I'm ready to start slapping some sense into people about the VP nod!

[Padraig18]

Although it continues to be a small minority of posters, I continue to see slams, bashes and outright lies being spread here at DU about our possible VP nominees. That they post it knowingly and maliciously, even when they know it is false, truly gives me pause to question their motivations, and indeed their committment to the progressive cause.

I have news for those people--- not only did my 'first preference' not make it, but neither did my SECOND--- or my THIRD! If I can bloody well get on board the Kerry campaign when he is unlikely to pick 'my guy' as his running mate, so can you; that you have not done so is due largely to your refusal to pull your stubborn, prideful, long-necked heads out of your arses and take a look at how things stand in America this 15th day of May, 2004.

Quit this idiotic sniping! We don't have even ONE potential VP who is perfect; what we do have is MANY who are VERY, VERY good: a distinguished general, a fine US Senator, a long-serving Congressman and former Speaker, a two-term Democratic governor in a swing state, etc. .

As for me, I will vote for John Kerry if he picks Elvis' corpse as his running mate!

/rant off

[bain_sidhe]

1. :grin:

You go, guy!

And I second the rant. Honestly, you have to wonder if some of the people here have noses, they seem to be so good at cutting them off to spite their face.

[Padraig18]

4. No doubt in my mind that some of the...

...agent provocateurs here are Freepers.

[bain_sidhe]

18. Oh, I agree.

Freepers are most certainly pissing in our pond. But what I find sad is that it's sometimes difficult to tell the difference between the freepers and the anti-______-for-vp Dems. Some of what these agent provacateurs say is virtually indistinguishable from what some who (at least judging by past interactions) have seemed to be sincere Democrats and/or progressives have said, and are still saying.

There's a lesson in there, I just wish I were smart enough to figure out what it is...

[Padraig18]

19. The 'anti-______-for-vp Dems':

They take their talking points directly from the RNC opposition-research site. IF they're Dems, they are piss-poor Dems, IMO.

[bain_sidhe]

22. at the risk of ending up on somebody's

shit list (or should that be "bush list"?) I have to agree: If they're dems they're piss-poor ones. Brings to mind the old saying, "with friends like these, who needs enemies?" And we already have more than enough enemies.

[LittleApple81]

2. Ditto. But I still hope it is going to be Clark...cannot kill hope, can

we?

[Padraig18]

3. Hope is fine.

Just remember that others have hopes for their guy, too; far too many here adopt a 'scorched-earth' advocacy for their favorite.

[Auntie Bush]

7. I will always root for Clark...but I have always said I would vote

for anyone Kerry choses...even if it is Micky Mouse. So please don't put me on your scorched-earth list. I haven't noticed that there are any Clark supporters who said they wouldn't vote for Kerry if Clark isn't VP. Name one! Sorry, they don't exist. Clarkies just believe with all their heart that he should be the man for the job and we are expressing our opinion.

[Padraig18]

15. They do, in fact, exist.

However, the rules against 'calling someone out' make it impossible for me to say who they are in a post; otherwise, I would gladly do so.

[Jai4WKC08]

16. I dunno if I'm on your list or not

And I don't really care. I am one who will vote for Kerry regardless of who his VP is.

But I am sick to death of Edwardniacs who have to slam Clark's campaign skills every time I turn around. Or worse.

Everytime there's a thread about some Clark activity for Kerry, and there IS a lot of that--deal with it--there will invariably appear the following posts:

1) Clark is a lousy speaker and can't be trusted not to screw up the campaign.
2) Clark is really a Republican and can't be trusted to be President if something happens to Kerry
3) At least one old canard from the RNC
4) No one in all of America outside DU supports Clark anyway because his supporters here all invaded from the Clark blogs (which I guess are located in outer space somewhere, or maybe Albania).

Well, I will not stand for that sort of crap and will fight back. Count on it. I don't like Edwards, never have. If Kerry picks Edwards, I'll know he's an idiot (fortunately, there's not much chance of that, because Kerry is not an idiot). But that said, I don't attack Edwards in retribution, but only when the argument is that Edwards is so much better than Clark at (fill in the blank), as it invariably is. As absurd as that seems as I type it.

[Padraig18]

17. I have no list

Why so touchy? I happen to like BOTH Clark and Edwards, which is why I find the bashing back and forth so totally insane.

[Jai4WKC08]

30. Why so touchy?

I think I answered that. I'm sick to death of the attacks on Clark when he's breaking his ass to get Kerry elected and most of us are doing all we can to help him.

You may say you like 'em both, and maybe you do. Now. But you started out doing the same thing, so don't talk to me. Talk to your Edwards buddies.

[Padraig18]

32. Excuse me, but you don't know what you're talking about, hf_jai.

Any long-time DU-er will inform you that I a.) was initially a Dean supporter, only switching to Edwards when Howard suspended his campaign after the WI primary, and b.) that I have consistently defended Gen. Clark against false and misleading attacks since he first announced fir President back last September.

The next time you attack me, please be so good as to get your facts straight.

[Tom Rinaldo]

Yup. I vouch for that. But I understand where hf_jai...

...is coming from. Only you have never been among those with a need to tear Clark down. To the contrary. And yes, there has been some "pretty boy" retorts thrown at Edwards by some Clark supporters, and probably worse. Still, Clark continues to drew major heat from a small handful on DU. Truth is, both Clark and Edwards did relatively well. They left seasoned pols like Graham, Gephardt and Lieberman in their dust. In reality Clark remained a viable candidate for longer than Howard Dean, who I also honor and am not intending to slur with that comment. After Iowa, NH, Dean just could not recover. Clark could have stayed in longer, same as Edwards, picking up some of Dean's support, but he knew the public wanted to unite around a front runner. There were four viable candidates this year; Kerry, Dean, Edwards and Clark. They all did well in different ways. It is a shame that the regional criteria aspect of VP politics has kept Dean from being acknowledged as a viable VP candidate himself.

[AP]

42. I appreciate the evan-handedness of this post.

However, I'd like to add a few things. You never had to see any of these candidates campaign or wait for a single vote to be cast to know that Kerry, Edwards, Dean and Clark were going to finish higher than Graham, Gephardt and Lieberman. There are no surprises there.

Also, Dean is finishing conistently higher than Clark and has twice the electoral votes. Dean pulled out sooner than Clark, but Clark probably should have pulled out before Dean (ie, after OK, when it was clear that Edwards was getting as many votes as he was without spending the same money and time to get them). Just because Clark didn't pull out before Dean doesn't really mean that he was viable longer than Dean was. (It just says something about what it took for him to realize that he wasn't viable, or it says something about his desire to help Kerry in TN, VA, etc.)

Edwards stayed in the longest because he had a chance the longest and because their polling must have been revealing the same thing the informed voter study subsequently proved: that his trajectory was going up and could have passed Kerry with the time, money and maybe a little bit of luck. For him, it didn't make sense to pull out until after Super Tuesday.

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. Correction: Clark pulled out before Dean

Clark pulled out immediately after TN, a week before the Wisconsin vote. Clark had been leading both Dean and Edwards in Wisconsin polling, and had a good organization in place there with strong party support. Dean "downplayed" all of the state contests after NH, with the expressed purpose of concentrating his resources on winning Wisconsin, in which Dean campaigned extensively. Despite that strategy Dean was trailing Clark before Clark's exit, and Dean did far worse than Clark overall in almost all of the contests after NH prior to Clark withdrawing.

It made good sense for Clark to remain in the race through TN, because up until his leaving the race, Clark overall performed better outside of the South than Edwards in the races that they both competed in, and was polling better than Edwards in several upcoming states. Had Clark pulled off a victory in TN he was positioned to take the race out of the South, picking up anti war Dean voters in the process who were realizing that their man had become a lost cause. Clark had a good showing in TN, just not good enough. Edwards clearly beat Clark there but it was no route by a long shot. Yes it made sense for Clark to get out when he did, but it would not have made sense for him to get out earlier. It also made sense for Edwards to stay in. If anyone was slow to exit, it was Dean.

[AP]

44. Edwards was making huge gains in every state as election days drew near

while Clark was losing ground as election days drew near.

That was probably a big indicator to Clark that he wasn't going anywhere.

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. He wasn't going anywhere because the public decided

to rally around "a winner", and that became Kerry, and Clark and Kerry both appealed to many of the same voters, those who cared about having a nominee who had strong credentials in National Security. Edwards wasn't drawing strongly from that voter profile group, so he was somewhat less effected at first by the Kerry bandwagon effect.

Once Edwards got the field cleared for his big one on one with Kerry, those huge last minute gains you speak of fizzled out. Kerry was pulling away from Edwards as the last Super Tuesday approached, and Edward's crowds were becoming smaller, not larger. I can say more but this is getting really tiresome. Kerry whupped both our guys.

[AP]

46. He was on an upward trajectory only stopped by money and time and...

... perhaps the media.

In contrast to conventional polls and the primaries to date, where Kerry has maintained a wide lead over Edwards, our participants came to like Edwards as well or better. After deliberating, on a "feeling thermometer" (scored from 0 to 100) they rated Kerry at just over 55 degrees and Edwards at just over 56. On another set of questions asking how well the traits “sincere,” “intelligent” and “thinks like I do” describe each candidate (a scale also scored from 0 to 100), Edwards was perceived significantly more positively than Kerry, averaging 66 versus 61.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/polls.html

Although I think Edwards lost it in OK, I do think this poll shows why Edwards was right to keep on going until it was defitely too late.

Anyway, if anyone had a good argument for wanting to be the second last man standing -- to have a competition of ideas with the guy in the leade -- it was Edwards.

Edwards's huge gains didn't fizzle. They just weren't enough. He was literally going from polling around 10 to polling in the 20s and low 30s everywhere. Nobody gained as much as Edwards in the last three days before a primary.

Also, Kerry might have appealed to the same voters as Clark, but they were still going with Kerry 3 or 4:1. It's not like they were splitting votes and hurting each other. When it came down to it, maybe Clark's total included a slightly higher % of people who were vets, and people who cared about nationali security the most, but, within those groups, they had little hesitation in going for Kerry by wide margins. (I'm thinking of NH and NM specifically, but remember that being the case in most of the states for which I looked at polling).

[AP]

48. A think about crowds for Super Tuesday.

Running around MN, OH, and GA, planning events with one or two days notice, not having a ton of money, was the reason crowds got smaller (if that's even true -- the CSU event in OH was HUGE, and MN crowds were great too).

Another thing to note: Kerry: 9 million votes, Edwards: 3.1 million. Clark, 560K.

I'm sorry this is tiresome for you, but it's important to talk about it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

50. There were a lot more votes to be had in States like

CA, NY, OH, MN, GA, and WI etc., which all had their votes counted after Clark withdrew, have far more voters collectively than states like NH, OK, ND, TN, NM and SC etc., which were the ones in play while Clark was still in the race. Of course Edwards pulled millions of votes from those later states, there were millions more to be had, and the anti Kerry vote had nowhere else realistically to go by then other than to Edwards. I am stopping now. Go ahead, it's your chance to get in the last word.

[AP]

53. And if Clark had any chance of doing well in CA, NY, etc.,

he wouldn't have dropped out.

I know it's a chicken and egg thing, but what are we arguing here?

I'll be the first to admit that past performance as a campaigner is not the number one criteria for picking your VP. You pick your VP to win the race, and that won't necessarily be the second best (or best campaigner) of the primary season. (However, I will say that I have an eye on 2012 with the VP pick this year -- I don't want an Al Gore who won't be able to win it when it's his turn.)

Nonetheless, if we're arguing who were the best campaingers of the primary season, I'm going to say that Edwards was the best, Kerry was the second best, Dean the third best, and Clark the fourth best (and that's giving him a lot of credit), considering what they were given, and from where they started and where they finished.

I really don't think I'm going out on a limb saying that.

[Jai4WKC08]

52. Perhaps I am misremembering

Weren't you someone else at some point? (your id that is ;) ) If not, I am mistaken and I apologize.

But I don't think I attacked you. That's not what it looks like when I attack. lol

[citizen snips]

51. I don't think Clark is a repuke.

[CJCRANE]

5. UK DUer for Clark! n/t

.

[mobuto]

6. Elvis' corpse in 2004!

Mel Carnahan was the first corpse elected to the US Senate, back in 2000. Could Elvis be the first to break the dirt ceiling and get into the White House?

[Padraig18]

9. And look who Carnahan defeated, too!

Our illustrious AG, Mr. Asscraft. :puke:

[ashling]

8. a "corpse"

is the used up body of a dead guy, but

ELVIS IS ALIVE

... so I'm told

[Padraig18]

12. He and Howard Hughes are hanging out together at the 7-11.

:P

[Anarcho-Socialist]

10. I'd go with a Kerry/Elvis ticket

It might deliver some crucial EVs in the South. :p

Anyway I certainly agree with your sentiments, Padraig.

[Padraig18]

11. Thanks!

It's time for the bullshit to stop. :hi:

[newyawker99]

38. Hi The_Enlightenment!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[spooky3]

13. I would have some problems with VP Elvis

but if that's what it takes to get that "NASCAR dad" vote, I guess it's ok.

JUST KIDDING (for those who are the same brain dead types who are trashing the more qualified candidates for VP).

[forgethell]

14. I'd like to get some opinions

on John McCain for VP, presenting a "unity" party. I don't think it will happen, because he has already said he wasn't interested. But, hey, circumstances change. As I understood it, he would even get to name some cabinet members. Nothing like Presidency by committee. He wouldn't have to change parties. The only thing is he would have to promise not to appoint judges who would vote against choice.

Now, I have to admit that I do not share the confidence of so many people that * is headed for a landslide defeat. But are we this desperate yet? Am I missing something? Information and/or opinion would be appreciated.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

20. AAAARRRRRGH, not that again!

What is this with "John McCain for VP" threads popping up in clusters every couple of weeks? (I know of two threads today.)

It's a lousy idea each time it's mentioned. It's a symbol of our superficial, celebrity-worshipping, unethical, anything-to-win culture that anyone would even consider an anti-choice, anti-environmental, pro-weapons system, anti-labor super right-wing Republican for VP when there are so many great Democrats out there.

:grr:

[Padraig18]

21. What Lydia said! n/t

[bain_sidhe]

24. What Padraig18 said! n/t

:D

[surfermaw]

23. I am with you on the McCain thing

This junk with McCain is going to come home to bite the Democrats in the rear..You know Bush could drop out if he keeps falling in the polls, and McCain could be on the Republican ticket,

[forgethell]

28. Well, I tend to agree that

it is a bad idea. Nevertheless, it popped up again. Thank you for your opinion.

[cally]

25. Another no McCain!

The guy's conservative on important Dem issues. He's been shilling for Bush. Too many great Dem candidates are available. We don't need him.

[dae]

26. Please add my opinion to the Hell NO, column. Thanks.

:)

[forgethell]

29. thanks for your opinion.

I think I agree.

[UrbScotty]

27. Whew! Thank you!

Thank you for posting that.

Was it a relief for you to post that? ;-)

[Hippo_Tron]

31. Gephardt was never Speaker...

He was Majority Leader under Tom Foley. Just thought I'd clear that up.

[Padraig18]

33. You're correct

Oops!

:hi:

[bushwakker]

34. Gephardt is my choice and many here won't like it

Gep makes the most sense and has the least risk.

[Padraig18]

39. He may be the least risk, but...

... he also 'brings less to the table' than several others. He's a 'wash', as far as adding anything to the ticket, IMO. He doesn't alienate anyone, but he doesn't draw the Indys and disaffected Repubs, either. :shrug:

[ACK]

35. Vote for Kerry even if he picked a dead drug snorting commie cat

Bill/Opus 2004?

Oh well... Figure a few people might catch the reference.

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. Well said, Padraig, as ususal. I fully agree n/t

[DU GrovelBot]

37. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v2.0
==================
 
The time now is 9:13:37AM EDT, Sunday, May 16, 2004.
 
There are exactly...
0 days,
14 hours,
46 minutes, and
23 seconds left in our fund drive.
 
This website could not survive without your generosity. Member donations 
pay for more than 84% of the Democratic Underground budget. Don't let
GrovelBot become the next victim of the Bush economy. Bzzzt.
 
Please take a moment to donate to DU right now. Thank you for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[Padraig18]

40. Kick for the folks who still don't get it. n/t

[Cuban_Liberal]

41. So am I!

We have a select handful of posters here who prove the fact that one need not be a dyed-in-the-wool Freeper to be just as bad as a dyed-in-the-wool Freeper, Paddy!

[Padraig18]

47. Exactly, Tony!

:thumbsup:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. Kerry will just pick another bush appeaser like himself. .

Then he'll whine about losing the election because the left didn't vote for him.

As usual, the Democratic Party had a chance to actually put forward a candidate who stood for something but chose another DLC lightweight who only stands for himself.

As for the VP candidates, the ones that I've heard mentioned most are pre-packaged DLC "we have to get the moderates (read rightwing)" shills whose only literary ability is poll reading. Hell, even one supposedly Democratic senator is clamoring for a republican to run with Kerry.

Thank God for a few dems who still have some principles or I wouldn't vote at all.