Vice Presidential Preference: Of the six considered, who do you prefer?

Tracking Results on Democratic Underground

Name of Candidate.........................5/12*...5/13**
Sen. Evan Bayh (Indiana)....................N/A.......2%
Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark (Arkansas).69%.....70%
Sen. John R. Edwards (North Carolina)...20%.....23%
Rep. Richard Gephardt (Missouri)............4%......1%
Sen. Bob Graham (Florida).....................3%......3%
Gov. Thomas J. Vilsack (Iowa)...............3%......2%


*Sample size: 116 votes
**Sample size: 122 votes
Margin of Error: +/- 3%

Man, I'm starting to think I'd love to see that!

i saw him in an interview recently and while you can tell he isn't as knowledgable on many issues, especially foreign policy issues as kerry is. he gave answers such as "if john kerry were president we wouldn't be having this problem or things would be better with kerry". those weren't the exact words but it was similar but much better sounding. and when in the end most vote based on president i think edwards being able to talk up kerry in a very positive and effective way would bring a lot to the ticket.

...Clark, but a little birdie keeps saying "watch Mary Landrieu, watch Mary Landrieu,...."

ANYBODY is better than smirk/sneer!

And nobody wants him considered as veep?

Not saying that I want him personally, but why isn't he in the poll, and where are Kucinich's supporters?

No Howard Dean? Maybe a big "YEEAARRGGHHH!!!!!" is just what Kery's campaign needs...

And Gephardt? Come on...

I don't know why the person who made this poll didn't include him.

In truth, I'd rather have Graham, but I think Clark would bring in more votes, so I had to go with him.

Kerry does not have the moxie to pick someone as principled as DK. At least, Graham and Clark had the cojones to oppose this disasterous, corrupt war. I have a very favorable impression of Gov. Tom Vilsack..
I want Dennis Kucinich as head of the progressive caucus, so he can again align a majority of House Democrats against any lousy Kerry bad trade deal..possibly even a military draft.... And convince House Democrats to block any lousy Kerry Medical plan, that would stick us all in HMO's and the insurance tycoons still denying us needed medical procedures.Dennis has his work cut out for him no matter who is president.
The choice of Bayh would cause me to get very lethargic during this campaign.Bayh,- why not go for Zell Miller or John McCain..One way to maybe get 3% of the Republican vote.

Clark would add some needed passion, and he is a great combo of intelligent war critic and mainstreal liberal.

My dread fear is that Kerry will pick some whitebread corporatist DLC centrist like Richardson or Bayh. If so it will be the real turning of the buttcheeks to the liberal base, and will probably add at least tw percentage points to Nader.

What I am hearing from the media is that people are going to vote against Bush because of his record and for Kerry because he is the other person on the ballot. Now if that is how we will win then to get as many of those votes as possible I want Clark on the ticket. Also I think that Kerry/Clark can win back the support of the rest of the world and find a just solution to the war. Domestically if we get universal health care and job creation and deficit reduction and protection for social security and Medicare that's even better.

I am seriously hoping that it's going to be one of these two gentlemen.

I really think Clark's abilities are better suited to SOS. I'd love him for that role. I like Edwards for VP because we can plan for the future with Edwards becoming President in 8 years.

we are now voting for president 2005-2012. I'll be happy to vote for Edwards in 2012...unless Clark runs for President. Edwards would have the knowledge and experience by then...but he isn't ready now.

How about a Kerry/Clark ticket till 2012?
a Clark/Edwards ticket till 2020?
Or an Edwards/???? 2012-2020...if Clark feels our country is headed in the right direction and he can take a much deserved retirement.

I would also like to see Clark as SOS, but I think he/we can take better advantage of his Military knowledge if he were VP...especially if Kerry gives him that authority.

Just curious what position you see Edwards in that he will get the Experience that he needs for 2012?

Some say AG, but the problem is Edwards hasn't practiced law for 5 years or so. I think Kerry will want someone who is current on the up to date changes and what is going on. Someone who is in practice now.

Clark is perfect for the SOS. But I still don't see how his military knowledge is of more of an use as VP? Or would it be more of a use as Sec. of State? Do you want to see him speaking to the UN or would you rather have him out doing fundraisers for Democratic Senate and House and Governors?

What surprises me on this board, is that Elliot Spitzer (sp.?)is rarely mentioned. I think he is just about perfect.

Edwards is too valuable to not have him in a position where he can be seen and heard, but I haven't yet figured out what position. He wouldn't be very visible in Ted Olsen's job, I forget what that position is called. There's gotta be a perfect place for him. He is certainly a viable candidate for whatever job he wants. I just think the VP slot is too important in this climate to not have someone who can handle the presidency with aplomb in case it is necessary, and for that General Clark has the gravitas.

Why is Clark, who has never served in elected office and is amatuer to politics ready now, but not Edwards who has spent six years in the Senate? I think the support for Clark on this board gets fanatical sometimes.

If people really want Clark to speak to other nations and help to change their image of the US, why in the world would you want him as VP?

Was it Chaney or Powell who spoke before the United Nations? Is it Chaney or Powell, who is first to get on the phone and work out the diplomatic matters.

The fact is that Edwards has the experience to do the fund raising and deal with the Senate and all that stuff that has been be sorted out behind closed doors in the Senate and House.

Why would you waste Clark's ability in an area that I don't even think he would enjoy doing. Everyone talks about his Foreign Policy experience. Then place him in a spot where his foreign policy experience will pay off... Sec. of State

...I think from an ethical and principled standpoint this should be changed. The democratic party has enjoyed full support from the minority communities. So where's the love? The last woman was Geraldine....are we also saying there are no women available? And I don't mean Hillary, she shouldn't get the spot just because she married a president. Seriously, I'm thinking this has got to change, and not sometime in the future.

What female and/or non-white contenders do you think would be a good match on this ticket?

this is just another election.

This is probably the most important election in the relatively short history of this country, so all you who're calling for a woman and/or person of color on the ticket,

you find me a woman and/or person of color who has Wes Clark's national security bona fides, as well as his looks, charisma and proven abilities as a rainmaker, and this woman will eat her entire hat collection (and as a blue-eyed redhead in the scorching southwest, I can assure you said collection is at 25 and counting).

about the greed god Wesley Clark. He really doesn't add much to the ticket. He can't ensure Dems win Arkansas since he doesn't have roots there. Kerry already has national security bona fides so Clark isn't needed for that. Clark is a good speaker but there are many, many better speakers out there. Clark has no record or experience in elected office and used to speak at Republican fundraisers so we don't really know where he stands on the issues.

There are many woman and people of color who would add more to the ticket and give Kerry a better chance of winning than Clark. IMO, John Lewis, Bill Richardson or Carol Mosely-Braun would all do more to help Kerry win the Clark.

A "greed god" doesn't spend 38 years working for peanuts. And Clark's experience over the last 30+ years is totally different from Kerry's, complements it quite well actually. Legistlative vs. excutive. Kerry couldn't do better than to have Clark on his team.

The rest is just slander. Same ol' crap, debunked a thousand times. Clark is doing great work for Kerry and will continue to. As his VP nominee or not. I'm guessing as.

But the Land of Lincoln is Illinois. Were you born there?

but always pined for the West, so I spent the next 20 years in L.A. and have lived in New Mexico since '91.

Kerry needs someone to compliment his personality, and Edwards does exactly that. He connects on a personal level (as opposed to Kerry's slightly long-winded style), and not only that, but, as a lawyer, Edwards knows how to take on Cheney. Cheney is an extremely intelligent man. Kerry's VP is going to have to know how to verbally spar with Cheney- and I know for a fact that Edwards knows how to do exactly that- with precision AND style.

Look, the point is this: Edwards is a lawyer. He's knows how to philosophize succinctly, and has verbal control, where Kerry is too verbose and longwinded.

Edwards is clearly the right answer. I like Clark, too, but piling on the military experience isn't the way to win this election. I'm not even an Edwards supporter, I'm a Dean supporter.

So, there. :P

a positive message and Edwards has a good connection with the people.

Because I registered only yesterday. But fwiw, my choice is Edwards.

I think Clark would be a credit to Kerry's cabinet, but I think he's better suited to be either Secretary of Defense or Director of Homeland Security.

This is probably the most important election of our lifetimes, but if any of you think the struggle would end on November 2, you have another thing coming. We have to be prepared to fight this thing for awhile.

History shows us that if Kerry wins the election, his Vice-President will eventually be the Democratic Party's standard-bearer. The last Vice-President on a successful Democratic ticket who did not later run for President as the Democratic nominee was Alben Barkley in 1948. In that regard, the primaries showed that Edwards would be a much better Presidential candidate than Clark.

I'm sure there will be another thread at some point with the options between Clark and Edwards. You can vote then. In the meantime, feel free to post in any of the threads here.

That would be conditional on his changing his own stance, of course.
I voted for Clark, but there are a lot of other principled Democrats who voted against the war that he could pick..if he had any courage. Alas, that doesn't seem to be his strong suit.

He is such a talented orator... I wonder if Kerry's people might be concerned about him sucking all the oxygen out of the top of the ticket?

-MR

he and Kerry have been very closely allied in recent months, and Cleland would bring some very interesting qualities to the ticket. There's a lot of anger among many veterans at the way Cleland's name and reputation has been smeared recently by the Repug attack machine.

In fact, it is unknown because this is not a random sample - or even a close approximation.

With that out of the way, I vote for Edwards.