Assuming Kerry is the nominee, who should be his VP?

[rpf113]

If Kerry gets the nomination who should he choose as his Veep?

Please tell us why!

[rpf113]

1. I choose Wes.

Not just because I supported him for Prez, but because I actually now think he would make a better Veep nominee than a Prez nominee. His lack of political skill kept him from being the front-runner, but as a VP I think people will find him refreshing. He has a killer smile. He's not afraid to go on the offensive. I'd love to see a debate between him and Cheney. And he energizes the base as I think we can see he did here at the DU where support for him was amazing. He also adds to the Dem's credibility on National Security. Polls show that Kerry's Vietnam experience is having little effect on the voters. Having a 4-star General VP would consolidate our credibility on that issue. Plus after 8 years of being VP he could possibly be the best candidate for President we have ever had.

So who do you choose?

[saigon68]

45. kick

[LandOLincoln]

46. There's something else to consider too: Cabinet appointments have

to be approved by Congress, so if Kerry tries to make Clark his SecState you just know the Repubs will stall and filibuster and do whatever is necessary to shut Wes out.

If he's on the ticket, OTOH, there's not a damn thing they can do about it--except of course attack both Clark and Kerry as viciously as possible. But they'll do that anyway, so what's the diff?

I'm thinking that if Clark is Kerry's VP, as Kerry seemed to hint he would be in Wisconsin a week ago--"General Clark won't be standing behind me, he'll be standing beside me..."--I like to think he'll be much more of a co-president than a traditional veep. "Traditional" veeps are a thing of the past anyway, since neither Gore nor Cheney has been anything close to that outdated model.

[rpf113]

2. Whoever chose 'other' please explain!

eom.

[G_j]

9. ok, I would choose DK

but what does it matter, he's too fringe and his policies are too good. well you asked...

[Leilani]

3. The Repugs are already attacking Kerry

as weak on defense, because of all his votes against spending for
defense & intelligence.

The public agrees with Dems on domestic issues, but they still see Bush as strong leader, better on terrorism, etc etc.

Saxby Chambliss, the slime who beat Cleland, attacked Kerry today.

[rpf113]

4. So I assume you chose Clark?

?

[Leilani]

5. Woops

I forgot to say CLARK!

[saltpoint]

32. Saxby Chambliss couldn't find the left side --

-- of his own ass with a three-way mirror.

I'll defend any of our candidates against a treasonous heel like Chambliss.

[frustrated_lefty]

6. If Kerry is the nominee, Edwards cannot be VP.

If Kerry is king, he cannot have 'almost king' at his side. It creates too many issues, it raises too much resentment.

He needs a no-name governor for vp.

[question everything]

37. Exactly. Well said. Thanks n/t

[Dover]

52. And DOGGETT is his name-o

Not exactly a no name, but a loyal, quietly fierce, deeply dedicated, bright, much loved and PROGRESSIVE candidate.

As I've said before, this would turn the GOP in Texas on it's head (after their attempts at eliminating Doggett thru redistricting), it would mend the divide in the Democratic Party between the Progressives and the...er...Bushlite insider crowd, and bring in Southern votes.

[420montana]

7. on the spur, I

chose Clark, when chimp goes, we will need to clean up the mess in Iraq, quickly and safely.

[rpf113]

8. I think Wes and Kerry have always gotten along...

I think Wes would make a great VP. He wouldn't distract too much from Kerry, but would help the ticket in the South, with Independents and with moderate Republicans--there were a lot of moderate Republicans that liked Wes.

[Nimble_Idea]

10. HAHA, even at DU, Clark is the man

Clark will make the other side look like goobers , it just so sad to see the curtain man stand up next to the General, there is just NO COMPARISON





Kerry-Clark

[revcarol]

15. Yup. Clark would overshadow him

so Kerry has to pick a safe nonentity for a safe nonentity.

[Jai4WKC08]

16. A safe non-entity

Just might mean a safe non-win in November.

[Crunchy Frog]

21. Yes, exactly what I think

A safe non-entity as VP pick will ensure a Bush victory in November.

[BringEmOn]

23. Another Yale S&B, boring, and bad face lift......

William F. Buckley, Jr.!

[AbbeyRoad]

20. I say Clark

I'd be interested in seeing the Clark debate with Cheney.

[Mistress Quickly]

11. Me

Trust me.

[Mattforclark]

12. Wes is west!

We wants wes. Why? Wecause we want wim!

[MrSlayer]

13. Wesley K. Clark

[wellstone_democrat]

17. yeah, Clark for anything

vp, sec def you name it: Clark can do it all.

[Leilani]

14. Another reason to choose Clark

The Bush group is already starting attacks.

Dems cannot go on defense. They need to stay on offense constantly.
That's why Bush's poll numbers are falling.

Clark is a better attack dog than Edwards. Edwards has built his entire persona on being a nice guy, therefore he can't go on attack.
Clark can & will; he was tougher on Bush than anyone.

We also need to make Iraq a major issue. Clark can do this.

[mot78]

18. I'd like Clark, but his stature makes it hard for him to be Veep

Edwards would be a better subaltern.

[Jai4WKC08]

25. Ummm... stature?

What do you mean? He's too short?

Or do you mean his 4-star rank?

Just curious. Cuz I don't think either is a drawback.

[Crunchy Frog]

19. Wes Clark because

I'm biased, and I really, really, really want to cast a vote for Clark in the election.:cry:




Apart from that, I really think that Kerry needs someone who is fresh, and energetic, and dynamic and exciting on the ticket with him. Someone who will come out with both guns blazing against Bush, and will shore up Kerry's backbone. He also needs someone who will be able to attract Southerners as well as more conservative voters, but without alienating the base, and more progressive Democrats, as would happen if he made the disastrous choice of Evan Bayh for running mate.

Kerry doesn't need someone who will "balance" the ticket so much as he needs someone who will complement him on it, and I think that Clark is the right person for that job.

[edzontar]

22. I'd say Nader.

That way, the whole third party thing culd be nipped in the bud.

[Iverson]

75. Yes, and I had a whole poll based upon that.

It would accomplish many things, including some rather fantastic gyrations based on pork anus.

[Jai4WKC08]

24. Why Kerry needs Clark

The first consideration ought to be, who's most qualified to act as President should Kerry become incapacitated for some reason? Let's face it, that narrows the field considerably (Edwards comes to mind, but ymmv). It's an important question, but I'm certainly not naive enough to think it would be Kerry's first priority. I do have enough respect for the guy to think it's at least in the back of his mind.

The next question is, who gives Kerry the greatest advantage and the best odds of winning in November? Here's why Kerry has an asset in Wes Clark, if he will only use him.

No other Democrat has been as effective in taking Bush apart, piece by piece, for his foreign and military policies. Before Clark entered the race, no other Democrat even tried. No one but Clark has the capability and credibility to make the case that Bush is a failure on these issues, and perhaps more importantly, to make that case in the future when Bush/Chaney/Rove engineer some new "developments" to show how tough they are on terrorists, or how successful in Iraq. Because make no mistake that they fully intend to pull a few surprises along the way.

Dean is getting a lot of credit lately for giving the Democratic party a backbone. Well, some of that credit is well deserved, but Dean could never challenge the Republicans on national security, defense, or foreign affairs, because quite frankly, he knows nothing about any of these. Kerry knows more, but he has a lousy congressional record on defense issues. And then there's his post-Vietnam protesting--justified or not, it will not play well in middle America.

Wes Clark was the first of the Democrats to visibly demonstrate, with no equivocation, that you can criticize this so-called "War President" and still be a patriot. He was the only one to show that criticizing Bush when he is wrong is one of the highest forms of patriotism. Oh, Dean may have tried, on the war alone--beyond that he was out of his depth--but he just didn't have the credentials to make the case convincingly.

Clark has been the party's "weapon of Bush destruction" since he entered the race. He can continue to be that for Kerry and the party all the way to November, but only if he's positioned to do so. And here's the bottom line:

If Kerry was even half-way serious about wanting Clark to "walk point," he must know that the General can only do so effectively from a position where the media will have to pay attention. If General Clark is on the ticket as VP, he gains a platform to continue his eloquent and devastating attack on the Bush administration. If he isn't, he'll get about as much media coverage as Mosley Braun. I have to hope that the man who would be our next President has the good judgment not to throw his most lethal weapon away.

Besides, who could resist the "Super Hero" ticket they would make together? Twin silver stars would make a great logo that everyone could come to recognize as THE symbol of courage and character. It's too good to let go by.

[Maat]

26. I'm a Deaniac...

but I would love to see Wes Clark as V.P. What a dynamic, balanced ticket!

[Crunchy Frog]

29. That was beautiful. n/t

[rpf113]

38. You have put into words beautifully

exactly how I feel.
I hope Kerry has the forsight to choose Clark.

[concord]

27. I've wanted Clark for VP all along

No matter WHO won the nom. He's got what it takes, except insider experience (which makes him attractive on its own merits, but killed his "electability") to lead us OUT of the mess in which we find ourselves. As VP, he would get valuable experience, give the ticket credibility, and help enormously with the Iraq tangle.

[CabalBuster]

28. Donald Trump or any other oligarch just like him

[saltpoint]

30. Picked 'Other' and would hope for a list that includes --

--Max Cleland (he's awesome & it would piss off Ann Coulter)
Jay Rockefeller (West Virginia comes back in our column)
Julian Bond (because he's brilliant)
Bill Moyers (I wish he were the Presidential nominee)
Dale Bumpers (if we're serious about the South)
Jimmy Carter (he has a lot of cross-over appeal these days)
Ed Bradley (CBS newsguy -- he'd rule vs. Cheney in debates)
Olympia Snowe (I dream she switches parties)

--and others.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

31. Other... dunno...

I like Edwards, Richardson, there are alot of others that I don't know enough about, like Mark Warner, John Lewis and many others.

[rpf113]

39. I helped work on Warner's campaign.

He's a good Governor in VA, but I don't think he is ready for the national spotlight just yet.

[RainDog]

33. lots of people in this country are very afraid, so Clark

he would provide reassurance in an uncertain time.

but I think that Kerry, when he wins, had better show some appreciation to the core that got him the nomination, and that includes BIG TIME Howard Dean.

Edwards would be a good person to deal with issues of labor, jobs, corporate crookedness...let him use his strengths to strengthen our nation against the crony crooks who are the financial base for the Bush junta.

If Kerry puts a bunch of old time DLCers in place, I will be so disgusted.

If he even THINKS about Evan Bayh for any position, I will want to spit nails.

I do think it would be good to also have someone like Jeffords, and Olympia Snowe, if she were willing, to serve in some capacity because we need to break the back of the radical right in this country, and we can do that by bringing in moderate Republicans.

BUT those moderate Republicans should not be the ones who are allowed to set the terms of economic policy.

[Jai4WKC08]

34. Did I mention Clark? ;)

:kick:

[robbedvoter]

35. So he can ask Dick: about that anti-terrir commission...

So someone can bring THIS war up, not just Vietnam
So, someone is there with a plan to clear the Iraq mess
Because it was Clark's if the media hadn't interfered (and the GOP-ers in TN)
Because I wanna (and Kerry could use some grassroots support)

[question everything]

36. Others, don't know who

But someone who HAS NOT been in the limelight recently, who has not been running to be president. Ever.

Someone who can live in the shadow of the nominee - Kerry or Edwards - who can help when needed and disappear into the background when not. Someone who would be loyal to the nominee to help with the mandate - as needed. I think that someone from the SW region could help, too.

[rpf113]

40. Really?

I think having two high-profile candidates on the stump could be a great advantage for us. On the Republican side all they have is Bush. Cheney scares Independents. I think Wes could also bring a sense of grass-roots activism to Kerry's campaign. Kerry can reel in the big donors while Wes reinstates his amazing grassroots fundraising machine.

When it comes down to it, whoever gets the most press has a distinct advantage and with a ticket with two people dropping great soundbites we can get the most press.

It also might help Kerry to let Wes be the attack dog on the President's war record so that Kerry can focus on domestic issues. He should let Wes loose on the Bushies.

[question everything]

41. Didn't Clark leave the military because of disagreement with his boss?

Would Kerry want someone like that on his team? The nature of the disagreement is irrelevant here.

Clark can work on Kerry campaign, perhaps even be in his cabinet without necessarily be on the ticket.

[mikehiggins]

70. The nature of the disagreement is irrelevant?

The nature of the disagreement had to do with the projected genocidal murder of perhaps a million muslims in the Balkans.

Clark thought we should act, Cohen and Shelton as well as Tom Delay and a good many other GOP big wigs thought we should sit on our hands and watch.

Clark prevailed and wound up losing his job as a result.

That seems pretty relevant in times like these.

When you can do good, you should. Sounds like something we should be teaching our kids.

[Jai4WKC08]

73. Don't forget...

Cohen is/was a Republican.

What on earth disposed Bill Clinton to make Cohen his SecDef I'll never know.

Yeah, yeah, "spirit of bipartisanship"... and all the crap he took for Les Aspin and Somalia. But it was a bad move that would haunt Clinton's foreign policy for the rest of his administation. You can only deal fairly when you deal with fair men.

I've heard tell that Clinton told Shelton to his face that he was going with Clark's recommendations (which, by law, it was his authority and responbility to make directly) and Shelton almost choked.

(edited for grammar)

[sistersofmercy]

42. Wes Clark or Bill Richardson

I used to think Edwards but I'm having my doubts about that one.

[Shanty Oilish]

43. Clark and Edwards aren't interested

Clark on Meet the Press:

GEN. CLARK: I'm saying that I'm not going to be the vice president. I'm not going accept that nomination. I can't make it any more clearer than that.
MR. RUSSERT: So if nominated, you will not accept the vice presidency?
GEN. CLARK: I'm running to be president of the United States. I am not running to be vice president, and I do not intend to accept that nomination, and I will not.
MR. RUSSERT: Absolutely.
GEN. CLARK: That's absolutely the facts.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3849657


Edwards has made equally firm statements denying any interest in being vice-president. Asked in a Fox News interview about being on the same ticket with Kerry, Edwards replied, "If he's interested in being vice president, I would be interested in him."

[Jai4WKC08]

47. Look at the whole exchange

Setting aside that everyone who runs for president adamantly denies any interest in the vice presidency--any other response would doom a campaign (or at least, such is the conventional wisdom, and I have no reason to doubt it)--you have to remember the context of these specific remarks.

When the MTP interview took place, Jan 4th, everything looked like Howard Dean would be the man to beat--Dean was the man most likely to get the nomination and it appeared he would be the ONLY one in a position to ask Clark to be his VP. Kerry and Edwards were just not a consideration.

Even the question when asked was specifically about Dean, and Clark's remarks were about being "Dean's Chaney."

MR. RUSSERT: Let me go through this whole exchange with Governor Dean that you had about the vice presidency. In December you said this. "...as a matter of fact, did offer me the vice presidency...it was sort of discussed and dangled before I made the decision to run." "It was a meeting that we had...This was in early September." Governor Dean responded "...I can tell you flat out" that "I did not ask to be by running mate." Who's telling the truth?

GEN. CLARK: Well, I don't think we need to play semantic games with this. I stand by what I said. And I also will tell you this, Tim. I'm not going to be Howard Dean's vice president.

MR. RUSSERT: You said something else: "I'm not going to be Howard Dean's Dick Cheney. We've already tried that model of government and it doesn't work. That's what misled America thus far."

GEN. CLARK: That's exactly right. We need people who are experienced not only in the domestic issues but in the foreign policy issues.

MR. RUSSERT: Another general who entered politics, William Sherman, was asked whether or not he would seek elective office. He said: "If nominated, I will not accept. If elected, I will not serve." If General Clark is nominated as vice president, will you accept?

GEN. CLARK: Well, I've said I'm not going to be the vice president, and that's what I stand by. I'm running to be president of the United States. This country needs a higher standard of leadership, Tim, and to get that higher standard, I'm going to have to be the commander in chief and the president of the United States. That's why I'm running.

MR. RUSSERT: But General Sherman had a very understandable formula: "If nominated, I will not accept." Is that your view?

GEN. CLARK: I'm saying that I'm not going to be the vice president. I'm not going accept that nomination. I can't make it any more clearer than that.

MR. RUSSERT: So if nominated, you will not accept the vice presidency?

GEN. CLARK: I'm running to be president of the United States. I am not running to be vice president, and I do not intend to accept that nomination, and I will not.

MR. RUSSERT: Absolutely.

GEN. CLARK: That's absolutely the facts.

Personally, just my opinion, I could see Clark feeling about the same way for being "Edwards' Chaney" as he did about being Dean's. Kerry, otoh, would be an entirely different matter. But in either case, Clark, like Dean, has recently said, several times, that he will do EVERYTHING he can to help get Bush out of the White House. You have no idea how ABB this man is, how personally he takes it all. Would put some people here to shame.

I always thought that Will Safire painted an interesting scenario toward the end of the same MTP. He said:
"...I think when the moment comes in the convention, there you are sitting in NBC's booth, right, looking down at all these people waving their banners, and Dean realizes that he has to bring the party together, and he sends an emissary to Clark's emissary, who will be one of the Clinton people, and say, "Hey, how about it now? Now, I'm really offering it to you. I just sort of dangled it last time. This is a firm offer." And let's say Clark says no. What do you do if you're Dean? You pick up the phone, you call Bill Clinton and say, "Hey, get this guy on the ticket because that's the only way we're going to bring the party together, and that's the only way I'm going to support Hillary in 2008 if I don't win." And if you're Bill Clinton, will you then turn to General Clark and say, "Do your duty to the party"?

Now, obviously, the dynamics have changed. Dean's not going to do the asking, and Clark's showing was not good enough to put him in a position to symbolize bringing the party back together.

But the fundamental question remains. If you're Clark, and if you see being on the ticket as fundamentally being important to the party and the nation. of contributing signficantly to the odds of sending Bush back to Texas, do you you eat your words? Do you accept a position you don't necessarily want, especially if it means being "Edwards' Chaney"? Or risk sinking into political oblivion with what you believe will be a losing campaign?

Do you do your duty?

I would submit that Wes Clark has always done what he saw as his duty, no matter how difficult, unpleasant, or contrary to his own aspirations or best interests.

[Shanty Oilish]

54. Clark said he absolutely would not accept the nomination

Absolutely not.

Either his word is good or it's not. You think he would say that without thinking through? Or say it and then about-face?

Okay...

[Jai4WKC08]

66. Every candidate for the presidency says that

Conventional wisdom, right or wrong, holds that to say you would consider the vice-presidency means the death of a presidential bid.

Edwards has said it. And not even with the very sound rationale of the problem with being "Dean's Chaney."

Dean has said it too--you think he won't accept if asked? Not that I would expect anyone to ask.

I don't think anyone has asked Kerry--the advantage of being front-runner. But if someone did, he'd say it too.

The most important thing is that Clark has said he will do EVERYTHING he can to get Bush out of the White House. Which is what Dean has said too. For either, if that means eating their words and accepting VP, I think more of them for it, not less.

Let's keep our priorities straight, shall we? Good men like Clark and Dean certainly have theirs in the right order.

[mikehiggins]

71. Kerry could explain that Clark was really only saying he wouldn't be

Dean's V.P. and that everything he said on MTP was in that context.

Kerry is good at that sort of stuff.

[bushwakker]

44. Gephardt

Would probably bring Missouri with him. He has a national labor constituency - a huge help in industrial midwest. Experienced, reassuring candidate - it;s not a stretch to see him in the Oval Office. Benn through it all before no need to vet, no skeletons, no mistakes.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

48. Edwards would be great

I'd love a Kerry-Edwards ticket

[in_cog_ni_to]

49. If we want to win,

we need the man the Bush cabal fears the most and THAT, my friends, is Wesley K. Clark!

[Florida_Geek]

50. I would add Max Cleland to the poll

He brings the same stuff Clark does to the race.

[Jai4WKC08]

76. Not really

Cleland certainly covers the veterans' appeal. In a most visible way. And he's a good man and a good speaker, and has a lot of valuable Senate experience. Also, some executive experience as VA chief, iirc. Being a Southerner wouldn't hurt either, even if Georgia screwed the pooch in electing Chambliss.

But he doesn't bring the foreign relations experience, the hands-on diplomacy, in some cases with foreign leaders who are still in office, and the record of intermediating between a Muslim populace and its non-Muslim neighbors. Or the background in force planning, deployment and logistical support. Or the Oxford Masters degree and West Point professorship in economics. Or the experience with delivering healthcare and education to American communities in Europe.

[Dover]

51. If Kerry chooses Clark I WON'T be voting, as it will confirm every

reason I've had for caution regarding Kerry's true intentions.

[molly]

59. Enlighten me please regarding

"Kerry's true intentions". :shrug:

[molly]

60. Enlighten me please regarding

"Kerry's true intentions". :shrug:

[mobuto]

62. ???

Kerry's true intentions? Kerry's intentions are to win the White House. That's George Bush's intention and John Edward's.

[NewEnglander]

53. As long as Hillary aint it!!!!

I like Joe Liberman.

[newyawker99]

56. Hi NewEnglander!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[JohnLocke]

55. GRAHAM ---- My senator!

[orangeotter]

57. Why no Gephardt?

I am a true Kerry supporter, but why no mention of Gephardt? I believe electorally he makes the most sense. Missouri would have a great possibility to go for us as well as Ohio. I voted for Edwards on the list b/c I think out of those choices he will energize people the most even though i don't believe he will be able to deliver any states for us. An Edward's/Cheney debate would be a great juxtaposition for us. Clark is very tempting, but every time I think he is the choice for Veep I can picture The GOP running nonstop adds of him stating his support for Bush/Cheney. I like Clark, but I can't think of anything more damaging to the ticket than that and it seems fairly obvious that they would run it constantly.

[Nashyra]

58. Clark

Great appeal to the swing and moderate voters because of national security and foreign policy experience leaving Kerry to focus on the Domestic issues. I could just see them try to attack Clark with the likes of Chamblis, Delay, Cheney, and all the other chicken hawks. Clark could lead the dem attack on the administration on the national security and terrorism issues and more than enough military voters would come over to the Dems for a huge win over * in Nov. And I am proud to say that I am prejudice towards Clark.

[BL_Zebub]

61. Assuming Kerry will be the nominee is the first mistake

Believing he has a snowball's chance in my front yard of winning is your second. His VP choice? Don't bother.

[Nicholas_J]

63. Dick Gephardt

While he didnt win in Iowa at all (he really should have dropped that total repeal of the Bush tax cuts spiel) He is a figure with considerable drawing power in the heavily unionized mid-west. ANd this time, that is where the battle will be fought. In places like Ohio, which are Republican states, but have lost a lot of manufaccting jobs, and Bush cutting all funds to retrain people who have lost jobs in those industriees for new jobs.

Outsourcing is nothing new, and there is little that can effectively stop it. Even Germany outsources lots of jobs to India and China, it just pays to support people who are without jobs while it provides active retraining of workers, as well as pays for relocating workers to new areas of the country if they wish to do so to get work in new areas.

64. Ralph Nader

:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :wtf: :nuke: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[hippiegranny]

65. i picked clark

but i also really like russ feingold.

[kang]

67. I vote for Clark, but

he would be a perfect fit for Secretary of Defense or National Security Advisor too. Holbrooke's got to be the Sec. of State in any Dem's book.

As for other VP candidates, Edwards is just so good at expressing the Democratic message. I just saw Sen. Boxer on the other night, and as liberal as she is, man is she smooth. It would be nice if we didn't have just two white men again, but alas that is the likely outcome. IMHO, we should really be more aggressive about recruiting more women and minorities to run for elected office.

[dorktv]

68. This is mean but

Dean and then Kerry can have a heart attack two seconds after taking oath of office and resign so we can have a good president.

[Jersey Devil]

69. Gephardt - labor and Mo, not Clark

Clark is too talented to waste as a veep. Plus what good would Okl do even if he could carry it? Same for Edwards in NC where he probably could not help deliver his own state.

[Jai4WKC08]

72. Don't know about OK

OK is pretty strongly Republican.

Clark would deliver AR--take that to the bank--and would be MUCH more likely than Edwards to help bring in AZ, based on primary results there. Clark also plays well in LA (that's Louisianna, not Los Angeles or Lower Alabama, btw :) ) and FL.

I have no confidence Edwards could deliever NC or SC. He would probably help across the board, but I don't see him making a big enough difference in any one state.

Gephardt could PROBABLY bring in MO, and that would be enough, but imo he brings about as much to the ticket across the board as Lieberman did to Al Gore. Solid, but boring. The "not him again" response could lose us one or more blue states.

My problem with a lot of the other suggestions here is that they're either incumbent members of Congress (whom we really can't afford to lose), or are from states that are already blue.

Btw, if anyone wants to play with the totals, American Research Group has a pretty nifty little electoral vote calculator at http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/ev/ . You'll notice that the 2000 census has given the Repubs an additional 8 vote advantage.

[lams712]

74. Dennis Kucinich n/t

[anti-NAFTA]

77. Edwards is a better candidate than Kerry

but Kerry would have to do a lot better than Edwards for VP to get me to support him (my vote is guaranteed; my vocal support and possible campaigning isn't). I'd say someone like Byron Dorgan would legitimize his platform on trade.

[doc03]

78. John Kerry and John Kerry