Kerry's VP test --who could assume the Presidency immediately ...

[Pepperbelly]

if it became necessary.

This is what Kerry has said is his first priority and most significant consideration. If we take Kerry at his word, which I do, how does that alter your thoughts on who is best or does it alter your train of thought?

[sallyseven]

1. I would say Wes Clarke

or Edwards. A trial lawyer can make it happen.

[JI7]

2. Kerry would have endorsed Gephardt

of all those who ran in the primary if Kerry himself had not ran he would have endorsed Gephardt. he is very close to gep and his wife and kerry has a history of sticking by those he has a certain relationship with included supporting hometown politicians.

so if you want to know what kerry himself thinks, gep certainly would be it.

[wjsander]

3. Kerry has a tough choice...

Loyalty to his friend vs. what's best for the ticket.

Wouldn't like to be in his shoes right now. :(

[salonghorn70]

4. That Criteria Eliminates Some Candidates

I have favored Clark. I think he meets the criteria. Richardson and Gephardt meet that criteria. As a dark horses, I think that Biden, Breaux, and Nunn can meet the criteria. I believe that it is more difficult fot Edwards, Vilsack and Warner. I like Edwards alot. I just think that he will come under fire for lack of foreign policy/national security experience if he were the VP.

[Darkamber]

6. I'm not sure if that is true...

about Edwards coming under fire for lack of Foreign policy/national security experience. At least not from Bush/GOP. Remember that he has the same amount of experience as Bush had. Also, we are talking about #2. Kerry has all the experience in that area that is needed.
Are your really going to make the argument that the VP and not not the President is going to run the country? Might be true in Bush's case, but is that what they would want to point out?

However, if Kerry is looking for someone to step into his shoes with all the experience needed and rounded completed with no lacks in leadership then you are looking at Gephardt. I don't see any holes in his background at all.

[JI7]

8. i think Edwards lack of experience is something Kerry actually likes

in a way. because one thing kerry hates is the weirdness of the bush/cheney team where cheney is the one who is really president. he doesn't want that type of thing and edwards lack of experience also means it would make it easier for edwards to work with kerry since edwards wouldn't have his own views that he would try to push rather than do what kerry wants. so kerry can kind of trust edwards to just do what he wants if he sends him to meet with foreign officials.

so if it's true that it's edwards or gep, my explanation for edwards and your sentence about gep shows why they are the final two. but gep has an advantage since he has been close to kerry for years. edwards just came into the senate and his and kerry's relationship has gotten closer but kerry has still known gep far longer.i think kerry's personal relationship with gephardt is a huge factor in gephardt being on the vp list. although the unions pushing gephardt helps also.

[cosmokramer]

27. What? Kerry likes Edwards lack of experience...

Uh, think again:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote.html

"Kerry has privately expressed concerns about whether Edwards meets this presidential threshold, the sources said. After the primaries, Kerry remarked to aides, 'What makes him think he can be president?' Around that time, Kerry told aides that if he had lost the nomination, he would have endorsed Gephardt, who he described as ready-made for the job."

[JI7]

28. no, i'm saying he might like how it would make it easier to work with

edwards since he doesn't really have any set policy or beliefs of his own in the area. he will just do whatever kerry asks him to do.

[cosmokramer]

29. Still doesn't meet Kerry's criteria of someone already

prepared to assume the Presidency.

[Sparkly]

30. I don't think weakness is a strength

and can't imagine the Kerry camp would, either. The VP is a position that can be tailored to complement the president's own strengths and goals, and we need a strong one now -- because we need the team to be strong as possible. The VP can not and does not override the president in any way (unless the president needs him to, as in the case of the Smirk and the Snarl).

[cosmokramer]

33. I agree 100%

[venus]

36. Great V.P. credentials: no "set policy or beliefs

of his own". I do agree he would probably do whatever Kerry says, as would any other V.P.

[venus]

35. Sorry, Bushie had more elected experience a s a two term gov,

albeit he didn't quite finish his second term. Edwards barely has four years under his belt and actually quit some time last year. Has he even been carrying on the full-time duties of a Senator or some time.

[Kahuna]

14. I mostly agree with your analysis.

nt

[Capn Sunshine]

32. I don't think anyone is elminated

C'mon, BUSH is a freakin' idiot tool. The presidency requires some thoughtfulness, but IMO if Bush is qualified , any DUer can do that job.

Even Will Pitt :evilgrin:

[camby]

5. Gephardt wins in my book

Gephardt could run this country blindfolded. He has the experience and the know-how. Only thing he lacks is money, which is why he lost out in the primaries.

[wjsander]

7. Really? I thought he lost out in the primaries because...

... he spent all his effort into Iowa just to come in a distant 4th place behind a guy who was self-destructing. :shrug:

[JI7]

9. they all competed in iowa

kerry edwards and dean all competed in iowa.

[Gyre]

11. You're entitled to your opinion

Gephardt was the primary perp of the DNC orchestrated "murder/suicide" on Howard Dean in Iowa. Screw him.

Gyre

[Kahuna]

15. Oh Brother. And Dean was completely innocent of any slime and

underhanded attacks? Dean had a scorched earth campaigned. The truth of the attacks he made on others didn't matter as long as he could keep climbing in the polls and raking in the money and endorsements. Excuse me if I have no sympathy for Howard Dean. He engineered the course for his own demise.

19. Are you saying Dean lied?

I wasn't aware of any instance of Dean lying. Care to provide a few sources on that?

[venus]

37. Dean said he was the only anti-war candidate, for one

non-truth. He forgot about Kucinich and Clark and Sharpton, and Graham.

41. Like I asked, Got a source on that?

I'm perfectly open to a well sourced quote.

[saracat]

21. He lacks a lot more than money

No one voted for him. the Unions split and went to Dean and Kerry. He was a sellout while leader and accomplished nothing.He has no national appeal and cold really hurt Kerry .At best he brings nothing but yesterday's news.

[camby]

23. The press doesn't like him

because he doesn't have the rabid rage of a Howard Dean, or the folksy appeal of a John Edwards. I think that Gephardt and Gore both have the guts to go up against corporate America, and the widening gap between the haves and have nots is going to be a front burner issue over the next few years. There's a lot of working class/middle class anger out there, and the Republicans have inexplicably tapped into it. Time for the Dems to take back their own issues.

[Padraig18]

10. I wasn't aware Kerry said that.

I'm quite well-read, and I hadn't seen Kerry say that. Must've missed it...

:shrug:

[Kahuna]

17. Told you.

:P

[funky_bug]

22. Paddy - here's the quote

Here to help ;)

Of course "sources" say that Kerry has expressed concern over whether or not Edwards fits the bill... but we take "sources" with a grain of salt.

Looking more and more like a Gep or Graham ticket to me.

[Pepperbelly]

24. I had not heard it until ...

this morning on CBS early news show during an "analysis" of the VP stakes. They presented it as a fait acompli although they also poo-pooed it as self serving. Sort of a wink and a smile, as if petending that Kerry has little more than a nodding acquaintence with the truth. Who can say?

:shrug:

I didn't particularly trust their judgement about the VP although the criteria they claimed for Kerry struck me as interesting.

[cosmokramer]

31. Kerry said it in an interview on CNN months ago, and again

said it in an interview with Chris Matthews. Kerry's spokesperson said specifically, again on CNN with Judy WoofWoof, that he would require in his VP exp. in the areas of FP/NatSec/Diplomacy.

This lends some credibility to the 'source' since Kerry himself has made the same statements.

I will try to see if I can find any still active links on the appearances where the statements were made.

[deminflorida]

12. If Kerry doesn't choose someone who has a vast amount of.....

National Security Experience then he won't have to worry about who is going to take over for him, because he won't win the Presidency.

Choosing someone else who bought into the Iraq War issue Hook, Line, and Sinker is not going to get it Folks....

It takes Iraq off the table for the election period....here will be the debate between Cheney and such a V.P. selection...

Cheney: Well if you did not agree with the War why did you and your running mate vote for it, and support the President?

[cosmokramer]

13. Doesn't sound like Edwards...sounds like several others I can

think of, but definitely not Edwards. Especially when you consider this remark made by Kerry:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote.html

"Kerry has privately expressed concerns about whether Edwards meets this presidential threshold, the sources said. After the primaries, Kerry remarked to aides, 'What makes him think he can be president?' Around that time, Kerry told aides that if he had lost the nomination, he would have endorsed Gephardt, who he described as ready-made for the job."

[Zorra]

16. Al Gore, hands down. n/t

[bushwakker]

18. Gephardt

Gep makes sense in a lot of ways. His unpopularity on DU baffles me but I guess it is almost entirely rooted in his Iraq War votes.

[Jai4WKC08]

20. IWR accounts for a lot of it

As well as his performance during the Clinton years.

But mostly, I think DUers are concerned about whether he helps Kerry win. He's been around a long time, is not a particularly exciting speaker, bombed in Iowa big time, has his largest constituency in labor (which supports Kerry already), and doesn't even look like he could put Missouri in the blue column. Not a one of those is a show-stopper, but taken all together?

But none of that has anything to do with this thread. I prefer Clark (duh) but within the scope of the question posed here, Gep would fit the bill. Not better than Clark or Graham, imo, but MUCH better than Edwards or Vilsack.

I don't believe any of the others are serious possibilities. No way he'd pick anybody who hasn't been vetted. And vetting isn't that easy to hide.

[bushwakker]

26. Gep was my first choice

Lately I've been leaning to Edwards but I like Clark alot. All 3 are quality people. Gephardt has been thoroughly vetted and there will be no surprises. Obviously a big labor constituency. Well known nationally. Veteran. Foreign policy experience as a result of being in DC so many years. Knows issues inside out. As for Missouri - does he hurt you there? If the answer is no then he helps there.

[venus]

38. I think Gep let us down in Congress time and again.

He really didn't stand up and criticize Bush until after Howard gained popularity by his outspoken criticism of the administration. Would he make a good President though? Probably.

On edit: what I meant was Gep could step in for Kerry if need be.

[surfermaw]

25. Doesn't alther my thoughts at all

This is something we shouldn't worry about, we have Gore, Clinton , Clark, Hillary,Carter, all who would be ready and able to help if Kerry should die in office.

[venus]

34. I think it will boil down to who is the most liked by the media. n/t

[Scoopie]

49. Good Lord, I hope not

I can say this with a bit of authority because I was a reporter professionally for 10 and, all together, for 12 years (I did two years as a student), but, if Kerry picks who the media likes, then Kerry looses.
The press doesn't like anyone. They push and cojole and go on because they want the person they can most rip apart for their ratings in the general election.
They're scared shitless and witless of BushCo. and won't say what needs to be said of that cabal, but, please be aware of their agenda, particularly the electronic media.
It isn't pretty.

[resist]

39. No, its time we mentor

My son, a DCite, was complaining the other day about how incredibly active republicans are in mentoring their members - from wining and dining and networking them to making sure they get posts, etc. He, of course is a democrat and wants to know how come nobody does that for him? Well, of course, if you could get two democrats to agree on anything . . .

But it did make me think that maybe we should plan for the future, and this might be a really good experience to set Edwards up for later. He's bright, charismatic, and at least somewhat more left than your average DNC type. But he's lacking significant federal experience. I think he should be Kerry's VP and Clark should be Sec. of Defense.

[Crunchy Frog]

42. Clark is not eligible

to serve as Secretary of Defense. You have to have been a civilian for at least 10 years, by law.

Mentoring is good, but I'm not sure that the best way to accomplish it is to put an unqualified person, however much potential he may have, a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Anyway, this thread was about Kerry's preference for someone who could immediately step into his shoes should something happen to him.

[cosmokramer]

55. The VP position should never be 'on the job training',

expecially in matters of foreign policy...that's ridiculous. The VP should have the same qualifications to be President as the President--and clearly, Edwards does not. The Vice President isn't a slot for on-the-job training for someone who might become president in the future, and should NEVER be viewed as such. VP is a 'security' position for our nation, not a Job Fair.

[MoonRiver]

40. General Clark, without any doubt. eom

[Radical Activist]

43. How does having no political experience make on ready

to be President? Sounds like Clark is one of the least qualified since he's never held public office. Politics is not like the military. Clark is far from prepared.

[Pepperbelly]

44. Running something big ...

is good practice for running something even bigger. By that I mean that a President is primarily an executive first and running a multi-hundreds-of-thousands bureaucracy may be better experience for running an even large bureaucracy than legislative experience.

[Sparkly]

45. He's been an international leader

as well as a teacher and soldier. He's managed executive policy for housing, schools, and healthcare in the military; he's carried out diplomacy and war with equal success; he's got a brilliant mind, a depth of knowledge and experience, and he's a born leader. I think he's ideally qualified, and particularly for the problems we're facing right now. You think "public office" is THAT important? I don't. One term as a politician doesn't come close to equalling what Clark is and what he offers.

[Radical Activist]

47. completely different type of experience

A president needs to be able to get his agenda through Congress, something Clark is completely unprepared to do. That is one of the most important parts of the job, and it takes experience to be effective at that.

A President needs to be able to manage the civilian federal beauracracy, which from what I've read is much more difficult to manage than the military one.

A President must be able to rally and inspire the nation both in times of tragedy and in support of his agenda. Clark is a pretty good speaker but not as good or polished as most of the others who ran for President this time. Honestly, I can't think of any of the ten candidates who was a less compelling public speaker than Clark, except maybe for Kerry or Graham.

Holding and performing in public office is a learning process that Clark has not experienced yet. Clark is prepared for the foreign policy aspect of the Presidency, but that's 1/2 the job at most.

[cosmokramer]

48. Christ, he got 19 NATIONS to agree on something...

...he can handle Congress. :dunce:

[Sparkly]

50. Baloney!

Clark's experience does not prepare him any less than others to get his agenda through Congress or "manage" government -- if anything, he's been far more actively involved in leadership level politics than law-makers are.

As for "polished speaking," I think Clark is an excellent, eloquent, thoughtful, inspiring speaker. What does "polished" mean? Rehearsed? That's the easiest part of it.

I still think "public office" is wayyyy overrated as a preparation for leadership. I think leadership is a better preparation for leadership.

[Scoopie]

51. And you think Shrub is a good speaker?

Because he seems to be able to push his agenda through Congress and onto at least half of the American public.
And we all know that speaking (or reading or governing or, well, just about anything that requires a modicum of thought) is not George W. Bush's strong point.

Of course, I'm voting Clark here. I don't think there's anyone, anywhere capable of taking on this role as well as he could. If you would read his biography, you'd realize that he spent his whole life tackling new issues, coming up with better solutions and starting new trends.

[Radical Activist]

52. I didn't say anything about Bush

I meant the ten Democrats who ran for President. They were all better speakers than Bush. At least they can all form complete sentences.

I'm just saying politics is a different world completely. There are a lot of brilliant people (which Clark apparently is) who are very good at many different things who would get nowhere if they tried to pass a bill out of Congress. Clark's only experience in politics is running a losing Presidential campaign. I'm less than impressed by that.

[Sparkly]

53. Ridiculous

You don't think the military is political?

You don't think the Pentagon is political?

You don't think NATO is political?

You don't think international diplomacy is political?

You don't think being on any school faculty is political?

Do you think political skill is only shaking hands and making speeches in *certain* limited circles? I say that is nonsense. General Clark knows how to swim in deeper political waters than Congress or any state house.

[cosmokramer]

54. What a pile of dung!

Seems eight other candidates who were experienced politicos ran losing campaigns. And for a losing campaign, the only person who raised more money than CLARK at the point he quit the race was Dean--and only marginally. Yeah, right, not experienced enough...gimme a friggin' break.

[MoonRiver]

46. I'll take Supreme Commander of NATO Forces anyday over , smirk,

governor of Texas. * tried to pretend that made him prepared for the job, lol!

[zulchzulu]

56. Martin Sheen

Lots of West Wing fans who would turn out the vote for Marty Mart.