Kerry Begins to Select Running Mate

[kskiska]

WASHINGTON - Hours after staking claim to the Democratic nomination for president with decisive Super Tuesday victories, John Kerry (news - web sites) began laying the groundwork Wednesday for selecting a running mate for the struggle to unseat President Bush (news - web sites).

Kerry told reporters during a campaign trip to Florida that he expects to announce soon the process by which he will choose the No. 2 person for the Democratic ticket. His campaign said details might be released as early as Wednesday.

Jim Johnson, a prominent Washington Democrat, heads the list of potential candidates to lead Kerry's selection process. Johnson, vice president of a merchant banking firm, once worked for former Vice President Walter Mondale.

Senior advisers said it was possible, but not likely, that Kerry would choose a nominee well before the Democratic nominating convention in his hometown of Boston in July.

more…
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=716&e=1&u=/ap/20040303/ap_on_el_pr/democrats

[vi5]

1. Please....please.....please....please.....please....

...let it be an exciting selection. Even if it is someone I like, if the selection is not exciting then this is going to slow the momentum by having to discuss reasons WHY it may have been a good selection. It should be obvious. Edwards...Clark....Dean....any one of those would require no explanation and no reaction other than excitement.

I like someone like Richardson, but he doesn't generate excitement.

Please don't let it be a selection that goes over with a thud like Gore / Leiberman in 2000.

[Ilsa]

16. I will be excited if it is Richardson!

A Hispanic American on the ticket might generate even greater enthusiasm for Hispanics to get out the vote. I'm hoping it will help turn some of the very conservative Hispanic vote back to Democratic as well.


But I could also be very, very happy with Wesley Clark as he was my first pick for Pres all along.

[President Jesus]

52. Richardson makes sense

Bigtime resume, but even better, effectively kills the GOP's all-out effort to court Hispanics.

The GOP knows it must have at least one significant non-white ethnic group in its pocket if it is going to have any clout 10 years from now. They have obviously decided their best chance is with Hispanics.

Now for the VERY superficial comment (but no less important): Richardson doesn't look or sound ethnic, so he won't scare whitey.

I do not think Edwards is a good pick, at all. The GOP will repeat the words 'trial lawyer' over and over and over and over. He doesn't have that impressive of a resume, and that would be plucking yet one more Dem out of the senate.

I don't think Clark is needed, because Kerry himself fills that military portion of the ticket.

Please no Evan Bayh! What a Z E R O.

I'd say Gephardt would be a second pick.

[The Stranger]

2. Good advice: Pick a running mate early, show the people you have a plan

and the two of you in place to carry it out. Continue showing the inevitability of the fall of the Chimp administration. Highlight the inadequacies and corruption of the Chimp's running mate.

[dryan]

4. Kerry Running Mate

Because I'm from Florida, I'd like to see Bob Graham on the ticket. Graham was on the short list twice before and he he had been, maybe the Dems would have won. Dukakis's camp got to bogged down on whether Graham got paid or not for appearing on a Jimmy Buffet video (he didn't)and Gore picked Lieberman. Maybe we wouldn't have had "Flori-duh" if it had been Gore/Graham? But that's another story. I could also get excited about a Kerry/Clark matchup.

[southpaw72]

9. i 2nd that

Graham is a good man, a Southerner, an elder statesman. His experience on the Intelligence Committee is important.

[guajira]

30. Because I'm From Florida - I DON'T want Graham!!

Could there be anyone more duller? Could there be anyone who panders more to Miami Cuban Repukes?? Remember Graham opposed the IWR because it didn't cover enough Mid-East groups, then spun it later to say he opposed going to Iraq!

Remember he was the first of 10 candidates to drop out because he couldn't raise enough $$ to keep going! IMO he would cost us votes!

[mac2]

55. Me either...

He was so excited about Miami being the FTAA Americas headquarters for the Union. I'm anti-WTO..and so are many unions.

[Galley_Queen]

38. Graham Would Be Excellent

But I could do with Clark or Dean. I'm just not impressed with Edwards and don't think he would add excitement to the ticket. Graham probably wouldn't add 'excitement' either, as most people probably don't know who he is, but he sure would add great character, and someone who is NOT afraid to go after the Unelected Fraud. Graham did much good for Florida and is still very popular.

[liberalnurse]

3. Terry McAuliffe......

Because kerry owes him a big favor.

[pansypoo53219]

5. and he better be looking towards 16 years oof presidenial

in democratic hands. not just 4 years.

[jayfish]

6. Clark!

Clark!
Clark!
Clark!
Clark!


Jay

[young_at_heart]

13. I'll second that!

Clark has a lot going for him.......Kerry/Clark would be excellent!

[TheBlob]

17. Yes!

Clark!

Let's kick some ass in November.

[tom_paine]

37. And I'll Third It!

CLARK!

[Clyde39]

20. Kerry/Clark will make a great poker hand

Two bars and four stars will beat a "no-hand" (and no-brain) every time.

[Scairp]

27. I concur

A bona fide war hero and a former NATO commander (who is also a southerner) is the best possible chance we have for a win in November.

[guajira]

32. Clark - Yes! Yes! Yes!

Kerry/Clark - it has a nice ring to it!

[Ilsa]

45. I love the alliteration!

K/C! K/C! K/C! K/C!
KerryClarkKerryClarkKerryClarkKerryClarkKerryClarkKerryClark

[maveric]

51. Clark, Yes!

Two war heroes against the fake, AWOL coward.
Thats the ticket!

[Rebellious Republican]

57. That would be a good choice, Kerry/Clark, I like the sound of ...

that. It has a nice ring and just kinda rolls off the tongue.

[jtb33]

7. Two Senators on the same ticket...

wouldn't be the best choice. I think he needs to choose a Governor, or former governor to be most effective.

[Nashyra]

10. They plan to use his voting record

on intelligence and the his votes on the gulf wars. Clark could diffuse this issue overnight, there is no one that the voters could believe in more wholeheartedly for National Security or Foreign Policy than Clark. They could try, try and use any rhetoric that they think they have on Clark but his experience says it all. Colin Powell even though I think is a pussy now was the most trusted cabinet member in this administration and he also was a general. Independents and swing voters like Clark, it wraps up the veteran and the military vote plus it helps New Mexico, OK, ARK, AZ and of course really puts CA out of play because of the fund raising that Wes Jr. out has in LA, not to mention the military vote in Florida and the absentee military votes and the 6million expatriots that vote out of the country who are more aware of Clark's acommplishments.

[cazman]

8. How can it NOT be Edwards?

He gave Kerry a run for his money after a late start, and had Clark to contend with. He's a Southerner. He's strong with independents, even some Repugs. He'll bring balance to Kerry's perceived Northeastern establishment liberalism. He's young, good-looking, upbeat and well-spoken. His background and upbringing resonates, if he just doesn't overdo it. I think Kerry should bring him on board ASAP, why wait, have a unified front early.

[Ganja Ninja]

23. I'm ABB on the VP too.

But I admired Edwards campaign ability and think he would be a better VP candidate than Clark. Clark might be a better VP but Edwards will draw more votes to the ticket than Clark IMHO.

[belle]

50. Agree.

[mac2]

56. Bring in those southern votes.

[mac2]

11. Darn it..the delegates at the convention should pick the candidates

and the platform. Why bother to have a convention when it turns out boring like 2000?

I want a choice by the people for VP and Platform. The President would be our choice to follow our wishes. Is this too democratic for Democrats?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

12. I got a letter from the GOP.

They think it will either be Saddam Husein, Osama Bin Laden or a clone made from both, Osama Bin Hussein. I'm really excited to see which one it will be.

[zbdent]

14. You mean they're going to switch their party registration?

Wow, that would be news. Probably the reason why SH is still alive.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

31. No shit. I think he still owes Bush sr. some dough.

[TankLV]

15. Great idea - but don't stop there.

Get a set-up that looks like the oval office - desk, everything - just like bunkerboy did.

Emphasize the fact that this it is an accomplished fact that Kerry WILL be the next occupant of OUR White House.

Shove that image down the whore media's throats.

Start selecting the cabinet - the curtains - everything.

Hammer it home hard!

[TacticalPeek]

18. Last night Craig Crawford said he had talked with

some Southern dem political leaders. They supposedly told him the Kerry campaign had given them a list of targeted Southern states, and NC was not one of them. (AR, LA, TN, FL, and maybe one other, WV(?).

At this point I think we should still assume a close election, and therefore I support whichever VP nom wll best help insure the R downfall, and secondarily, help with congressional coattails. Clark seems logical for national security reinforcement, and could help in the Southern targets.

I see no point in waiting until Boston to announce, but do want plenty of time devoted to global thermonuclear vetting of whoever. The main thing about picking VP is don't blow it. The second is try to get a state or two (without risking any), and next, complement the prez nom's strengths.

[Stuckinthebush]

19. How about a woman and/or a minority?

Many of the names batted around in the media and here are mainly white males. Isn't it time that we had a woman or non-Caucasian on a presidential ticket that could win? We had Geraldine a few years back...let's do it again, but this time with a powerhouse candidate like Kerry.

[jackie867]

21. too risky...

can't afford to take that chance or give people an excused to NOT vote for the Dem ticket...WE MUST WIN this election!

[truthseeker1]

29. how about Hillary?

Seems like a surefire way to win, and James Carville even made reference to it yesterday. He said something like....he can't think of anything Hillary wouldn't do if the party asked her. Carville seems like a pretty reliable inside source.

[BigBigBear]

61. Terrible idea

We need her to 1) stay in the Senate and 2) keep her promise to serve the people of NY.

[Blue Gardener]

63. Wouldn't be a good idea

I know people that will vote for Kerry, but not if Hillary is on the ticket. I think she's great, but we would lose too many votes.

[BigBigBear]

22. One priority

Kerry needs to state, on the record and to the nation, that his top priority is picking someone who can step in to be president.

We all want him to pick someone who can stand up to Cheney, who can play "attack dog" if necessary ( and I think it will be), who can draw Southern independents (assuming there ARE any), etc etc.

But the moment this appears to the nation to be a political positioning exercise, he's toast.

Guys, get the message out - "I will pick someone who will help me govern, who can govern effectively and with sound judgment should I be unable to do so after taking office. The American people deserve nothing less. "

[readmylips]

28. I agree...A smarter gentleman against snake cheney is George...

George Mitchell for VP. Besides, a George on our ticket would make littlel man georgie boosh angry.

[Tommy_Douglas]

24. An outsiders perspective...

I think Kerry/Edwards sounds better. I don't think Clark ever considered or wanted to be the VP, and for me Kerry/Clark kind of sounds a little redundant.

[readmylips]

25. Wrong...Kerry needs a VP smarter than snake Cheney....

Cheney is the snake's head and maybe Richardson is much smarter than snake cheney. Cheney is evil looking and Richardson's good looks (Spanish looks) will come across as charming.

[Sagan]

26. I like Edwards, but...

I just hate the idea of losing two Senate seats like that. One's enough.

Edwards would be a gutsy pick from the point of view of a long term Democratic strategy of retaining the WH, though.

I like Clark, Richardson and Graham, too.

ABB, baby!

[skippysmom]

36. Edwards isn't running again for his seat

So we would lose that seat anyway, most likely.

I think it's gotta be Kerry/Edwards. Edwards would bring so many good things to the ticket.

[salin]

33. an idea from the Nation... Lloyd Dogett!

Fighting democratic congressman from Texas!

[GOPisEvil]

58. Lloyd Rules!

I like him in Congress a lot though. :D

[fob]

34. Two comments - #1 - Reality Show! American VP or Mega-Game Show

Who wants to be VP! With Kerry in Regis' spot and asking real questions with an anti-bush* twist.
Example; An American city is attacked by terrorist group from Country A, Country B has oil, Country C is in a desperate humanitarian crisis, Country D is France. Which Country should be confronted?

This would be a great way to engage and infiltrate Faux Network.

#2 - Ann Richards for VP - She's a tough, smart Democrat, a REAL Texan, knows shrub* well, and will crush dickless* in the VP debate!
And for those of the "we can't afford to push for a female on the ticket this time" types, She can pull this off, afterall she was Governor of Texas too, so she's already passed the bigoted white male voter test!

[underpants]

35. All right ........I'll do it

Come phone RING!!!!!

[Gingersnapsback]

39. Bill Clinton gets my vote

The Next Best Thing to Being President
By STEPHEN GILLERS

With John Edwards's decision to quit the race, expected to be announced officially today, John Kerry's nomination as the Democratic candidate for president is secure. Speculation about his choice for vice president can now begin in earnest.

Mr. Edwards himself is an obvious choice: a skilled campaigner, he would also attract Southern voters. Other possibilities include Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana and Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who have both regional appeal and executive experience, and dark-horse candidates like former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia.

Amid this conjecture, however, one name is conspicuously absent: Bill Clinton.

Mr. Clinton's strengths would compensate for Mr. Kerry's weaknesses almost perfectly. Not only is Mr. Clinton the most talented campaigner of his generation, but he is also a Southerner — and since 1948, when Harry S. Truman chose Senator Alben Barkley of Kentucky as his running mate, every successful Democratic ticket has included a Southern politician.

Besides, people might even pay to watch Bill Clinton debate Dick Cheney. So why not?

The first objection, the constitutional one, can be disposed of easily. The Constitution does not prevent Mr. Clinton from running for vice president. The 22nd Amendment, which became effective in 1951, begins: "No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice."

No problem. Bill Clinton would be running for vice president, not president. Scholars and judges can debate how loosely constitutional language should be interpreted, but one need not be a strict constructionist to find this language clear beyond dispute. Bill Clinton cannot be elected president, but nothing stops him from being elected vice president.

True, if Mr. Clinton were vice president he would be in line for the presidency. But Mr. Clinton would succeed Mr. Kerry not by election, which the amendment forbids, but through Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which provides that if a president dies, resigns or is removed from office, his powers "shall devolve on the vice president." The 22nd Amendment would not prevent this succession.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/03/opinion/03GIL.html?th.... for more :think:

[tedoll78]

44. Every time I bring-up the possibility..

I get a bunch of responses from those who haven't actually read the 22nd Amendment's specific words. Finally.. an article that sums-up the theoretical scenario nicely. (thanks for the link!)

[BigBigBear]

47. The potential for freeper heartburn is inviting on this

but there's less than no chance this'll ever happen.

[elcondor]

49. EXCEPT

that anyone running for vice-president must fulfill the same requirements as someone running for president. Since Clinton has been elected president twice, he can't be president again, therefore he can't be vice-president either.

[tedoll78]

59. False.

Note that the Constitution requires only that one be able to serve as President. There's nothing in the Constitution requiring the VP to be able to be elected to the Presidency. Re-read the 12th Amendment.

It's very, very semantic. There are two routes to the Presidency: succession and election. Note that the 22nd Amendment only placed limits on the election portion; the succession route is entirely left open. Since this route is open, Bill Clinton is indeed eligible to serve as President, if he were to succeed into the office. And since he is eligible to serve as President, he is eligible to be elected V.P.

[kskiska]

40. I hope he doesn't announce his VP for a while

Why give them two guys to tear apart for months when they don't have to? Keep them guessing.

[efhmc]

43. Not only a good idea for the reason you stated but also to keep interest

and media attention high.

[blindpig]

41. remember Eagleton!

a poor pick could undo us. As stated above, Edwards would be good a good choice but I hate to lose a Senate seat. Whats he got left, 2 years? I can't see Clark, overkill on the military and might look desperate. I really don't know but the choice needs to be a king hell attack dog. On second thought, as we probably don't have a chance to retake the Senate this year, Maybe Edwards should be the one, I dunno.

[Ediacara]

46. Edwards' term expires in 2004

and he's already said he's not running for re-election. Choosing Edwards wouldn't lose us his Senate seat.

[jackstraw45]

42. They've been working on it for weeks...

they ALWAYS say they aren't looking but it takes MONTHS AND MONTHS to choose a running mate.

There's an incredible amount of vetting that needs to be done and chances are it's down to a SHORT list at this point.

[colorado_ufo]

48. Clark! For WHOLE lotta reasons -

but chief among them are security and foreign relations. And, he has all the attributes of strong leadership, a quick mind, a real team player, and very photogenic!

I think that one of the chief reasons Clark did not make a stronger showing is his lack of political experience. This, however, is a plus for the VP: he would come to office without "baggage." This would give him the experience that he needs to run after Kerry's second term.

Remember, come debate time: Who was captain of the West Point Debate Team? You got it! And, No. 1 in his graduating class. Kerry needs that kind of strength to support him, and we need it, too!

Wes Clark, true American Patriot - no bull!

[ignatius]

53. Another Clarkie here. Brains,charm, bravery and not bad

on the eyes either. I think he would help with the southern vote and the elderly vote, bigtime.

Two war heros,both with brains and the ability to actually speak in complete and logical sentences..my oh my, what a debate that would be against pResident Dimwit and the snarly toothed-mumbler.

Bring 'em on!!!

[lolly]

60. Debates?

Who really thinks there will be debates this time around?

AWOL will be too busy being the war president, Cheney will be hiding in an "undisclosed location" for security purposes (except, of course, when he's fundraising).

This administration just offers too much of a target for any half-brained opposition debater for them to risk it, even with a docile press to declare victory for Boy George.

[mac2]

54. Why not choose at the convention by delegates?

they are getting ahead of themselves again. I haven't even picked a candidate for President yet in my state.

[McScotty007]

62. I have some questions

I will preface my comments by openly telling you that I am new to being politically active, so I'm not really sure whether I would consider myself a republican, a democrat, or somewhere in between and some of my friends told me this is a great place to ask questions/ receive answers, and it seems like you guys are pretty smart over all, so I wanted to start a dialogue with you if I could. I have many topics which interest me, so I wanted to hear you guys thoughts on them.

IRAQ:
I am more than dismayed that we have found no WMD's in Iraq. I don't know how the entire world was so wrong about this and I fully agree we should have waited for more conclusive proof, but I have a few problems with saying we should not have gone. First, why did Saddam kick everyone out if he was not operating or trying to creat another WMD program? I haven't heard either side really talk about it at all, and that seems to me to be an argument in favor of him beng taken out. Second, even if he had no WMD, Iraqi's no longer have to live under a brutal dictatorship, where he gassed his own people and even if the new constitutional society which is attempting to be put in place fails, then at least they will have had a shot at freedom. I do not want anyone to rant about the fact that we gave him the gas in the first place, it still doesn't give him the right to use it on his own people/ The war still does not sit easy with me, but I feel like the world is safer with him captured. Also, I have read reports that France and Russia's unwillingness to go along was based on Oil contracts they were likely to try and secure. Anyways, please tell me where you think I have gone wrong on this topic. I realize it is limited, but just initial feelings

Government:
I still don't know how I feel about big government/little government. I have always been very independant and I don't like the thought of when I reach the upper limits of earning potential as a lawyer, that if Kerry is in the White House, his goal is to take half of my earnings for other people. I've always felt like a safety net is supposed to be there for those who can't/won't take care of themselves, but I feel like individual donations for charity is the best way, rather than government mandate. Individual responsibility is very important to me, and it scares me when I see a federal program being created for everything under the sun. I know George Bush is the worst spender of all, so should I just assume that large government spending is here to stay?

Please ask me more questions on other topics or offer comments. I would like to start a dialogue. You guys can be my litmus test for the 2004 election. LOL

[TEXASYANKEE]

64. I'll say Kerry/Edwards.

For one main reason -- the media seems to like both these men. The coverage for both (and especially for Edwards) has been glowing, positive, and encouraging. Now, of course, that could all change now that the primaries are almost over. But I don't see any drawback to a Kerry/Edwards ticket.