How many agree that there aren't really any good midwestern vp choices?

[Bombtrack]

Often when I get rebuffed about thinking Graham is the best vp choice, I get told that it's dumb to put all eggs or even try on Florida, and that we need to focus on Ohio and/or the midwest instead or something to that effect.

Me saying that I beleive Graham would be the best choice isn't a belief that Ohio and Missouri are not prime targets and defending the midwestern blue swingstates is not necessary. But a big part of it has to do with the fact that basically, there aren't any all-around good choices from the midwest, and the one's who get talked about(Bayh, Gephardt, Vilsack,) have hugely less of a liklihood of giving as much of a boost in any 20-30 electoral votes worth of states as Graham would in FLorida, in addition to other non-FLorida reasons I think Graham is a strong choice. Such as being able to reassess our needs politically in 4 years and chose a different vp(as Graham would be likely to retire). Such as Grahams obvious dislike for Cheney and how that wraps in to his superior preparedness for the debate against him. He 1- Was the ranking dem on intelligence, 2-voted against the Iraq resolution, 3-And knows his shit on domestic policy just as well as he does foriegn policy. And he's been the best in the senate with regard to voting acountablity and is therefor most dependable in my opinion in having the fairest election possible. In Florida, Ohio, everywhere.

Not to mention his humble likability would contrast with our framing of Cheney as evil/suspicious.

I'm getting off topic, so let me say there are other good choices for VP in my opinion. Landriue and Edwards are extremely likely to add alot to Kerry of what he could clearly use in my opinion. I just beleive it's dumb to use "we need to focus on the midwest instead" as a critism of my vp choice when people don't offer any vp's with any garentee or even liklihood of really boosting our midwest chances because there is really noone that stands out as having that. I know that more people support Clark for vp than any other candidate, basically because he had the most "for president" supporters than anyone(including myself) and although many of the people using the critism I'm talking about in this thread against me are Clark supporters, I don't want this thread to be about that logic/back-and-forth. I'm pretty sure most people have heard both sides of the argument about Clark for vp. This thread is targeted at what I believe is the hypocracy and innanity of something directed at me alot, that my choice is putting all our eggs in one basket, and that my choice somehow doesn't try or isn't suited for the midwest.

[HFishbine]

1. Harkin?

He'd do.

[Bombtrack]

3. I really don't think that he's in consideration.

We shouldn't risk another senate seat if we don't have to. The only sitting, non-lameduck senator I think should be considered is Landriu.

I used to think that having 2 Catholics on the ticket would be a bad thing. But I realized that above all the "group dujours" people say are key to elections(soccer moms, nascar dads, single women between x age and x age, office park dads) the only 2 really acurate and meaningful ones were white catholics and independants. And I think she really would help signifigantly in both, in addition to the obvious women vote.

I do not think LA is a swingstate for Kerry. But it would be worth it none theless

[Kahuna]

2. We need a VP that will appeal to more than just his home state..

If that's your reason for wanting Graham, I don't think it's a good one. Florida is too iffy. If you think that Graham will be appealing in other states I believe that's a better reason for supporting him.

[Bombtrack]

4. Oh my freaking god. DID YOU EVEN READ MY POST

I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU COULD READ IT AND SAY THAT. IT'S ENTIRELY ABOUT THAT. IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT FLORIDA FOR GRAHAM.

"in addition to other non-FLorida reasons I think Graham is a strong choice. Such as being able to reassess our needs politically in 4 years and chose a different vp(as Graham would be likely to retire). Such as Grahams obvious dislike for Cheney and how that wraps in to his superior preparedness for the debate against him. He 1- Was the ranking dem on intelligence, 2-voted against the Iraq resolution, 3-And knows his shit on domestic policy just as well as he does foriegn policy. And he's been the best in the senate with regard to voting acountablity and is therefor most dependable in my opinion in having the fairest election possible. In Florida, Ohio, everywhere.

Not to mention his humble likability would contrast with our framing of Cheney as evil/suspicious."

[nickinSTL]

6. Graham/midwest

I haven't been that impressed with Graham.

Not that he isn't necessarily a good guy, with good ideas and popularity. I don't really know much about him. He came off in the early running for the nom. as, well...kind of boring. Not what we need, I don't think.

That said, I agree with you on the midwest. I keep hearing people mention Gephardt, and it worries me. Gephardt's a nice guy, I'd have no trouble voting for him, but I don't think he'd help the ticket much. He IS boring, for the most part. He failed to lead the Democrats in 2002, when it seems to me it was his time. Also, I don't know if he could even carry Missouri. He's popular enough in his own Congressional district, but out in rural Missouri, I don't know.

[Bombtrack]

8. Al Gore was "boring" but he had the dependability to help us win Tenn

for Clinton twice. I think we can depend on Graham giving us a boost in several ways. Both in the debate, and more than anyone on the electoral map.

[BootinUp]

17. I guess I wouldn't give

too much credit to Gore for Tenn in '92 and '96. Clinton likely had just as much to do with it.

[LDS Jock]

44. Gore didn't win it for himself though

If he had, we wouldn't be stuck with bush right now. I think Clinton had more to do with Tennessee both wins than Gore did.

[DemPopulist]

47. I really disagree

Tennessee was trending Repub long before 2000. I think Gore's presence on the ticket is really the only reason Clinton won the state in '96 (when it was 48%-46% over Dole). Without Gore, it would've probably joined Georgia in flipping from Clinton in '92 to Dole. By 2000, Gore and the Democrats had too many image problems over tobacco, guns, and the Monica scandal to overcome, especially against another Southerner.

[Kahuna]

13. Did you read mine?

:shrug: Concentrate!

[democratreformed]

5. I have to admit

that I am not knowledgable enough about the choices to say whether or not we have any in the midwest (or anywhere else for that matter). That's mostly why I stay out of the VP discussions except to defend Wes Clark from attacks on his character and integrity (Yes, the still go on here frequently). Basically, because of my political inexperience and lack of knowledge, I am choosing to trust our nominee to make the best possible choice for a running mate.

As far as Wes Clark goes, I am extremely proud of his actions. I feel that he is doing everything he can to help the Democrats in this election. Frankly, I do not know if he would be a good VP choice (but I certainly would not be disappointed if he were chosen). All that I wish for as far as Wes Clark goes, is that he would gain respect within the party for what he is doing.

[Bombtrack]

7. For me, it just makes so much more sense for Clark do have a non-political

job. National Security Advisor, Secretary of State, maybe CIA director. Those issues have been the focus of his life. The top of the list of what Kerry needs most for the choice of what most gives him a chance of winning in a vp does not include war-heroics or overwhelming foriegn policy expertise. Would that be a bad thing for a vp to have? Of course not, but he needs other dependable things first. He's said himself that the presedential candidate should be the one who can best do the job and the vp should more be someone who can best beat Bush.

To me there is just more to rely on polically from others than Clark, and there is more to gain from Clark doing the day to day of what he's best at after we win, which is foriegn policy more than politics

[democratreformed]

9. Yes, I have read that opinion as stated by many others.

Like I said, I am not knowledgable enough to form my own opinion. I guess I just don't care enough to educate myself at this point.

I am just thankful to each and every person who makes a case AGAINST Clark as VP WITHOUT repeating the old attacks and misconceptions that were used during his campaign.

I don't recall you ever posting anything negative against Clark personally and I thank you for that.

Now, with that said, what do you think of Blanch Lincoln being mentioned as a possiblility? I find that idea ludicrous. Even though I don't know enough to be knowledgable about critical criteria for a candidate, I think she is a terrible choice just b/c I don't care that much for her personally.

For that matter, I think any woman on the ticket would be too risky this year. I will probably be screamed at by some people for saying that. I would love to see a woman on the ticket - someday. Just NOT THIS DAY.

[Bombtrack]

10. The only woman and non lame-duck senator I would consider is Mary

Landrieu.

Arkansas and Louisisana are both on the cusp of what could be considered swingstates and longshots. I would put them as longshots. With Louisiana being the less likly of the 2 to go blue. However she is much more appealing in every way on a non-electoral college level. She's attractive, charismatic, and I beleive both Kerry and Landrieu being Catholic would swing the White Catholic gap back to democrats. Bush won it by a couple points in 2000. And although I have never studied the 84 election. I suspect that we would gain more support from her being a woman than lose it. Alot of independants would probably favor Kerry because him making her and not Hillary the first woman on a ticket to win would make em happy in a wierd way.

[democratreformed]

11. Yes, I can see what you are saying

about them being happy with her and not Clinton. I would like to believe that you are right and that people would accept a woman at this point in time.

[BootinUp]

20. While he would be excellent in those non-political

roles, it would be a shame to not take advantage of the obvious political appeal and ability to truly re-frame the National Security debate and perhaps pull back in some old Reagan Democrats. I think Clark deserves some kudos already for knocking Bushes numbers down, even if he didn't get the nomination.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. I agree a good case can be made for your choice

Graham has experience in the Senate and as a Governor. He had specific experience on Terrorism while in the Senate. He fought Bush on Iraq, and from all I hear, he is popular in Florida. Florida as we all know is an important state, and if we could be sure that Graham and only Graham could win it for Kerry, the case for Graham would be very strong.

That said, yeah, I think Clark should be VP. The whole Democratic Party knows how to take on Bush around Domestic issues. We can do that sleepwalking. National security is Bush's only perceived strength. Countering that with Clark would be a very wise use of the VP slot.

[Bombtrack]

15. You don't think that's letting them frame the debate a bit much?

Some people think that having both people on the ticket war-hero's and foriegn policy immersed biographically will innoculate the soft-on-defense perception. But I think that that would backfire. I think it would look like we're overcompenstating when in fact our case and our ideas have been better all along on foriegn policy. I mean, the places where people are and should be most worried about terrorism, NYC, Chicago, and LA are safe Blue states and areas anyway. Jobs beats foriegn policy by 2 to 1 in every poll in importance. And Kerry does in fact have a problem with his free trade agreement voting record.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. No I don't

But I do respect your arguments. I think the Dems will get the economy votes, the facts are pretty obvious, that's why Bush wants to run on War and Fear, he can't defend the economy. Bush will try to swing 5% of voters his way through fear and fear alone. That's where Clark can make a huge difference. Clark can campaign non stop among vets as VP if need be. Kerry can't afford to be that focused on a single constituency.

There is only one type of event that can cause a sudden massive swing of votes toward Bush, and that is terrorism and international instability. It is a wild card that can run either way. Clark is the best insurance policy the Democratic Party can buy for the November election, simply by putting him in the VP slot. God forbid something awful should happen in October, I want Clark on our ticket to tell the truth to the American people, and to reassure them that Democrats know how to handle it.

[Bombtrack]

29. Actually twice as many people would be less likely than more likely

to vote for Bush if there was another terrorist attack. I saw this poll on some newscast(brokaw maybe) the other day. If it was brokaw it would have been NBC/Wallstreet Journal. If anyone else saw it, please help me out here. I'm not making it up.

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. Abstractions are different than realities

What if there were a coup in Pakistan? That isn't exactly a terrorist attack, but it would underline how dangerous the world is and why we "shouldn't switch horses in mid stream" during the war on terrorism.

Furthermore, it is just my hunch, but I think the ruling party in Spain would have won if they hadn't seemed so weak kneed about blaming Basque terrorists and hiding the Al Quada connection immediately after the bombing. If the Prime Minister had said, "Our nation is at War, now is the time for our nation to unite to defeat the Islamic terrorists who slaughtered our innocents, so that their deaths will not have been in vain." I suspect they would have won. Emotions run high when your fellow countrymen have just died and your leader calls on you for support with the plea, "don't let them win.".

[Toby109]

14. Dick Durbin-IL

Smart, feisty, midwestern. Would be an effective counter to Cheney.

[Bombtrack]

19. I don't see the logic in that too much at all

the midwest is more hemogenized than before. Illinois is strongly blue and he is unlikely to make much of a difference in the rest of the midwest, particularly the swing-red part. He also is perceivedly(to the electorate) more liberal than what could affectivly soften Kerry's own lib record

[markus]

16. Depends on what you mean by the "Midwest"

Do you mean the "old" Midwest from Chicago to Ohio, or do you include Wisconsin, Minnesota, the Dakotas?

Actually, the person I think would have a fabulous VP probably would never get it: our own Kent Conrad of North Dakota. He voted against the war resolution, is the absolute budget expert in the Congress, and is never afraid to take off after the Bushies.

[Bombtrack]

21. I'm talking about these swingstates

The red ones in 2000: Ohio and Missouri
The blue ones in '00: Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa

Also, west Pennsylvania is considered in the rustbelt I guess as well so why not that too.

There is noone from any of these places I beleive would really be a strong choice

[goodhue]

43. Yes, Conrad would be excellent! n/t

[OKNancy]

18. I'll sure be glad when the VP is picked

Then, I think we can all get down to what really matters.

I have no idea who Kerry will pick, but I can guaren-damn-tee you it won't be Graham. Reason: strictly cosmetic. He's too old and too dotty acting. He's a great guy but Kerry is going to pick someone more dynamic.

[Redneck Socialist]

22. Bill Richardson

Governor of New Mexico is getting a lot of buzz.

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/02/17/Politics/Analysis.Is.Bill.Richardson.A.Good.Fit.For.John.Kerry-600328.shtml

[Bombtrack]

24. He's getting buzz from lazy journalists. Bill has repeatedly ruled it out

For good reason. Not only would he be abandoning his state in the middle of his first term. He has way too much responsibility at the convention to be doing double duty as the vp nominee.

Also, I think that chosing him to get the hispanic vote would be obvious racial marketing and it would backfire among independants, largely white ones turned off by it.

[Redneck Socialist]

28. I wouldn't take his name off the table yet.

Saying that you're not interested in being VP is all part of the dance.

I think he brings a lot to the ticket other than being Hispanic. I don't see there being a big backlash.

[BootinUp]

23. I am not up on

Bayh or Vilsack so I can't say much there. I do not think Gephardt will do much for us, maybe Mo. I think Graham is a better choice than Gep but not by much.

[Bombtrack]

25. So who other than Clark would you want?

I really don't think that it's at all parallel of what makes a good person at the top of the ticket therefor complimenting someone else at the bottom.

But clearly not many people here are like that as you can see from all the Edwards supporters supporting Edwards and likewise all the Clark supporters wanting Clark

[BootinUp]

27. I can explain my choice

anyways...

Last year I knew how the Bush campaign would be framed, the ads they put out, the rhetoric, its EXACTLY, what I expected. 8 months of this kind of hammering will hurt Kerry. Just turn on the radio, read the paper, Bushes talking points are everywhere, everyday. Kerry's long Senate record and his anti-war positions in the '70's and the first Gulf War are all targets. Plus Faux news has been spouting off about his anti-death penalty position for Terrorists in 98 or something. Why do we want a squeaker? Take thes taking points away from them by having a dynamic guy like Clark head the debate on National Security. Let Kerry focus on the positive stuff. If there wasn't as much repuke red meat with Kerry that I mentioned above then I would reconsider.

The polls you talk about jobs 2:1 over WOT/Iraq, ignore the fact that Kerry wins on jobs issues already. OUR BIGGEST WEAKNESS is National Security.

My second choice...I have a hard time with those, Graham or Breaux I guess.

[Layman]

30. Buried Bodies

Ignoring the tactical for the moment and focusing on the strategic if there's one thing a Mass. liberal needs in a Veep is someone who covers his back, know what I mean? JFK didn't then but JFK knows now. Bob Graham knows where the bodies are buried and he's too old to give a hang or think of his career if and when push comes to shove, if you know what I mean.

[Bombtrack]

33. right, he didn't hold any punches when it came to the blacking out

of Saudi Arabia in that report. Graham is frank. When it comes to all the big scary shit about this president. Election tampering, 9-11, Saudi connections, Graham has been all over it on our side.

[RogueTrooper]

32. I like the idea of Graham

Until he dropped out he was my second choice behind Dean. FWIW, the common wisdom amongst the Dean campaign's inner circle was that, if Dean was the nominee, Graham would be his choice for VP.

I think Graham would be a good choice for VP. As a centerist and a southern man he balances the ticket both ideologically and geographically. He has an incredible record of achievment as a public servent.

I am also like the idea of a candidate who will not run for President in 2012. After 8 years as VP I always felt that Al Gore suffered a disconnect with the American people. Too long in Washington and too long with a secret service detail.

[WI_DEM]

34. not necessarily

I think Harkin would be a good choice for one thing there is a democratic governor in Iowa who could appoint his successor and Iowa was tight last time and Bush is targeting it. Harkin is a good campaigner and strong debator.

Dick Durbin of Illinois might also be an effective choice.

[Bombtrack]

35. I don't see too much logic in either

They're both perceivedly more liberal than moderate, and it would be better to have a percieved moderate. Durbin is from a strongly blue state. And although Iowa is a blue swingstate, I can't see Kerry overlooking the Dean endorsement to secure it's few electoral votes when you have others out there that didn't endorse Dean and bring more and redder swing EV's in your favor

[WI_DEM]

39. that's politics

So what if Harkin endorsed Dean. He will work hard for the ticket--Harkin is that kind of guy. Also is he going to ignore everyone who endorsed Dean--that would be alot of people. I don't think Kerry would do that.

[kodi]

36. gephardt is strong with labor, jobs issues and seniors issues

his long held stances in support of labor and jobs is beneficial in the midwest/rust belt states, west virginia, and pennsylvania and would be his asset there and seniors issues in florida and arizona.

his own organization should also help the ticket in his home state of missouri

but most of all a vp who can help pass a kerry administration agenda in congress is essential. the white house without the ability to pass its agenda in congress is a toothless tiger, and gephardt knows the congress.

but i would, if possible, choose wes clark. clark butresses the "weak on defense" attacks on kerry by the busheviks

[IrateCitizen]

37. Gephardt would also make JK seem like Keith Moon by comparison

I mean, is there a more dull politician on the face of the earth than Dick Gephardt?

[Bombtrack]

38. Gephardt is simply repellant to me. Litterally. He invokes a mental

reflex for me to instantly change the channel whenever he comes on. I can't fully explain it, but he just comes off as such a hackish, ingenuine career politician. He'll pretty much never answer a question that was asked of him without skirting it. And Kerry does that last part himself alot, it would not help to put more of that on the ticket.

And I beleive Iowa shows just how much labor or the midwest really is loyal to Gephardt. That is some conventional thinking that is just wishful thinking created by pro-Gephardt democrats.

[no name no slogan]

50. Only one other Democrat

and his name is Joe Liebermann.

Gephardt would NEVER take the VP slot. He has way too much seniority in the House to play second fiddle to John Kerry.

He wouldn't bring much to the ticket, either. He may be able to bring St. Louis with him, but Missouri is much more than just St. Louis.

If we're looking for "balance", it may be worth looking for a governor from the (non-coastal) west. Richardson might be good choice using these criteria.

[kodi]

53. maybe you aren't keepin up on current events, he's retiring from the house

bush carried missouri by only a few thousand votes. gephardt could help overcome that.

how many times does richardson have to say that he is not going to accept a vp slot?

[jsw_81]

40. I disagree; Evan Bayh would be an outstanding running mate for Kerry

Like Edwards, Bayh is young, charismatic, good looking and full of energy. And if we take Indiana -- which Bayh has won by landslides in his gubernatorial and senatorial races -- we win the election. And even if Bayh can't deliver Indiana, he'll help us enormously in Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, which combined have 58 electoral votes (compared with Florida's 27).

Bob Graham, however, is past his prime. I've watched him on television recently and he sounds old and confused at times. His presidential campaign was a flop, and the diary thing might hurt him. Plus he's almost 70 years old and wouldn't be a suitable successor in '12. He would have been a good choice for VP in 2000, but I think we need a younger face on the ticket this year.

[Bombtrack]

46. Haven't I already told you Indiana isn't a swingstate?

And the midwest is hemogenized with the rest of the country enough that people in the other swingstates both don't know or care really who Bayh is.

But mainly Indiana isn't going to go blue before every swingstate does. If it's close, the election isn't.

And if you READ my whole post I specifically said that Graham likely retiring in 2008(not 20012) is a plus, because we can reassess our needs and chose a different person.

[genius]

41. Kucinich is the best choice. He'll bring in Ohio and unite the party.

Good idea if we want to win in November.

[jsw_81]

45. Please tell me you're joking

[NewYorkerfromMass]

42. Gore won Michigan, Iowa etc... with Lieberman

I don't see any downside to picking a guy from another region.

[West Coast Democrat]

48. Clark runs well in the Midwest

and Arkansas is sort of the Midwest...it's not really the south, or the west, or the southwest...so it's more like the Midwest.

[Padraig18]

49. A Southerner like Sen. Breaux would help with the border states.

Someone like John Breaux, e.g. would help the ticket a lot in OH, KY, WV and MO, plus help us in AR and LA. Added bonus: he's retiring, so we don't lose a Senate seat, just like with Graham.

:)

[Perky]

51. I think the Choices for VP

are extremly limited.

Edwards might buy him NC but nothing else.
Graham probably buys him Florida but nothing else Maybe that is enpugh though.
Landirue makes it interesting as a woman..... but I am not sure she is well known enough and I am not sure she buys him LA.

The Veep candidate has to be able to move a red State to blue or at least push Bush to the right of where he want to be.

Bill Richardson does that and makes Bush camp out in Florida more than he would like.

As for Mideseterners; I think the only viable option is Bayh. If we had the seasoned governor in the midwest who could deliver 25 or more electoral votes it would be a slam dunk

52. How about Bob Dole?

people have been suggesting McCain after all.

[TomSeaverr]

54. Vilsack

Would of been okay but this guy questioned Clark being a democrat

[Nazgul35]

55. I notice no one mentions Carl Levin (D) Michigan....

A well repected Senator from Michigan, was Chair of the committee investigating Enron (the same sub committee Truman ran to get war profiteers) until the election gave the Senate back to the repugs...

The Govenor (our very own Gov. Hottie Granholm) would replace him with another Dem, so no loss there...

The only problem would be that in 2006, we would have the Gov., and both Senate seats up for election....

ahhh, never mind, it's going to be hard enough fight for Stabenow and Granholm without adding another Senate seat to the mix!!!

[Bombtrack]

56. bump