!

www.johnkerry.com and tell them not to choose Gep if their lives depended on it.

...then we must shoot it down as rapidly as possible.

Look. How about choosing somebody who--how can I put this--actually ran in the money during the primaries? I mean, Gephardt didn't even make it to square one. And it isn't the first time he's tried either.

Give him some cabinet position. But for the love of god, NOT the Veep!!! That would be stupid of Kerry.

Can you think of any other adjectives for such a choice?

Could anyone seriously portray it as anything but a craven choice? "Bold" may be too much to expect. But "craven," or even "cautious" will NOT do it.

Kerry has to show himself as decisive, positive, leaderly, creative.

Do any of those adjectives apply to such a choice? I rest my case.

ahahhaa, nevermind, that's out of the conceivable realm of most here.

minds packed like parachutes, but never intended for use, uh huh.

Happy landing,
dp

Edwards
Clark
Grahamn

Anyone, but Geppy!

i still insist a backdoor deal was made just before the iowa caucuses...

that's my story and i'm stickin' with it.

I might have to work for Nader if they pick Gephardt because Nader will be the only chance left to defeat Bush.

Picking Gephardt would eb akin to throwing in the towel, IMO. It's a guaranteed win for the Republicans. Zell Miller would be a better choice.

not Gephardt ...

Gephardt would bring some midwesterners along ... he would bring along some unions ... he would bring along a number of centrist dems ...

and he would bring along a disaster ...

Gephardt is a very high risk choice ... yes, he's an experienced campaigner ... yes, he has lots of name recognition ...

the problem with Gephardt is that not only is he a "Washington insider", but he's also from the Congress ... I also would be very concerned that the heated struggle in Iowa between Dean and Gephardt could cause Deanies to stay home ...

Gephardt would be a disaster ... it would be very hard to generate any real enthusiasm for that ticket ... would I vote for them, of course ... but selecting Gephardt would make it very hard to get out there and do what needs to be done ... let's hope this is just another baseless rumor ...

I've narrowed my Veep picks down to two: Vilsack because he's a midwestern Governor and Edwards because he's a popular pick even though i don't see him helping at all in the South ...

He took the hit on the Osama ad and the Dems behind it owe him big time.

On the other hand it would be a disaster as far as personal appeal is concerned. It would give us not just one but two candidates without an iota of charisma.

I don`t have to look charisma up in the dictionary. To know that dog poop has more charisma than this court appointed bunch of murderers.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

There are too many nibbles in the water, so that's my take on it. He is figuring with the (phoney or not) drop in polls that he won't do well in the Southland even with a Southern gentleman. Maybe he thinks a midwesterner can help in MO, Indiana, and Ohio. I wouldn't Gep being on the ticket, I doubt he'd hurt Kerry's chances. Might help. I guess at this point I am getting kind of sick of all the floating vp's, and don't really care who he picks. I mean, even McCain wouldn't bother me so much at this point. It seems clear he won't pick anybody who is a risk, and that would include a woman candidate. However, I think a female vp would be just the thing that would energize people to vote. It'd be something different, it would automatically give him lots of free press, and it would signal a real change from politics as usual. I'm not faulting Kerry for being cautious and looking at it from all angles. But I'm way over who he picks. Just aint happenin'.

Ewwwwww. I see Gephardt and the albino from the Goldie Hawn movie "Foul Play" pops into my head.

I think picking Gep would be a mistake. Good guy, but BORING.

He also failed to lead in 2002, didn't do (what I felt was his job as the most visible, senior Dem in Congress) what was necessary to develop and put out a message for the Dems.

I also don't think Gep can guarantee Missouri. He'd bring his home congressional district, along with the St. Louis City/North County district, but those are already pretty solid for the Dems. I question his appeal in rural areas.

Kerry has a tendency to be boring on occasion. We don't need a repeat of 2000, with Stiff and Boring on the ticket. Kerry has to loosen back up again, and pick a dynamic running mate.

He needs to pick a shaker. Someone that would shake up the base and the indies. Clarke maybe? Edwards would be a good one. Al Franken comes to mind........

Dick Clarke already stated under oath he would not accept a position with Kerry.

Gephardt is a nice enough guy but NO CHARISMA!

They have to take into account that leaders need to be charismatic. That's just the way it is.

I'm pulling for Wes Clark but there are dozens of better choices than Gephardt.

With all due respect, Kerry/Gephardt would be a snoozer of a ticket. We need a real firebrand on the ticket and I think that Rep. Gephardt just isn't that person. I have met him several times (especially when he ran before for President) and one-on-one he's great. Remembered everyone's name at a cocktail party I attended with 80 people--no exaggeration--and he is a tireless campaigner. I know someone that worked on his campaign for re-election and its nothing for him to go 18-20 hours on jus a sandwich. Unfortunately, he comes across as very wooden on TV.

If he picks Gephardt, I'm making sure my passport is valid, because a 2nd Bush term is pretty much guaranteed... :puke:

Ugh!!

My only hope is an acceptable VP choice. Without that I doubt I'll be able to bring myself to muster any excitement about this election.

Choose one who makes up for your weak points Kerry. Someone with personality would be good, a little sparkle, even better--tho' scary for the DLC masters.

Julie

Tell these yuppies and yuppie-wannbe Dean/Clark supporters what is what!

:dem:

... Gephardt speak eloquently - I agree with you on that. What I have not seen is a real sense of fight in him. I think he has "gone along" way too much.

I have to assume that if they are considering him, it is because they think he can deliver some key states or constituenciies.

I hope they are doing the math or something, because on its face this does not sound like what the ticket needs to me.

when the House of "Representatives" voted on overtime legislation. He has a history of not being present for many votes. I guess that's so he doesn't have to explain his position to his corporate backers.

I think choosing Gephardt would be a grave mistake for John Kerry.

Gephardt stood alongside Bush in 2002 when he voted to support the IWR.

From what I have seen. (my husband is a machinist) Kerry has no lock on the union vote here in Michigan. While union leaders might be playing footsie with him right now, union employees don't have the habit of listening or following the instructions on mass mailings.

Gephardt could be the very thing that would swing union workers into the Kerry camp. Just my analysis. :hi:

We need to make sure we get back Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnestoa, Michigan AND we desperately need either Ohio or Missouri. This is where Gep is strong in these union places. Very strong. And has a whole web of a political machine out there. We don't need to appeal to NY or CA or others; they respond to the fact that a Dem is running against Bush, period. Forget about the South---really--we might change a few thousand minds but that's a dent in these bastions of the repukes. So why drag a Southerner around with us?? Sure it's boring. But Cheney isn't exactly the reason people light up and vote repuke either. It's actually a real tactical move.

This election will be all about voter turnout, and the Unions have the history and infrastructure to do just that.

Yeah Gep is boring, although not as bad as people hear seem to think.
He does very well on the stump and in debates. Don't forget his classic "miserable failure" was one of the highlights of the primary debates.

Boring will not make DU'ers (myself included) happy. But what do we know. It would be Clark or Dean with the nomination if we were accurately gauging the electorate.

Of the major Democratic candidates, I preferred Gephardt over Kerry. Republicans talk about how Kerry is wealthy, a Massachusetts liberal and so forth. Gephardt's father was a Teamster, he is a Midwesterner who looks, talks and acts like a Midwesterner. And he stood up to Clinton, who idiotically signed NAFTA. For me personally, his links to labor, and his stances like going against NAFTA are what endears him to me. It is important to me that the Democrat have strong ties to labor, and of the major candidates, Gephardt had the strongest.

I live in New York City, and among progressive people I know, Kerry getting wounded in Vietnam, or Gephardt being a church-going, plain spoken Midwesterner might not count for much. But in the battelground states this election (the Midwest mostly), I think it counts for a lot more. And for me personally, I have a lot more faith in the AFL-CIO rank-and-file than I do in the Democratic party rank and file. After all, the AFL-CIO rank and file can have a wildcat strike if need be. There is no such equivalent with the Democratic party, except perhaps a violent revolution.

We can find someone with more fire who would bring in the union vote.

And whoever Kerry chooses as a running mate, his opponent will be Dick Fucking Cheney, who is universally despised. It's not like you'd have to be a rock star to be more popular than Cheney.

He has NO following outside of St. Louis. Even in St. Louis he isn't that popular. He's spent so many years being a poor (mediocre at best) minority leader, that he's basically ignored his constituency for the past ten years.

Gephardt was a great leader and has solid backing - especially in this state.

Gephardt utterly failed as Minority Leader. He never developed a cohesive strategy for taking back the House.

I really don't think he would win Missouri for us.

In the last poll (Sep 2003) Bush led Gephardt in Missouri by 10 percent!

http://komu.com/html/htmlFall2003/missouripoll091003.html

Tell John Kerry, as a voter, what you think of that potential pick...

and he obliterated some really good competition in the primary. So it's not all about excitement.

Then again, Gep lost early, but the general election is very different. A lot of this election is going to be about credibility, and Gep is totally credible.

Gep vs. Cheney is a really good contrast, too. The debate would be awesome.

is folks seem to forget to do the compare and contrast to the opposing candidate.

Bush isn't boring, he isn't interesting, he is simply awkwardly inarticulate.

More importantly Bush is simplistic in his answers. Perhaps to some swing voters that seemed a little appealing after the eloquence of Clinton that some (pushed by the right) seemed to find - slick through big words. But the luster of "simple spoken" has long worn off.

This may be the first time in a long time where intellectual and in control of the issues - but perhaps bland - is sought as desirable (as in someone competent and able to get us out of all of the messes the simpleton drug us into.)

Geppy is a populist, in a way. So bring up the GEP as VP!

That, in itself, says it all to me. :eyes:

Democrats should let the Kerry campaign know that our responses are "No! No! and No!"
If he does it's sure death for the Democrats.

Is Kerry truely intentionally thinking of solidifying
the presidency to Bush?

If he is.......Just say hello to the new Socialist America to come
there after!!!

People are just not going to stand for this!!!

I might even prefer thAT stupid McCain idea!!

C'mon, Kerry! Don't fucking do this!! Can't Kennedy speak up! We should make the biggest stink possible about this! This is really Kerry's ticket to LOSING this thing - and WE CANNOT ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN!!

:spank:
:puke:
:crazy:
:argh:
:mad:

Even though I am not sure that Gephardt would make the best choice, whomever Sen. Kerry picks I will support for VP.

I can't imagine this would even be suggested!

Soemone send this thread to the Kerry Campaign!

Please NONONONONONONONONO!

Almost as bad a choice as Liebermann in 2000.

Hate to bring up Primary hate again, but the Deaniacs that were hardcore are reaching to support Kerry. You bring Gephardt in, I think they're gone. I'm ABB/hardcore Deaniac, but I'm one of the few I think.

"Two statues in search of pedestals"

........Kerry had better wake up to the fact that the Progressives are tired of being taken for granted.....I am not knocking Gephart because I feel that he has fought the good fight for all of us however his Rose Garden appearance(capitulation) in support of Bushs war fetish signaled defeat for the Dems in 2002.....His actions pulled the rug out from under the efforts to expose the profiteering madness of the GOP and its use of premptive invasion for POLITICAL CAPITAL.....Kucinich led the effort in the House to reverse the momentum and for that alone he deserves to be VP or a cabinet level appointee......I do not expect this to happen....Maybe Tom Harkin?

:cry:

This is 2004 folks!


With all due respect to a very fine and respectable politician,
Gephardt is not the one for VP in this century.

I don't believe that Kerry would be that stupid.
This one is not even worth a trial balloon.