Who should John Kerry pick to be his running mate?

Governors Vilsack of Iowa and Warner of Virginia are shortlisted. Vilsack's pretty high up there from all reports. Also not sure why you'd have Landrieu and not Arizona governor Janet Napolitano.

Right now I think Edwards makes the most sense. Kerry needs someone likeable, sunny and energetic. Edwards cheers up the ticket.

Really hard to handicap this. There's an argument for almost anyone on the list. McCain would be awesome and a bi-partisan ticket would be incredible with the country so evenly divide, but he's not gonna do it.

 

Gen. Wesley Clark

My second pick was Sen. John Edward's. But Clark seems to give Kerry an edge on the issue of foreign policy and war.

It's funny...

Because the Kerry/Edwards looks good for a domestic (civil rights, health care, crime, tax issues, etc...) view point.

The Kerry/Clark looks better from a national defense (experience, foreign relations, leadership, but also military knowledge) view point.

They seem to be both good picks.

 

Clark was fired from his post at NATO because his perpetual bumbling. His campaign was a disaster and for those, like me, who want Kerry to fall, Clark couldn't be a better choice. But lets be real, folks. A running mate means little. A good choice can't win you the presidency, but a bad one.....just ask Daddy Bush about that one.

 

Hmmm, what will you do if he doesn't. I'm an independent voting Democrat this year.
I'll vote Republican sometimes, but I will never vote for the Neocons. Too extreme for me.

 

I chose Clark because he had (by all official reports) a series of stunning successes while at NATO (despite bama's vague ramblings to the contrary). In addition, he wrote that brilliant article last week that hit the various Iraq nails directly on the head as far as I am concerned. Clark is highly intelligent, comes from a solid military background, and seems to be from far outside the beltway, though the Pentagon really isn't that far away.

I would rather see the Kerry/McCain landslide, but Kerry/Clark is a pretty intriguing ticket.

 

There are some great VP candidates out there. I'd go with Clark in a heartbeat, but I like Edwards, too.

 

Junior Senator from New York

 

dc:

That all makes sense. I wasn't really making a judgement on their chances -- only repeating the lists that are out there.

Warner's not a horrible choice. If he swayed Virginia blue, it'd be a smart pick. And if I remember right, he just got tax-hating VA to support a tax increase. He's popular with both parties. He also made it a condition of his primary endorsement that he be floated as a VP candidate, so maybe that's all this is.

Napolitano is an example of formerly rock solid red state AZ being in play. I don't actually think she'd be as valuable as some others in general, but she could move AZ blue. If so, she'd be a good pick.

I love Clark on paper, think he's awful on the stump. Just caught him again on C-Span and he's still talking to us like we're slow witted children. Put him in the cabinet and let us know ahead of time you're doing it, but don't put him on the ticket. An Edwards-Cheney debate would underline the sunny, fresh ideas/new direction thing the Dems should be running. A Clark-Cheney debate would likely be a push with independents.

 

Secretary of Defense?

 

Or State.

 

The Reverend Al Sharpton.

 

Stunning successes? I think not. The man attempted to lie about the bombing of a convoy of Albanianian refugees. Under his command, we sent a cruise missile through the front door of the Chinese embassy. I served under his command and we all thought he was a schmuck. Yeah, please don't make Clark your running mate, Kerry. Oh please don't.

link

 

No love for Hillary?

 

Best for Kerry: Clark

Best for Democratic Party: Edwards

If Kerry loses, his VP will immediately be the top contender for the next go round. Edwards would make more sense, for this scenario. He would build a solid national name recognition for himself while running for VP. Starting the 2008 election with national name recognition, Edwards would be a lock for the Democratic nomination, though Hillary would give him a run for his money. This would setup a formidable Edwards Clinton ticket for 2008.

From Kerry's perspective, a Edwards VP would work fine, but a Clark VP would set up an election between two war heroes versus two draft dodging chicken hawks. A concern is that Clark still lacks the polish most successful national politicans have, though this did not hurt Cheney last go round.

As an aside, GWB despite all of his many and awful screwups still appears to have the inside track for the 2004 election. Of all of the screwups on his watch, the prison photos may be GWB's undoing. We will see.

 

Where did you get Nunn? Is there some bit of speculation about him?

 

So, Clark was put into a fight with his hands tied behind his back, he won said fight, and you call that failure? Clark saw the end of the campaign in the Balkans using only air power, no ground forces at all, and you second guess him because you were a grunt who thought he was a schmuck?

BTW, how much "collateral damage" has occurred under GWB's leadership?

 

Why do I get the feeling that you don't believe what you are saying?

I mean, think about it everyone. Why would bamaslammer help the democratic party? Why? So, are we to think that he's telling us to stay away from Clark (even the Secretary of Defense) because he's trying to help us out? It doen't make sense.

Don't worry bamaslammer, Clark is more suited for Secretary of Defense anyways. Nevertheless, these decisions will be thought out by the DNP. They will weigh the pros-and-cons.