How do we let the Kerry camp know that Gep is a bad choice?

Like many here (and on just about every other liberal blog/discussion board out there), I feel choosing Gephardt would be disasterous. It may be true he has a relatively populist/protectionist tone, which Kerry understandbly wants to exploit in this election.

However, if that's the concern Edwards would be much better. He too sounds a populist theme, but is MUCH more enthusiastic. He showed it in the primaries. People like him. He's charismatic and one of the best campaigners in our party.

Anyone have an email address to someone that might read such a mail in the Kerry camp?I will send an email to them later today. I urge others to this as well. Gep has run twice and failed miserably. Didn't he also have a part in the mess that was the 2002 midterm election?

We can't afford to take a gamble just because Gep is "experienced" as a politician. He very likely won't even bring in his home state. There is a reason he HASN'T run for statewide office. He had to have his district redrawn just to keep that. He's served honorably in the house for many years, but I really don't think he would be a good choice for VP.

To choose a schmuck like Gephard.

Did I miss a headline? I agree that Edwards would be much better--much more animated, to say the least.

Add Al Qaida, 9/11, prescription drugs to that list...to play out. He might make better use of a veep choice who speaks to particular issues. Who knows, in a few months, Howard Dean might actually be the best choice.

her husband joe wilson has been on kerry's team for a long time now.

1. He would deliver Missouri. Edwards would have trouble deliving NC IMHO. Missouri is a swing state with a significant number of electoral votes and would be a real plum for the Dems.

2. Labor--could Dick prevent "Reagan Democrats" from voting for Bush? That could happen--there are union and nonunion workers who swing to the GOPs for reasons that I don't understand. Dick has a worthy union record (anti-NAFTA), but I don't think it meant squat in Iowa.

3. Security? I think that is JK's selling point, so he needs scant backup. I never got a real strong security angle from Dick's speeches.

4. Health Care? That was Dr. Dean's issue. All the other eight or nine Dem candidates were about as worthy as Dick on this one, with Dennis and Howard being a bit ahead.

5. Dick sells in the South--polls show Dick is received positively in the South (ironically, Edwards has positives in the Midwest).

6. Environment--fill in the blank

7. Minorities that are swing votes such as Asian, Mexican, Arab, Puerto Rican, East European, etc.--fill in the blank

Take it from here. I'm listening.

edit: I made a whole 'nuther thread out of this a whole nuther thread

WHY is he "worse" than anyone else? I don't understand the negative tone about him. Clue me in please. Maybe I can get a better handle on this if I understood why he is a pariah, as thought by some.

for starters. He's boring as hell. He did terrible twice running on the national stage -- and got beat pretty badly by Edwards, in a state he had to win.

Plus, the power of unions isn't exactly what it was once. It's true he may help in MI, WV, and PA, but outside of those states I just don't see an appeal (and to be honest I really don't see Kerry losing those two states).

He has an aura of "has been" around him. I don't really dislike him in any way (I can even forgive him for IWR), but he just doesn't have the enthusiastic support Edwards has.

slow "show me state" way of speaking. However, it still doesn't answer my puzzlement of why folks speak ill of him so often.

I don't have any real understanding of why he has done any worse than any other dem....except maybe zell miller or lieberman (lol) Except for Kucinich, most of the dems voted in one way or another for going to Iraq. NONE of the Dems, including Clinton, ever got that pesky ole' healthcare issue off the ground in all this time either.

I like Gephardt, what I know of him that is, for being a regular guy. I like that he has "been there" in terms of coming from humble beginnings. I am a Union Member so support Gephardt's support of the working class/blue collar workers. If there is something else I don't know about him, please inform me because I'm not so proud that I can't change my mind on something. Thanks

But never has any luck with Presidential races. He is IMO a presidential looser. People know him as the guy who never wins a Presidential primary, a token candidate.

first of all, his campaign people check du so they see the suggestions people make. but just because some people on du don't like gephardt because they think he is boring or whatever reason doesn't mean he wont be appealing to many others and actually help win. and winning is what kerry wants and if gephardt helps him do it there is no reason not to pick him.

It's not JUST DU. Check out a few other political blogs and the comments on those sites. It's just as negative. Gephardt just doesn't excite anyone (though it's probably a step up from Lieberman).

does not represent all voters. mostly it's those who are the most partisan. there is a whole world out there where people don't pay attention to things as much as we do and some might buy into kerry is too elitist and liberal thing and they see gephardt as appealing because he comes from a working class background and his wife's name is jane. they don't care about exciting as we do. they see gep as a good guy who understands them. these are the voters kerry needs help in getting support from. not the people who complimented kerry for "liars and crooks" comment.

I sure hope you're right. I personally don't really hate him. I just think we can do better.

I actually like the man but I think his place will be doing what he loves best, protecting America's workers, did someone say Labor secretary, he is retiring from the house, I think he will be Labor secretary. He does appeal to some others I agree, my grandfather supported him in the primaries because of his committment to workers and labor, now I admit hes not my favorite speaker, but I like him. Of course I would prefer others but I would rather have Gephardt than say Breaux who is thrown around as a name, Gep may seem like a conservative dem but given his background, hes quite liberal, Breaux on the other hand who we all know is conservative but after Miller one of the most conservative dems, he's prolly not a bad man, but I dont want him to be VP, Id prefer Gep as labor secretary honest.

gephardt is not my personal favorite choice, but that does not make him a bad vp choice as some on here think.

for him.

that's why I see things differently from younger voters? I don't know if he would make a good VP either but I was just wondering why so many seem to loathe him. As far as I can tell, he seems like a gentle and sensible person. At least he has more spunk than Sen. Daschle lol ........though Daschle has "perked" up a bit lately.

Yes, Geppie is much more Liberal than some who've run or could be picked as VP. I like that he was anti-nafta and all that crap.

I dont know why so many loathe him as well.

Gephardt is a logical choice to some parts of the country, but not to those parts where the constituency is openly oblivious to the WHOLE Truth, and perpetuate lies easily because jesusinheaven's against killing fetus, and killing families, livelihoods, cultures, natural habitats and ecosystems is good for the "Economy".

Who's economy? What economy?
Burn all oil as much as possible?
No conservation measures?

Carter's energy conservation measures brought homes to a new level of comfort, cleanliness, vapor-free high-efficidency electric heating and A/C, plus better toasters n' ovens. CAFE brought US cars to world standards, after much foot-dragging.


The foot-dragging goes on:
Hybrid, NOT Hydrogen technology should not have been a too-difficult question to answer. Hybrid, not Hydrogen. It's obvious.

GM knows this, but lets us believe Fuel Cells are better and 'implicitly' steal research subsidy money, to impede progress, to favor obsolete mobility technologies, and to promote futuristic, but entirely impractical wahzoo technologies like Fuel Cell cars, computerized stearing insanity, computer maps that still get people lost.

Or are computer maps just another way of saying, "Oh, you're scary, mister I don't know you, oh damn how do I get to somewhere, oh thanks, you're nice afterall, I'm so sorry. Scary world outside 'our' SUVs, ya know, mister, uh, bye mister,.."

He is an economic populist, or at least as close as we are going to find, this side of Dennis Kucinich. He had a pretty good healthcare plan when he ran for POTUS earlier this year.

The reason he is not seen as exciting here on DU and elsewhere is because his political philosophy is not well received by those rich people who own and run the media, and they control how people here on DU see the presidential candidates. The DUers who complain about The Gepster being "dull" are being played by the media just like any malleable freeper....

His track record says he is not appealing as a presidential candidate. How many times must he run in the primaries and loose?

in exhange for his support in Iowa. The deal's done and Kerry's not going to let Gephardt down.

I'm sure whomever picked, Kerry will base his decision on more than political payback.

Gephardt would lose needed support if his only aim at the VP shot was ambition.

Gephardt is a normal guy, considerate Moderate, pro-business investment economics. The internet revolution is in full swing,

despite Oil Industry interests' economic development in:

Gas Hogs and Oil War, Rape Environment, Energy Policy

----BUSH----NOT SAFER----NOT STRONGER----

Kerry is where he is due to back room deals, and Gep as VP is part of the deal. So I'm glad you like him. I'll never vote for a ticket with him on it, but that's just me.

he's not under any illusions that Gep is an Internet favorite.

...he did poorly in the primaries- this is what- his 3rd time losing?

Its not just DUers & internet politicos who have this response to Dick...

I like the guy- but VP? No way...

is to let Kerry know that DU doesn't like him. So far, DU's predictive capacity has left something to be desired.

every decision Kerry has ever made has been for his career only, why would it change overnight?

eom

making a bad decision in his career (possibly leading to a presidential defeat) help serve Kerry's career in any way?

to the ticket, other than maybe making Kerry seem charismatic by comparison. His contribution in Iowa was to get into a pissing contest with Dean that brought them both down. His leadership in the House was uninspiring. He has the aura of a pol whose time has passed. Edwards would be fine. A woman, a black or a hispanic would be even better. Putting Gephardt on the ticket shows a failure of imagination.

He is young, from the south, considered an "outsider", and he was strong in the primaries. He is the clear choice.

Gep is just kinda stale as far as Presidential races go. He quickly goes nowhere and why should Kerry risk getting caught up in that.

:hi:

Thanks for the welcome.

Keep up to good work.

Jonathon Kohn wrote a piece in the New Republic called "See Dick Run" Here is my response to his arguments:
Kohn: Geography- Gephardt has a geographic advantage over Edwards because Democrats have better prospects in the Midwest than South.

Response: Picking a candidate solely on the assumption that he/she will carry home state or have appeal in neighboring states is a mistake. Gore lost TN in 2000. Gephardt lost in IA, his own backyard, this year. In the age of national media, home state advantage isn't what it used to be. Furthermore, there are many closely contested states this year. We need a ticket with appeal to swing voters in all of the battleground states. Edwards demonstrated his appeal to disaffected Republicans and Independents in states like WI. Edwards finished ahead of Gephardt in IA. By making some of the Southern states contestable, Edwards forces Bush to spend time and resources there.

Kohn: Gephardt has a loyal labor base.

Response: Labor will be with us this year regardless of Kerry's running mate. The only substantive difference between Gephardt and Edwards here is the China vote. However, we can't really use this as a selling point because Kerry voted for China agreement. Furthermore, Gephart's labor constituency didn't demonstrate much loyalty to him in the primaries.

Kohn: Gephardt's somewhat more conservative social positions (Gephart voted for ban on partial birth abortions) will help us in the Midwest.

Response: To win a Senate seat in North Carolina as a Democrat, Edwards must be socially conservative enough to appeal in the Midwest. Besides Nader is running, Gephardt's vote to ban partial birth abortion could hurt us with potential Nader voters.

Kohn: Gephardt speaks language of blue collar workers in the Midwest.

Response: As someone who has worked in a mill himself,Edwards speaks it too. As I've already pointed out Edwards beat Gephart in IA.

Kohn: Gephardt is a better attack dog than Edwards.

Response: Gephardt is a clumsy attack dog. He hurt himself more than any of his rivals with his negative attacks in IA. Calling Bush a "miserable failure" won't help us in the general election. That kind of language turns off swing voters, allows Bush to dismiss our criticisms as attack politics as usual, and puts us in the position of defending ourselves. Edwards is an attack dog whose bite is worse than his bark. From his experience as a wildly successful plaintiff's attorney, Edwards knows how to attack Bush/Cheney's credibility withour damaging ours in the process. Edwards didn't win his trials by calling the defnedent's names. We won't win this election by name-calling. Edwards is the most qualified running mate to make our case against Bush/Cheney.

Kohn: Gephardt's political liabilities are well-known and he's overcome them in many elections in the past.

Response: Gephardt's liabilities make the Republican lines of attack against Kerry doubly effective. How many tax increases do you think Kerry/Gephardt have voted for in their 50+ years in Congress? How many contradictory positions have Kerry/Gephardt taken on issues during their long careers as insider Washington politicians? How much special interest money have Kerry/Gephardt taken and how many favors have they done for unpopular constituents? (This really hurts with potential Nader voters because it blurs the difference between Democrats and Republicans.)

Furthermore, Gephardt voted for the 87 billion in Iraq. Kerry didn't. This adds fule to the fire of Kerry as flip-flopper. Kerry is going to have a tough time explaining some of his "nuanced" positions on Iraq. Failure to reconcile Gephart's and Kerry's votes could be a serious blow to the crdibility of Kerry/Gephart.

Edwards, on the other hand, has a short voting record that, much to Edwards' chagrin during the primaries, is almost identical to Kerry's. Kerry/Edwards could present a unified position on Iraq.

Kohn: Gephardt has more experience and stature than Edwards. This would help Gephardt against Cheney and make Gehart a better vice-president or president if something happened to Kerry.

Response: Our main line of attack against Bush/Cheney is not going to be that they lack experience. If we are going to win, we need to successfully attack their record and their credibility and present our own competing vision for the future of this country. Edwards can do this better than anyone. Furthermore, Edwards has more foreign policy experience than Carter, Reagan, or Clinton when they were elected President. Edwards and Kerry were each beating Bush by about 10 points in recent national polls. This would not be the case if people didn't perceive Edwards to be qualified.

Choosing a vice-president is about shaping the image of Kerry in the public's mind. We need a vp whose close linkage to Kerry improves Kerry's brand and we need a vp who can effectively sell the Kerry package. Edwards is that man. Kerry/Edwards would be a ticket of optimism, change, and energy. Edwards is the best campaigner in our party today, he connects with voters and can sell them on Kerry. Kerry/Gephardt would be a ticket of old-style politics and Washington insiders.

Sometimes, the obvious choice is also the best choice. Please, please Senator Kerry and Democratic establishment, let's win this one. We would be crazy to pass up Edwards.

Edwards as VP, we win, make Gep labor secretary and make Eliott Spitzer AG.

be one hell of a cabinet! i really would like for the vp to be either edwards or clark...

If we contact him enough, he'll have to listen. Gephardt also voted for NAFTA and won't help Kerry where he needs it most.

At least with Gephardt they can't expose him as a phony populist.

“ Edwards, who comes from a state where banking is big business, played a critical role in brokering legislation to allow banks to sell mutual funds and insurance, and to engage in other speculative ventures. This law, worth hundreds of billions to the banks, blasted a gigantic hole in the Glass-Steagal banking law’s firewall of protections designed to prevent the kinds of bank collapses that marked the Great Depression of the ’30s — meaning that it put the money of Joe Six-Pack depositors at risk.” (A Populist Make-Over Meet John Edwards, the Corporate Man, http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan04/Ireland0129.htm