Unofficial VP audition at Democrats' meeting

Billy House
Republic Washington Bureau
May. 6, 2004 12:00 AM


WASHINGTON - Could John Kerry's eventual vice presidential running mate be attending this week's Democratic Leadership Council convention in Phoenix?

The two most talked-about possibilities, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, are not scheduled to be there.

But three other widely mentioned possibilities have prominent roles in the Friday and Saturday event. Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh is the council chairman and Iowa Gov. Thomas Vilsack and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson are scheduled to be featured speakers.

"This is not an audition for vice president," said Al From, the council's founder and chief executive officer.

more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0506dlc-vp06.html

eom

what the hell are they supposed to - go and kiss From's ring to get his blessings?

I'm sick of the DLC. I'm sure they are trying to push Bayh or some other DINOish dem.

I think it's more interesting who is NOT at the DLC meeting - than who IS.

I would think that DUers would know better than to get worked up whenever they hear the whores lying about what Dems are doing. After all, "Don't believe everything you hear" is an awfully old saying.

As is John Edwards. Clinton and Gore were also.

and I don't really dislike every senator/ representative associated with them. Hell, I think even Dean was associated with them at one point, as was Gore.

I do dislike Al From and his toadies and very much so. I don't trust those guys. I also think they take way too much credit for Clinton's two presidential wins and they've been absolutely dead wrong on this war.

and he's not attending this one.

Dan Schorr said on NPR a year ago that the DLC does not like Edwards because of his anti-Free Trade votes.

I think he will be huge asset to help keep and gain Senate seats in the South. Bayh wouldn't be a problem if he was so much like a Republican, his womens rights views stink and he voted for the Bush Tax cuts, The war, and everything else chimpy proposes. How can he criticize the President?

As I recall it was just Zell and Nelson of Nevada.

Don't judge a person on what they say, judge them on thier actions.

John Edwards voted against Bush MORE THAN ANY OTHER SENATOR, according to the CQ rankings.

Don't you remember Freddie, when Carol Mosley Braun tried to carry Dean's water and attack Edwards' voting record? Edwards just whipped out the info from that newly released study and smacked her right down.

It was one the many memorable moments from the debates.

Kerry/Edwards '04. And beyond...

Lieberman voted liberally 85% in 2002, while Edwards voted liberally only 70% of the time.

http://www.adaction.org/SenateVR2002.htm

But there's no doubt in my mind, from everything I know about both people, Edwards is vastly more liberal than Zell Lieberman. It's not even close.

As Bush is showing right now with his specious ads against Kerry, you can cherry-pick votes and prove anything you want.

Kerry/Edwards "04. And beyond...

Edwards doesn't, by the way.

Edwards has one of the more conservative ratings for a Democratic Senator, but then you have to consider his constituency. He is classified as a Liberal Leaning Populist by Vote Watch, while Gephardt is rated as a Liberal Populist, which makes Gephardt a bit more of a liberal than Edwards.

If you go to

http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm

You find that Edwards and Gephardt have an almost identical voting record, and only have differed on a few issues.

Lieberman is rated as a Moderate Liberal Populist, so they all pretty much fall in the same political boat. An analysis of Lieberman's stance on issues is rather Liberal. His voting record again,is pretty much the same as both Edwards and Gephardt.

senator-pair in the the last senate other than SC, I believe, by the way.

And you have to be careful about trusting organizations assessment on what "liberal" means. Subjectivity plays a part, and they rarely measure EVERY vote, nor do they weigh bills that truly have deep liberal impact more heavily.

And, really, CQ said that Edwards voted against Bush more than any other person running for office (and more than any other Senator, I believe). That's a pretty good meausure, in my mind, of being liberal.

Hell, just listen to his stump speach if you need to know. Who else talks so forecefully about flowing economic power down to the people and then backs it up with his votes?

That his stump speeches reveal that he does not have an indepth knowledge about many of the things he spaks about. His speeches on foreign relations and national security indicate a lack of depth of understandin of the issues, which is to be expected of senator who has not finished one term. And his understanding of deomestiic economic policiy does not seem to be much deeper. Again, he hasnt been around Washinton long enough to really know how things work, to have experience meeting with and speaking with foreign leaders and ambassadors and economists and organizations representing small businesses and so on. No matter how much his supporters like him, and his stupm speeches, talk is one thing, intentions are one thing, and the pragmatics of the situation are something else. This is not to demean Edwards, but in some things experience is a good thing. And a better thing when there is are serious economic, foreign relations, and national security issues facing the next democratic president. Edwards would be a great president in relatively stable times. But like anything, when the the teams both have the same score, the bases are loaded, and it is the last inning, you do not send in someone you just hired out of college. You send in a more experienced player.

Edwards is a good guy, his intentions and his ideas about tow Americas are noble and his intentions are the best. But even this idea is not a new one. Every liberal or progressive knows that America has the largest divide between thr rich and poor out of all of the industrialized nations, the Democrats have been criticising this for a long time,since FDR and before. It is pretty much a stock populist platform. Again, all you need to do is go and check the actual votes:

John Edwards
On the issues>>

http://www.issues2000.org/John_Edwards.htm


Dick Gephardt
(Democrat, district 3)
On the issues>>

http://www.issues2000.org/House/Dick_Gephardt.htm

John Kerry
On the issues>>

http://www.issues2000.org/John_Kerry.htm

And you can even look at Joe Liebermam:

Joseph Lieberman
On the issues>>

http://www.issues2000.org/Joseph_Lieberman.htm

You really find no significant differences in Edwards voting records from any of these guys, and in fact Kerry's lifetime record of voting against legislation desired by republicans is higher than anyone else in Congress but Ted Kennedy, and that may have changed recently.

John Kerry on Budget & Economy

Economy is recovering for corporations to some degree. (Jan 11)
Will follow Clinton's plan to halve deficit in four years. (Oct 2003)
Bush policy kept economy afloat in recession-keep some of it. (Sep 2003)
No excuse for special tax cuts for the rich. (Jun 2003)
Voted NO on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
Voted NO on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)

John Kerry on Welfare & Poverty

Desperate need to build more affordable housing. (Nov 2003)
Ok for government to partner with non-profits & for-profits. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on welfare block grants. (Aug 1996)
Voted YES on eliminating block grants for food stamps. (Jul 1996)
Voted NO on allowing state welfare waivers. (Jul 1996)
Voted YES on welfare overhaul. (Sep 1995)
Finish welfare reform by moving able recipients into jobs. (Aug 2000)


John Edwards on Budget & Economy

Roll back the Bush tax cuts and address real priorities. (Jun 2003)
Voted NO on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000

John Edwards on Welfare & Poverty

We need to talk about 35 million who live in poverty. (Jan 22)
Increase the Earned Income Tax Credit. (Jan 8)
My "Cities Rising" plan is to help urban America. (Oct 2003)


Joseph Lieberman on Budget & Economy


Fact Check: Implies economy not growing-really it grew 8.2%. (Dec 2003)
7.2% GDP growth isn't a recovery without job creation. (Nov 2003)
Prosperity won’t go on automatically; don’t change horses. (Nov 2000)
Democratic administration balanced budget and created growth. (Oct 2000)
$300 billion reserve fund to be insurance policy for surplus. (Oct 2000)
Expensive tax cut for rich will lead to high interest rates. (Oct 2000)
Now: tap Strategic Reserve; long-term: develop 80 mpg cars. (Oct 2000)
New economy will thrive on investment and trained workers. (Aug 2000)
Democrats will expand prosperity, GOP will “squander” it. (Aug 2000)
Fund R&D; cut capital gains tax; ban Internet tax. (Aug 2000)
Priorities are debt reduction and balanced budget. (Aug 2000)
Private sector is the primary engine of economic growth. (Aug 2000)
Booming economy from private sector plus government help. (May 2000)
Biennial budget makes sense, allows better review. (Mar 1999)
Voted NO on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
Voted NO on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)
Balance debt reduction, tax relief, & policy investment. (Jan 2001)

Joseph Lieberman on Welfare & Poverty

Individual Development Accounts for low-income families. (Aug 2000)
Volunteerism is good but government needs professionals. (May 2000)
Enterprise zones spread prosperity to poor cities. (May 2000)
Supported 1996 welfare reform. (Jan 2000)
Voted YES on welfare block grants. (Aug 1996)
Voted YES on eliminating block grants for food stamps. (Jul 1996)
Voted NO on allowing state welfare waivers. (Jul 1996)
Voted YES on welfare overhaul. (Sep 1995)
Finish welfare reform by moving able recipients into jobs. (Aug 2000

Dick Gephardt on Budget & Economy

Return to Clinton economic policy from Bush's failed policy. (Sep 2003)
Healthcare reform is critical to economy. (Sep 2003)
I led 1990s boom-I can get economy moving again. (Sep 2003)
Push a bold plan for health care and jobs creation. (Jun 2003)
Repeal the Bush tax cuts and invest in people. (Jun 2003)
1993 tax increase & sound economics caused budget surplus. (May 2003)
Stakeholder economics: Balance for everyone’s benefit. (Jul 1999)
Top 1% have benefited much more than average worker. (Jul 1999)
People are working harder for same wages. (Aug 1995)


Dick Gephardt on Welfare & Poverty


Voted NO on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients. (Feb 2003)
Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations. (Nov 1999)

These items come from the web site that compares not only the candidates on the issues, but pretty much every major elected political figure from every state in the U.S. They pretty much indicate that the overall actions of the other politicians I have given links for have done at least as much, if not morethan Edwards during their political careers than John Edwards on the issue of the differnce in economic power and the need to create economic equity in the United States. What Edwards suggests is wonderful. He jist is not fighting harder, or suggesting anything more, or has done anything more than the other candidates noted above about the issues.


Edwards is a good Democrat. He came from a poor family, and worked his way up. But so did Dick Gephardt.

Kerry has not only voted against conservatives more oten than any one of these candidates, he has also voted against the desired platform positions and legislative positions of the DLC more than any candidate since the founding of the DLC. HE is amember, but he has disagreed with there position and legislative attempts more frequently than candidates who were not DLC members.

Edwards has also voted against protecting the Social Security trust fund by locking that fund to prevent.


Voted NO on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt. (Apr 1999

but at least he voted against raiding it for tax cuts:

Voted NO on using the Social Security Surplus to fund tax reductions. (Jul 1999)

Gephardt decisions on Social Security:

Don't raise retirement age over 67. (Sep 2003)
Social Security stands between many retirees & poverty. (Jul 1999)
Treat Social Security like insurance; no stock market. (Jul 1999)
Social Security is most successful peacetime program. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable. (May 2001)
Voted NO on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000)
Voted YES on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)


And regarding other issued, such as free trade, Gephardt has a bit up on both Edwards and Kerry in some ways:

Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)
Voted NO on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998)


Overall, if you check the actual votes, you I think it will appear that CQ was exagerating its claims for Edwards, or making the statement from a certain slant.

Again. Edwards is a great guy, good senator, I think he would make a great Attorney General, thats for certain, but many Democratic leaders beleive that Gephardtwould be the best and safest choice for Kerry to make for the VP slot, as a VP is a very differnt political creature than a President or a presidential candidate. Some of the very characteristics that allowed Edwards to do so well as a presidential candidate and caused Gephardt to crap out are the characteristics that make for a good and effective Vice President.

Gephardt's negative campaigning against Dean were rally responsible for a lot of his losses. But Gephardt could make an attack dog for Kerry who would be very effective in attacking Bush, in the same way Bush is using Cheney to attack Kerry, without the attacks having significant effects on the presidential candidate.

Gephardts attacks on Dean were very very effective in knoocking Dean out of the race for Kerry.

ranking systems is that they require subjective measures of liberalism, maybe. I don't really know.

But why don't you apply your considerable efforts to finding that CQ report, and we'll discuss its methodology.

I don't know if Gephardt took out Dean. I think Dean was inflated by the media because there was no way he could beat Bush. Most voters caught on when it came down to making a decision among the candidates.

I'd think that if Gephardt were responsible for that, then Gephardt would have done better.

I'm also not sure if being a hitman whom voters don't like is a great resume for the VP.

What really took out Dean was that almost 70% of the voters thought Kerry and Edwards were better candidates. Since Kerry got the nomination, it seems to make sense to pair up with Edwards, rather than someone who did worse than Dean.

or scoring points with ADA?

I have no idea what the ADA thinks is liberal, but I've read some DU'ers who think that voting for Al Damato over Chuck Schumer is liberal because the HRC thinks so.

I think voting against Bush is probably an incredibyl reliable measure of my kind of liberalism.

Lieberman's Scorecards

ADA ACLU AFS LCV CON ITIC NTU COC ACU NTLC CHC
1999 75 57 83 86 87 100 16 33 20 9 15
2000 95 - 100 100 - 8 47 0 0 - -

KEY

ADA – Americans for Democratic Action
ACLU – American Civil Liberties Union
AFS – American Federation of State County & Municipal Employees
LCV – League of Conservation Voters
CON – Concord Coalition
ITIC – Information Technology Industry Council
NTU – National Taxpayers Union
COC – Chamber of Commerce of the United States
ACU – American Conservative Union
NTLC – National Tax-Limitation Committee
CHC – Christian Coalition


Edwards’s Score Card

ADA ACLU AFS LCV CON ITIC NTU COC ACU NTLC CHC
2000 85 67 85 100 88 90 21 40 12 9 15
1999 90 - 100 78 92 - 15 41 8 - -


KEY

ADA – Americans for Democratic Action
ACLU – American Civil Liberties Union
AFS – American Federation of State County & Municipal Employees
LCV – League of Conservation Voters
CON – Concord Coalition
ITIC – Information Technology Industry Council
NTU – National Taxpayers Union
COC – Chamber of Commerce of the United States
ACU – American Conservative Union
NTLC – National Tax-Limitation Committee
CHC – Christian Coalition


Not a significant difference...

When you check there voting records:

http://www.issues2000.org/Joseph_Lieberman.htm


http://www.issues2000.org/John_Edwards.htm

You will see little differnce between Edwards and Lieberman on most issues, except a few, such as locking the Social Security Trust fund, which Edwards opposed, and Liebermam supported.

They usually pick about ten bills or less and come up with a measure narrowly tailored to their special interest.

I know Lieberman is a whore for the insurance industry. I know that Edwards votes to protect the value of labor.

I know which of those two profiles is liberal and which is conservative.

they disliked him because of his critical stance on NAFTA.

To have the people that they intend to select as running mate to keep a very low profile prior to selecting them, so looking at thins indicates that either Clark or Gephardt are highest on the list to be selected and that those who are publicly most active are more likely candidates for cabinet positions.

I mean who the hell knew who Dan Quayle was before he was selected.

This race started earlier than any other, more money is being spent - this is an election on steroids.

"...so looking at thins indicates that either Clark or Gephardt are highest on the list to be selected and that those who are publicly most active are more likely candidates for cabinet positions. "

Or maybe not. Hate to disagree with you, but I don't think the past has been prologue for much of anything during this election cycle. We'll see. It's very exciting.

:hi:

They are already spending months trying to smear Kerry's record in the military and downplay the severity of Kerry's injuries for geetting the Purple Heart. Do you really think that they will balk at contininually attacking one of those trial lawyers who is driving pthe cost of medical malpractice insurance and auto insurance and everything else. For month after month. And unlike Kerry, who did serve, cannot be denied, all Repukes can do is downplay the positive elements of Kerrys service. Edwards WAS a trial lawyer, and that does carry baggage. A lot of it. Among other unknowns that Edwards will be attacked on. Edwards brings literally nothing and no one to the camapaign that can provide a large base of support for campaigning. Gephardt brings a great deal of prior political support, a great deal. Vilsack actually can bring more to Kerry than Edwards.


One key elements of campaigining and in particular Republican campaigning is to follow Hitlers dictum that "The bigger the lie, the more people will beleive it" and that repeating a lie often enough will end up with the lie becoming the truth in the minds of the majority of the public who will not bother to look into it for themselves. Gephardt, on the other hand, is a very well known quantity, he has run for the presidency, and the attacks against him will be known quantities as well.

Kerry and Edwards kicked Gep's *ss in IOWA. Kerry needs to bring some excitement to his ticket. He needs Edwards' star quality, his unparalleled campaigning skills, his Southern appeal, and his populism.

Gephardt is a fine man, but if Kerry names him, it will be met with a big fat yawn - from now until November. Kerry will already have Labor (which didn't do much for Gep in Iowa), and can always name Gep as Secretary of Labor, which I think would be perfect for him.

John Edwards won his Senate race smacking down that Rethug attack on his being a trial lawyer. He RELISHES the opportunity to fight this election within that paradigm: HE's the guy who's been taking on the BIG NASTY CORPORATIONS - you know, the ones getting all the tax breaks and privileges, while sending jobs oversees.

Edwards' battles for the little guy against corporations also complements Kerry's years of investigating criminal operations in the Senate.

Nick. Edwards brings NOTHING? Come on, surely you JEST!!!

Edwards brings energy, charisma, likeability, great campaign skills, fantastic fund-raising, a visceral populism that will counter Kerry's "Brahmin" background. John Edwards puts the SOUTH in play, and his populism will have strong appeal in the Midwest. And having watched him making the case for Kerry lately, I think Edwards is the best advoctate for Kerry I have seen yet.

And Democrats want Edwards on the ticket, as shown by every poll being done - except here on DU :)

All that said, I do trust Kerry to make a good decision, and pick the very best person to help us win the election.

:toast:

tip the balance for Kerry in a number of industrial and highly unionized states where up until the last few weeks, were rated as totally and completely "blue" but which have slipped into "too close to tell"
states. In Michigan , Kerry was in a double digit leads against Bush for several months. Same thing in Iowa, where Kerry had double digit leads. While Gephardt did not do well in Iowa, his political connections and in particular ability to garner a great deal of union support throught the rust belt. Gephardt still packs a lot of power with those people,no one else does. Same thing with Tom Vilsack, relatively unknown outside of his arena, but a major player in the Mid-west.Kerry had a ten point lead in Iowa a month ago, now Kerry is one poinr ahead of BUsh there. In Michigan, a ten point lean, now down to three, Kerry was way behind Bush in Missouri double digit leads, is still 7 points behind him, but Gephardt could easily naarrow that gap in his own state. Wisconsin is a virtual tie between Kerry and Bush, but Gephardt or Vilsack are relative home boys there,
Ohio is another state that Gephardt would have considerably more pull in than either Clark or Gephardt with the heavily unionized worker base there.

Clark cannot deliver this, nor can Edwards. Edwards did well in Wisconsin, but with heavy, heavy campaigning, a state that such an expenditure of time, money and effort should have gone to him,did not.

A charismatic vice president is not someone you want. Someone like Gephardt is a far more traditional choice. A running mate with a lot of political connections is what you want. A strong personality in a vice president detracts from the main candidate

Look at every VP for the last couple of presidencies. Gore, not exactly a charismatic character, Dan Quayle a power broker only despised among Idaho Republicans and this only for his spelling,
I cant even remember Jimmy Carters VP, Walter Mondale, not exactly an exciting guy, how about Reagans George Herbert Walkser Bush. Lets go back to Spiro Agnew and Gerry Ford. Then how about Hubert Humphrey.

Even Lyndon Johnson was not exactly considered a sparking personality, but selected by JFK for his being a major power broker.

Thats why you choose a running mate. Neither Edwards, with less than one full term in office, or Clark with no full terms in office, can offer any of the baseline power that a presidential candidate needs to secure a regional base. And aside from connections, political running mates are chosen to secure a needed region by presidential candidates. Kerry will have an easier time pullin the midwest and rust belt from Bush than the south. And Kerry is raising enough money to seriouslt compete with Bush's spending if he confines it to a region with a large population and a large electoral vote base. That is not something Edwards can deliver, or Clark.

Vilsack may be able to, but Gephardt will be able to do this for certain.

Just don't see Gep bringing one additional vote that Kerry won't already have.

THat Gephardt can give a boost in. Edwards simply doesnt have the ability to influence any voted outside of North and South Carolina.

Gepardt was a representative, and therefore does not necessarily guarantee all of Missouri, but the favorite so factor is frequently very strong.

All Edwards really brings is personality, He has no political history, few political connections, and fewer people representing traditionally Democratic Organizations to heavily canvas for Kerry.

Look at what happened to Dean in Iowa. Though a number of unions supported him, Kerry took most a larger percentage of Union Families followed by Gephardt.

It was Gephardt who convinced the Unions to drop Dean and move over to Kerry.

Dean was FINISHED after Iowa - and EVERYBODY KNEW IT - including the idiot labor boards who fell for the mirage.

So you say Gep could pull Mo - even though he's never won statewide.
You concede Edward could pull NC, maybe SC - okay we're already doing better than Gep.

Look how well Edwards did in Ohio. Kerry has already hired his press secretary, Jennifer Palmieri to run the Ohio press operation. That could be a portent.

Nick, every single poll of Democrats picks Edwards for VP. All the politicos - from Clinton on down have recognized his extraordinary campaigning skills. And he is a proven fundraiser.

Kerry has been losing numbers everywhere - as the result of the 50 million dollar slander campaign against him last month, and his campaign's slow post primary start.

Kerry is now hitting the ground running, hitting the airwaves, and will be hitting his stride. These numbers are turning.

Picking Gephardt to me shows a desperation, a lack of confidence in holding onto votes that should be in the bank. Picking Edwards says Kerry is going for Southern states, going for the Midwest - going for an exciting, energized team - and victory.

But every polls showed that Dean was going to defeat everyone else by a vast margin. So much for popularity. This is pretty much the first election and campaign in which anyone has even suggested that a candidate select his running mate based on popularity. Doing so is probably the worse thing possible, and the best thing possible is to do so based on strategic camaigning, rather than popularity. It will be nearly impossible for Edwards to do what he MUST do for Kerry if he is the nominee. And that is to ti the balance of states in the regions that thhis candidate comes from in favor of Kerry,. Edwards is very unlikely to bring even more than a few states to Kerry. The south is almost firmly in Bush's hands except for two states. Florida and Arkansas, and Kerry is close enough to win those on his own. Bush is far enough ahead in Edwards own state for it ti be a difficult enough battle for Edwards to try to bring support for Kerry up a few points in North Carolina, which outside of Arkansas and Florida, is one of the closer races for Kerry in the south. That is a seven point difference. For what? 15 electoral votes if he can swing it. It is essential for Kerry to make sure he wins the electoral college as well as the popular vote. Will Edwards deliver the midwest. Kerry does not need a candidate to get him popular nationally. He is alreasdy doing well on his own in this area. He needs to capture electoral votes. And he needs them in relatively large states with large populations. Right now Bush has large double digits in the following states: Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Louisiana, Texas,Oklahoma, Kansas. North Carolina is in the pink, leaning towards Bush, West Virginia, leaning towards Bush, Missouri leaning towards Bush, Arizona and COlorado Leaning towards Bush.

Kerry is clearly ahead, double digit in two states with the largest number of electoral votes, New York and California. He also has Minnesota, Connecticut,Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont,New Jersey, and Maine. firm. Maryland and Illinois leaning towards Kerry. Both lean towards Kerry rather strongly.

Lets now look at the states too close to call...Iowa,Michigan,Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont,Arkansas,Florida,New Mexico, Washington State and Oregon. Now which of these states does Edwards have the political pull, the political power, and the political connections to make a campaign work in favor of Kerry. Only Arkansas falls within the region for Edwards to make a difference in this now battleground state. National polls are only reliable to a degree, and popularity is not something that assists a VP. Vice presidents have virtually always been selected for ability to swing close states in a region, or for some other strategic value. Edwards is still as relatively an unknown factor as Kerry is. Kerry is not running biographical commercials for fun. It is because the voters who are going to make this election, those who are undecided still do not know much more than Kerry's name. How much more so is this true for Edwards. Kerry does not need someone who is popular among democrats who have already decided to vote for him anyway, and who are the same people who want Edwards to be his running mate. Kerry neds someone with the political power and friendship of people who people do know, and respect. Gephardt can and dies have friends and political allies who ARE known quantities to people in those states which are in the midwest, and the rust belt, and who are trusted and respected. Even if they do not know Gephardt, they will know and listen to the people who DO know and support Gephardt through years of political support and friendships. In the political arena, there are few people on the Democratic side who dislike Gephardt, anyone Gephardt gets to go to work and go to work hard for a Kerry/Gephardt ticket will do so and they will be people known to the people who have not made up their minds. Edwards does not have these connsctions in the battleground areas, and the areas in which Edwards does have such connections are relativelt limited, not likely to be long term political conections and friendships, and far more tenuous. And far more of a longshot for Edwards to deleiver. Gephardt is one of the most liked and respected politicians in Congress, and he has the kind of people who woud work for him who are well known and respoected locally who can make a case for Kerry that Edwards cannot muster.

... by the media because they knew he couldn't beat Bush.

That Edwards rose nearly to the top in that landscape tells a great deal.

And yes, this is a popularity contest, and Dean ultimately didn't prove as popular with the voters when they were forced think seriously about the issues, and Kerry did. Most notably, the more people discovered about Edwards, the more they liked him.

And if Edwards isn't going to bring anything for Kerry, I don't think anyone will (and I think the stink of Gephardt's mediocrity could actual damage Kerry).

I also think it's crazy to write off the south completely. If Bush doesn't have to spend in the south, then he might be able to find a way to spend enough to be competitive in, say, CA.

Furthermore, maybe Kerry should be thinking about what he can do for us too. He picks Edwards, he's going to win, and he's going to guarantee we have another 8 years of bliss when he's done. He picks Gep, he picks our next Al Gore -- someone who doesn't guarantee a victory when Kerry is done.

As for Gep's connections with labor, labor is (1) crazy not to work for Kerry no matter whom he picks, and (2) labor is crazy not to embrace Edwards's message and skills. If they want results, it's time to cut ties with Gephardt who brought Democrats nothing but failure for the last 12 years, and embrace someone who has to politicals skills to deliver results for labor. That would be Edwards.

That Kerry should not select as his strategy to win, that is the South. Not that he should ignore it, but he has only regularly visited the one state that he is fluctuating in a lead in. That is Florida. How many times has he visitied Alabama or Tennessee, where Bush has nearly 20 point leads on him. Not often. How often has he visited the Midwest and the West. quite a few more times. Again, lets look at past vice presidential choices. Virtually all of them were long time politicians who had years of service, and years with the party, and years of forming political friendships both near their own home base, and outside of it. All of the people selected for VP were people who had been around for a considerable number of years, and almost all served to deliver as many states as possible within their political home base. And very few were the type of popular figures that those who support Edwards think is needed for Kerry to win.

Again, whoever Kerry selects absolutely MUST be able to deliver several states basesd on their own ability to deliver, not based on the fact that they have a personality. Edwards Must deliver states in the South that Kerry cannot win. And that is going to be a far far more difficult task for Edwards to grab anything from an additional 7 points to 19 point in any number of southern states. Whereas Gephardt only has to give Kerry a two or three percent boost in several states to put Kerry over Bush in those states, and in a few others to give Kerry a knockout vote in them. Name one Democratic Vice President who was selected on the base of their dynamic personality, good looks and charm in the 20th century. It didnt happen and history suggests that is is not going to. This election is one of the most critical in our lifetime, but the natire of the political process has not changed all that much. The same things that have won in the past are going to win in the future. Lyndon Johnson wasntselected for his good looks, his charm, or his sparkling personality. He won because he was a power broker who could deleiver Texas. Look at any other VP over the last 50 year and you will find the same factors were involved. Gephardt has the correct profile for a VP selection, not Edwards.

a single race recently which they've turned since 2000. But you know which race they did turn out for? The turned out in MI for Gore-Lieberman. Psst. GORE-LIEBERMAN. Gore dissed the unions and he picked an insurance industry whore as his running mate, and they still turned out.

Gore had to go out of his way to piss of the unions in WV to get them uninterested. So, Kerry can pick Edwards, and the unions better damn well better meet or exceed their 2000 effort in MI. And, so long as Kerry doesn't send his wife in his place to any WV labor events so that he can attend an environment event somewhere else, he'll do fine in WV even if he, oh, say, picks Lieberman as his running mate.

...of charisma. It did give the ticket youthful energy. People didn't start calling Gore wooden until 96, afaict.

Dole picked Kemp to win Erie County? Nope. He picked him for his youthful energy, and to get the football fans.

Bush picked Quayle for his youthful energy.

Carter picked Mondale because he was throwing a bone to the liberal wing of the party.

Reagan picked Bush for the same reason Kennedy picked Johnson: because they had to. Their VPs were the REAL power in their party. Reagain got shot at within months. Kennedy didn't finish his term. Don't pick the real power in the party to be your VP. Go with youthful charisma instead.

I don't know if VPs mattered the way they do today before '60, thanks to TV.

Because Quayle was the largest money raiser in the history of the Republican Party. Only reason.

Vice Presidents chosen for their straight teeth and handsome boyish looks...Spiro Agnew, Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, the list goes on, the gave up promising careers as movie stars and top models for a life in government sevice....Fabio and Brad Pitt look out.

Besides, the pundits have all pretty much stated that Gephardt would be the safest choice for Kerry to make, for many of the reasons I mentioned:

Gephardt, 63, is the former House Minority leader who began the Democratic race as a favorite to win Iowa's caucuses. He finished fourth behind Kerry, Edwards and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.

Many Democratic strategists consider Gephardt the safest choice -- a man whose life and career has been open to scrutiny for years. He is a favorite of organized labor, a disciplined campaigner and his home state, with 11 electoral votes and bellwether reputation, is critical in the White House race.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/04/28/politics1608EDT0696.DTL

There are some who feel that Edwards is a good choice, but the vast majority of party strategists favor Gephardt.

One thing is clear, Kerry is not going to reveal his choice anytime soon, in order to avoid the problems Gore faced when he revealed his top three possibles way ahead of time and then was pressed to make his final choice. Kerry and Edwards were two of those three finalists. Gore used the strategy that I have cited over and over again here for selecting a VP, and ended up selecting, not the Edwards, with the personality, youthful boyish charm, nor Kerry, with his years of experience ,but who was controversial becauseof his anti Vietnam stance, but he eneded up choosing who, charismatic Joe Lieberman. And won the popular vote by doing so.

By the way, Joe was actually a good campaigner in 2000. He was very funny.

But Gore picked him for two reasons: to win FL, and to create a "moral" ticket.

carried Texas and just enough states to end up with a brokered convention if he didnt get something he wanted. Johnson couldnt win, but he didnt want to give up without a fight...

Robert Kennedy viewed LBJ as a conniving politician who hypocritically accepted the second-place position on the Democratic ticket after secretly trying to wrest the first-place nomination from John Kennedy despite a public announcement that he did not intend to run for the presidency.


http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2082/is_1_62/ai_57874187

IN the first and only ballot at the 1960 convention, Johnson recieved the support of only 409 delegates, but was commited to wage a war against a Kennedy nomination and try to prevent Kennedy from winning, even though Johnson had already decided that he had no intention of running at that point.

Kennedy received 806 votes, so one can see that Johnson stood a fair chance of being able to wrangle enough support from the many political allies he had in order to make it difficult, or even impossible for Kennedy to win the nomination. Kennedy, astute politician that he was, selected Johnson as his running mate in order to put the issue to rest.

Johnson and Kennedy were frequently on opposing sides of many issues, and on a personal level Johnson viewed the Kennedies as spoiled rich kids, and the Kennedies viewed Johnson as an uncouth redneck clod.

Johnson was the typical Southern Democrat. A rather conservative Democrat who did not approve of the Liberal Democratic ideas of the Eastern Liberal Kennedies.

But Johnson was a power broker, one of the most powerful men in Congress, with a rather good deal of support gained during his terms in Congress.

This is not too unlike Gephardts position, though he is of a differnt nature than Johnson. There isnt one Democrat in COngress who has anything bad to say about Gephardt, and rather than having the kind of enemies that Johnson had, Gephardt is rather well liked, which is why is was fairly easy for Nancy Pelosi to get a good number of Congressmen to endorse Gephardt in a very short period of time.

Gephardt began 2004 with more endorsements than any of his opponents, ans as a VP running mate, would have still have significant support from many memeber of the House, most of who can use their poliical influence to canvas for a Kerry/Gephardt ticket in their districts.

He isn't running for re-election to the Senate because he can't win.

And, that is no lie.

was great in NC.

And Bowles is probably going to win that seat.

and a great deal of conviction.

Those can be assets, especially when they're embodied in the person of politician like Edwards.

I should note that I have great respect for Gephardt. When I saw a list of names running for President before I saw any of them in action, my vote went to Gephardt right away.

However, then I heard them and I knew their plans. I crossed both Dean and Gephardt off the list as soon as they stated that they would repeal all of Bush's tax cuts. I knew that issue alone would guarantee loosing in Nov.

Then when Gephardt when on with his "Miserable failure" line, I just cringed. Add to his, he always talked about the past and not the future. He always talked about Clinton days and what he did when Clinton was President. But I wanted to know about the future and not the past.

Dean supporters want change. Independents would like someone who is not almost a icon of the Democratic party. I think we need to hold onto the Dean Supporters and reach out to the independents and swing republicans. I don't see Gephardt as being about to reach those groups. His experience would be better used in the cabinet position.

I think that either Clark or Edwards would be better choices to reach out to those voters then Gephardt.

The good old days.

I don't doubt that NicholasJ's old cronies in the dem party want Gephardt.

You're right though. It's time to look to the future, rather than backwards.

B-)

trying to compete with the Clinton in looks and Hillary in the Lawyer field

Quayle's political connections enabled him to raise more money than any single figure in Republican party history.

Robert Redford.

Get over Clark. He's a war criminal who is the butcher of Kosovo.

Clark had no problem with land mines, DU munitions, cluster bombing civilian targets, etc. Using thesse weapons are crimes against humanity.

http://www.zpub.com/un/clark.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/cohen09172003.html

Clark is no Smedley Butler who has repudiated his being an enforcer for the Corporate mobsters and profiteers. When Clark publicly says "War is just a racket." then and only then should any self-respecting Democrat support him.

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0911-Racket.html

No self-respecting Democrat uses Counterpunch as its source... The rest is just pure B.S.

No self respecting person would ignore Clark's crimes against humanity.

The intervention in Bosnia was justified, the only mistake made is that the West intervened too late. Kosovo was also justified. Take it from a person who grew up in a neighboring country and knows what was going on.

James Bissett: In 1990 he was appointed Canadian Ambassador to Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania. He therefore witnessed at first hand the Yugoslav tragedy to which he attributes much of the blame to Western diplomatic blundering and deliberate scheming. He was recalled from Yugoslavia in the summer of 1992.

***********
http://www.deltax.net/bissett/a-200years-2.htm

As the Canadian Ambassador to Yugoslavia I was a first hand witness to the events that led to the break up of the nation. I also was a witness to the duplicity, the lies, the misinformation and hypocrisy that characterized the behavior of the intervening powers. This subversion of the truth and hypocrisy continues today.

There are few people in the United States or Canada who do not believe that everything that went wrong in Yugoslav was the responsibility of Slobodan Milosevic and Serbia, that it was Milosevic’s dream of a ‘Greater Serbia” that started the violence and the ethnic cleansing. They also believe the lie that it was Serbian genocide in Kosovo that forced NATO to intervene in a humanitarian effort to save the Albanian Kosovars.

***********



http://www.deltax.net/bissett/a-iraq.htm

All of our political leaders, the mainstream media and most of Canada’s intellectual elite, endorsed the bombing of Yugoslavia. They chose to ignore that it was done without UN approval. There was little or no concern that the bombing signalled the first major rupture of the international security framework constructed by the founders of the United Nations. Few worried that Kosovo might set a precedent that would serve to make similar interventions easier and acceptable provided the intervention could be cloaked in humanitarian terms.

Scheesh!! What a huge load of bullcrap. :eyes:

I know better. Personally.

but that does not make you right. In my eyes Clark, Holbrook and Clinton has much more credibility than the Canadian ex-ambassador. Let's just agree to disagree on this without further personal attacks.

Yeah, I believe a Canadian ex-ambassador over anybody any day... As long as he's saying what I want to hear. Or cut and paste.

:bounce: :hi:

Where Clark was preparing to board a Russian Ship which he beleived had Serbians on it, and just about started a conflagration with Russia that was so tense that DEFCON alerts were raised in case the Russian started firing nukes if we boarded the ship. Clinton had to order Clarks to stand down on that one, plus a few incidents in which missiles were ordered fired on passenger trains, but I dont really call them war crimes, as during that fog of war, lots of mistakes occur.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

:-)

It just wouldn't be the news media, otherwise.

"This is not an audition for vice president,"

Then you know it is.