Kerry-Vilsack (04)?

[ginnyinWI]

In the latest American Prospect, Robert Kuttner writes (p.13) that it is "widely reported" that Tom Vilsack was Kerry's 2nd or 3rd choice, after Edwards. Does anyone know if it's true? What do you think would have been the result. Heck, what do you think of Vilsack--maybe all the DLC labelling around DU has been unfair?

He also points out that Vilsack is the chairman of the DLC, but that he is very labor-friendly and is a liberal, but one who can talk like a DLC-er too: a "uniter". And that he has been a very successful governor.


Something else: Kuttner lists out his first and second tier lists for '08:
First Tier: Hillary, Kerry, Biden and Gore
Second Tier: Warner, Bayh, Richardson, Feingold, Edwards, Vilsack.

Kind of interesting how far he departs from DU's conventional wisdom!
Feingold relegated to second tier, Kerry in first, and Clark nowhere to be found! (of course it's still early days.;) )

[JI7]

1. Edwards, Vilsack, and Gephardt were on Kerry's final list

it was based on what was thought to be their ability to get moderate/conservative leaning voters in the midwest based on their backgrounds.

Vilsack had a pretty interesting life. not many know about this, but he was an orphan at birth and adopted by some good people.

and of course we know about Edwards and Gephardts background.

[emulatorloo]

36. and don't forget Senator Bob Graham, who would have made a

terrific choice.

[karynnj]

2. Kuttner's choices are interesting

What Gore does will be very interesting. His support, IMHO, consists of people explicitly wanting a choice other than Hillary.

I really don't see Biden remaining that high - as CSPAN obsessives, we see more Biden than most political junkies. He really doesn't wear well. One thing I've noticed is that he often smiles right after giving a put down - there's a creepiness there. If Gore drops out, I think Edwards, not Biden will be the competition and he will be a tougher opponent than Biden.

I wonder if one reason Vilsack was not taken was that I think he is Catholic - a 2 Catholic ticket was the reason mentioned for not taking Durbin.

[ginnyinWI]

4. Biden strikes me as insincere

There's just something funny about him--I get a bad feeling--as if he's really not such a nice guy. He can be very aggressive, but where's his heart? I want tough and compassionate at the same time--and I think I know which guy has those qualities.

[sandnsea]

5. "not such a nice guy"

Yeah, I get that too. That phony charm that hides a real vindictive backstabbing kind of guy. I don't trust him and I don't like him.

[beachmom]

6. I actually SAW him being "not a nice guy" right on C-SPAN

He was giving a speech, and a young, cute male intern started approaching him in the foreground to give him something or other. Biden gave him the dirtiest look and waved his hand (almost Stalinesque) dismissing him. I felt really bad for the intern -- maybe he made a mistake, but he shouldn't have been admonished like that in the Senate chamber. So if Biden is that mean on camera, imagine how difficult he is in private. I think he's the guy who's charming one minute and vindictive and mean spirited the next. Not that we can believe the punditry, but there was a lot of guffawing when he was going after John Bolton for his anger problems -- everyone said Biden is famous for his raging temper, no doubt against his own poor staffers. Based on that one moment I saw, I think that bit of gossip is true.

I have to say I'm puzzled by all this love for Edwards -- he was a joke in '04, and faired poorly in the debate against Cheney. Simply put, he's unpresidential, and I'm really pissed at him for his "Kerry met with a terrorist?" comment in the Newsweek book -- didn't he bother to get to know his running mate, and know that was bullshit? That doesn't mean I don't commend him for his work on poverty -- that is a noble thing. But, it's hard for me to understand how people think he is 1st tier.

[ray of light]

8. Oh...Beechmom...I love Edwards!!!!

I thought his debate with Cheney was fantastic! Honestly, I think the leaders of the campaign put Edwards on too tight of a leash. They wanted him to use 'nice southern charm' (that type of thing) and had they allowed him to be more of an attack dog, he would have decimated them! The consultants screwed up for both Kerry and Edwards in o4.

Regarding Edward's comment in Newsweek, first...I didn't see it. What book? Secondly, I'd have to say that I doubt Kerry knew everything about Edwards and visa versa. I believe that to know all those things you have to have a staff who has researched 100% of everything. But if a reporter does his job well, he's going to ask you something you're not prepared for, especially if they don't give you their list of questions in advance!

So I'd also like to say, if it was written that he said that then how do we know the reporter didn't paraphrase Edwards wrong? How do we know that Edwards didn't reply to that with a sneer, smirk, or chuckle at the absurdity of being asked such a ridiculous question? The bias of the author may have been written but because we don't have the audio or video we have no idea of what Edward's demeanor was when he responded.

Furthermore, when you read writing, you see what you want to see. Honestly, I've seen so many flame wars because one person wrote something that sounds sarcastic but it's not. Or another person put in quotes what should have been paraphrased. So this is the same type of thing. You may have read that as a serious reply, and I may be more willing to assume that Edwards may have had a different sort of demeanor and that maybe he laughed off the reporter's implication but perhaps the reporter didn't tell us that. (Sort of like a "I'll believe it when I see it" look on his face.) If the reporter didn't tell us, then how do we know?

That is one reason why I support Crooks and liars so much. The videos are very powerful and people need to see it to believe it.

[beachmom]

10. First, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings about Edwards

But, I like Warner, and almost everyone on the forum dislikes him. Still, I guess I need to be more sensitive to other people here.

Having said that, the terrorist comment was in regards to the Swift Boat attacks. They said Kerry met with North Vietnam "terrorists" in Paris. Well, the truth was he told North Vietnamese representatives at the Paris peace negotiations of, what, 1972 (right?) to set the POWs free, and not in an official manner. And Nixon's people were there, too, so I don't know what the big deal was. AND, call Ho Chi Min's people what you want, they were soldiers, not terrorists, at least not terrorists in the way al Qaeda is today. So it was a bullshit RW smear from the get go. So when Brinkley (author of Tour of Duty) had confirmed that yes JK was in Paris and had met with the North Vietnamese, Edwards' reaction was "oh great, he met with terrorists?" It came through as "oh great, who's that IDIOT terrorist lover who I'm working under? At the first sign of difficulty, I think I'll just sell him down the river." As you said, it's subject to interpretation, but I found that sentence to be the most painful, hurtful line in that entire book (which I will never buy -- I just read it at the bookstore). A book, I may remind you, that was full of the most snarky, unfair, gossipy claptrap about Kerry and THK that I have ever read. Edwards, with that one sentence, gave credence to Swift Boat Lies and propaganda, even if he didn't intend it to be so. So, if you're hearing a little resentment from me, then yes, that's the case.

So there you have it, and my dislike of Edwards. I don't trust him at all. And I don't like how he dragged his young children around the country to fulfill HIS ambitions at the expense of their young lives (the younger one is the same age as my older daughter). That's my other decidedly politcally incorrect thing to say. But . . . I'll try to hold my fire from now on.

[TayTay]

11. Beachmom, I like Warner.

I just think he is very, very thin on experience, particularly in foreign policy. I cannot support him for President for this reason. But I think he is a talented guy and I deeply wish he had run for the Senate or something else in order to attain that needed experience.

It is my understanding that he was a very able Governor who put Virginia's fiscal house back in order and did an exceptional job at managing growth in the Commonwealth. I hope that if he does not win anything in '07-08 that he joins some of the national 'think tanks' and gains experience in the area I mentioned.

This is a big, big reason for me. I think that Clinton, another guy without Washington experience who went from a Governor's mansion to the WH, got rolled in his first few years in DC. He had to rely on the experience of others on foreign policy and he made some big mistakes due to inexperience. This was bad enough in the mid-90's. Given the toxic environment of today's American political involvement in the world, I think electing a Gov without extensive foreign policy experience is a very bad mistake. (These people become captives of special interests almost the day they get elected. The special interests whisper that the new Pres must listen to them because they know what they are talking about and so forth. This is partly why Clinton didn't release all the info on Iran-Contra and such at taking office. He could have destroyed the Bush cartel, but he fell victim almost immediately to the Washington belief that everything should be swept under the carpet because 'bad things will happen and embarrass the US if it gets out.' Hogwash.)

I do not dislike Gov. Warner. Exactly the opposite. He is a talented, intelligent and capable man who is just not the right guy for me at this point in time. I believe the good people from VA who post in here that Warner was a great Gov (particularly after that idiot Allen.)

[beachmom]

14. I agree with everything you said about Warner

Seriously, I don't think he's ready to be POTUS for all the reasons you mentioned. But if a few candidates crash and burn, I'm keeping him on my list. Edwards also has a thin resume, so despite my previous temper tantrum about him (yeah, it may be totally unfair for his off the cuff remark, but I guess it's personal to me), it really does come down to his lack of experience in government and foreign policy -- only 4 years really since the last 2 years of his Senate term he was out campaigning.

Maybe we can put Edwards and Warner together in one respect. Had both of them not been so impatient to go for the top job in the country, the following could have happened:

Edwards could have served the people of North Carolina and been re-elected in '04 (I think if he had stuck with serving his constituents, he certainly wasn't doomed to lose, even in that especially red state).

Warner could have been our candidate for Senate this year in Virginia to unseat Allen, and probably would have won with his pragmatic, technocratic views.

Okay, so peace everyone, and hope you don't dislike ME for my need to confess my resentment of Edwards . . .

[wisteria]

15. I wasn't aware of that comment. Interesting.

I wonder if, had Kerry won, Edwards would have been talking about him behind his back? Trying to undermine him. That is the way this comment comes off and when you add this to the supposed remarks about Edwards being angry because Kerry conceded and he didn't want to,well it seems that Edwards' considers himself better than Kerry. Of course, this is all speculation and may just be spin.

[TayTay]

16. Be careful with that thing about Edwards not wanting to concede

It is my understanding that there is scant facts to back that up. Remember the circumstances around that particular date. Mrs. Edwards had just been diagnosed with breast cancer. It is unlikely that the Edwards were hanging around Boston and having this argument. They had a family crisis to deal with and were otherwise engaged.

[karynnj]

19. I agree

The only backup I can find is a NYT article on the consession - where there is an unattributed comment by someone close to Edwards saying he didn't want to concede. I have seen no direct comments from Edwards on election problems or that he didn't want to concede.

I had posted often, that I would be willing to bet that if he were asked directly by the MSM, he would NOT say that the election was stolen. The real danger is that as things come out - NOW he can make a statement with less risk.

[Mass]

20. To the best of my knowledge, Edwards has never spoken about

the condition of the 04 election and about the difficulties in Ohio and elsewhere, so I doubt he said anything about fighting. If anything, he started his 08 campaign during the concession speech, so I dont think he spent too much time thinking about these issues.

I never heard of a named source arguing he saw Edwards argue that Kerry should not concede for more than a handful of seconds, and we have the same reports concerning Democratic strategists having to convince Kerry, so I assume that they both had the same reaction.

I dont think anybody has any doubt about what i think of Edwards, but I was shocked yesterday when, on Charlie Rose, Spehen Cohen, a Russian expert (and Katrina vanden Heuvel's husband, so probably not a RW awk), said what he thought of the report Edwards and Kempf (sp?) co-authored.

[karynnj]

24. Kemp was the co-author - He was Dole's VP

What did they say? I saw tham on MTP but they spoke very little about the report though that was the main topic.

[Mass]

25. Here is Stephen Cohen's critic on the report, as published in a

couple paragraphs in a long article that he wrote about Russia and which is published in the Nation:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060710/cohen

More astonishing is a Council on Foreign Relations "task force report" on Russia, co-chaired by Democratic presidential aspirant John Edwards, issued in March. The "nonpartisan" council's reputed moderation and balance are nowhere in evidence. An unrelenting exercise in double standards, the report blames all the "disappointments" in US-Russian relations solely on "Russia's wrong direction" under Putin--from meddling in the former Soviet republics and backing Iran to conflicts over NATO, energy politics and the "rollback of Russian democracy."

Strongly implying that Bush has been too soft on Putin, the council report flatly rejects partnership with Moscow as "not a realistic prospect." It calls instead for "selective cooperation" and "selective opposition," depending on which suits US interests, and, in effect, Soviet-era containment. Urging more Western intervention in Moscow's political affairs, the report even reserves for Washington the right to reject Russia's future elections and leaders as "illegitimate." An article in the council's influential journal Foreign Affairs menacingly adds that the United States is quickly "attaining nuclear primacy" and the ability "to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a with a first strike."

I guess it is not surprising for who listened to Edwards's foreign policy views during the campaign (I cringed during the convention speech), but unfortunately, his views have very much been ignored by the media.

The article is worth reading as Stephen Cohen is really a specialist of Russia and the Middle East, and he is extremely critical of the last 15 years of foreign policy in these areas.

[karynnj]

26. Thanks, Mass

I'll read it. (the exerpt is eye openning)

[wisteria]

22. Your right and I feel bad now that I have been hard on Edwards.

Maybe he is actually alright. I know I just love his wife. She is great.

[karynnj]

17. The other thing is that the only reason Kerry's trip was known

is that he told the Senators about it. This trip was shortly after Kerry got married, which I think was when he was working on the 1970 Drinan campaign. When Kerry was still in the service he obeyed the rules about not speaking out. I would guess Kerry made sure what was legal before speaking to them or at least knew he had broken no laws before talking about it to Congress. It was public.

Totally conjecture, but I assume the reason the Bush campaign itself never pushed it might be that the full story reflects better on Kerry than the innuendo. In the 1972 primary, after other candidates had essentially said "out now", Kerry said leaving had to be conditional only on the return of the POWs. This was clearly a public meeting. When Kerry spoke to the Senate, he had no grant of immunity - if there was anything questionable, Nixon would have charged him. It would have been a far easier way to get rid of him.

It sounds like Kerry needed to know that the POWs would be released before he spoke out to end the war.

[Mass]

23. beachmom. I dont dislike Warner. I disagree with him.

However, I agree with you on Edwards, and I think from your comments it is probably for exactly the same reasons.

[ProSense]

27. That quote is more of the same.

I doubt that it is true, and I would never hold it against Edwards as a result.

[ginnyinWI]

28. I don't think he meant it in any bad way--but it was taken out of context

To me, he was saying, "Oh great--another political problem to deal with!" Because the other side takes everything and twists it. Edwards is one of the few who doesn't bash fellow Dems. I must be sensitive on that point, because I turn against politicians easily when I see them Dem-bashing for no good reason.

[karynnj]

13. I agree with you on the quote

Here Edwards would not only have had to be versed on everything Kerry did, but everything the RW said about Kerry. The RW created several stories that went well beyond facts that were repeated. This is why the RW still doesn't believe Kerry was honorably discharged or that all his records aren't out. As to the bias of the reporter - look at the entire book - it is a smear job. (Note also that they don't bother to explain the comment. Edwards is bright enough to know that this would have been a front page problem if true.)

[ProSense]

29. Exactly!

The atmosphere that the media created (and people were too lazy to counter), mixing fact with fiction, was toxic. There isn't even any context to the statement, and you're right Edwards is bright enough, but to think that at that point he had no clue as to what the liars were saying would have made him beyond naive.

[karynnj]

9. With Biden, the charm seems just a thin veneer

that mainly consists of a great smile. "I think he's the guy who's charming one minute and vindictive and mean spirited the next." sounds like our current president as well. I don't think it's just temper - Clinton had a bad temper, but I never heard him described as mean spirited.

I have never been able to figure what is true with Edwards. The press which seems to have difficuty accepting that Kerry is pretty much exactly who he says he is seems to question nothing about Edwards. I also remember the Shapiro comments that basically said that Edwards on camera was more personable on camera than off. Like you, I thought his debate was at best fair.Edwards didn't even vote regularly until he ran for Senate. I thought Kemp was far better when the two of them spoke after their trip to Russia, which may show this has changed. I really think Kerry should have choosen someone with more experience and depth.

In hindsight, a really interesting choice might have been Gary Hart. The Donna Rice stuff was 20 years old. Hart was one of the authors of the terrorism report that the Bush administration ignored. Hart would have then been able to note Kerry's strength here. When Hart ran, some of his comments on technology - through the fog of 20 years memory- sound like Kerry. One reason Kerry won the nomination was that he was experienced, then he picked an inexperienced running mate.

I think his work on poverty is sincere, but I wonder how well versed he is on any of the economics behind it. In 2004, I didn't see the depth of knowledge that Kerry or Gephardt had. However, in a recent column, Bob Herbert spoke highly about what he is doing now. Edwards may well be a huge threat. (I just wish I could get rid of the feeling that I don'ttrust him, as it may be as unfair as people who don't trust Kerry.)

Editted to make semi-coherent

[wisteria]

12. Edward's doesn't strike me as Presidential either. Actually, I attended

a rally in PA which he headlined during the election and I was able to get very close to where he came out and gave his speech. Perhaps, he was rushed, but he came out and seemed very abrupt with people wanting to shake his hand as if he was to busy to take the time to acknowledge them. He then went on to give the exact and I mean exact, same speech he had given at another rally I attended elsewhere in PA. I suppose he is OK. I just can't get enthused about him and I wonder why people think he can pull a win in the South when he couldn't do it the last time. Then of course, there is what I consider his lack of experience. A one term Senator, out of office four years, will not be qualified enough to straighten out the mess Bush and company leave behind. Just my opinion here. Others seem to like him and consider him genuine.

[karynnj]

18. It may be unfair

but a small thing that bothered me was that I don't, even now, see a large number of NC people pushing Edwards. I personally know only 2 non-associated NC. Neither were that impressed, feeling he talked a good game but wasn't really there.

I know there are plenty of MA people who weren't for Kerry, but the vast majority defend him when comments get too negative. (There are a few noteworthy exceptions - but their stated philosophy puts them off the political spectrum.)

[beachmom]

30. Which is in sharp contrast to Warner, who is universally adored in Va.

including people who voted for Bush. You don't get an 80% approval rating upon leaving office for nothing. That's why I put him over Edwards. He has a proven record for getting things accomplished as an executive of his state, and getting it done with a Republican Assembly and State Senate. If we want to talk about a candidate with a thin resume from a red state, Warner easily trumps Edwards. Maybe someone can correct me about Edward's Senate record, but Warner achieved in Virginia what Kerry has set as a goal for the entire U.S. -- universal healthcare for kids. We're at 97% in Virginia. So when Edwards goes on and on about Two Americas, Warner quietly made the lives of Virginians better through smart and responsible fiscal policy. It may not be flourishing rhetoric, but Warner cut the budget first, then raised taxes, and then re-prioritized the state to help those in need first. Don't let his conciliatory rhetoric fool you -- Warner is a Democrat and holds our core values for domestic issues just as much as any Democrat. But he is weak on foreign policy and the environment. I guess I think Edwards is weak on all fronts except for being an exceptionally talented trial lawyer (heck I'd hire him in a second if I could afford him).

In regards to the Newsweek book, somebody mentioned that we shouldn't believe the quote. I agree that Newsweek definitely just made stuff up at times or took quotes out of context thus changing the meaning of them. I wish we could get a denial from Edwards that he ever said that, or at least the way it was presented in the book, but he won't now, so I guess we'll never know. FWIW, if we are to believe the Kerrys and the Edwards, they are still friends, even if they are professional rivals.

[karynnj]

31. The Newsweek special election magazine

that was the precursor to this book also had the most eleborate McCain/Kerry story with Kerry rportedly screaming at McCain - which sounds extremely untrue.

[beachmom]

32. Ha!! Sounds like McCain was the "anonymous source" for that.

Kerry doesn't yell. Even when he gets mad. The guy just doesn't scream -- that's NOT his temperament. Meanwhile, which Senator needed Kerry to touch his arm to calm him down in POW/MIA committee meetings? Oh yeah, that would be McCain.

Has anyone ever heard of Kerry screaming and yelling? The most I heard was him getting mad in August, rightfully so, but I don't think that involved screaming, just maybe a bite in his voice.

[TayTay]

35. Ahm, you might want to retract that one

Everyone has a temper. It is also possible to have 'righteous anger.'

Saints make crappy politicians.

[karynnj]

41. Tay, I assume he has a temper -

but he controls it VERY VERY well. I mean did he throw little Jeff Sessions scross the room after his repeated nasty cracks? NO Even the Allard response which showed anger was not a temper tantrum or melt down. Did he ever respond in kind to McCain's jabs?

[beachmom]

42. Oh, I didn't mean he was a saint.

I just thought that when he gets mad, he's not a screamer. The "screaming" sounded suspicious and more like McCain, who has a reputation of having a bad temper. Am I wrong about that?

[TayTay]

43. Boston Globe bio

In the foreward. Ahm, everyone has their moments.

[beachmom]

44. Sorry, I can't find anything -- are you talking about his campaign

manager's scathing e-mails? That was a bit over the top, but it didn't involve Kerry screaming.

[TayTay]

45. No.

Let's drop it. It's not to the point.

[ProSense]

33. A lot of the comments

and discussions about Warner have been about his possible presidiential run. I am not trying to discredit his past accomplishments, I just disagree with some of his actions and statements as he positions himself for a possible run!

[beachmom]

34. I know, and I also share disagreements with him for his presidential

campaign as well. In fact, his recent actions make me think less of him than I did before. I guess what I was saying was that I can take criticisms of Warner from you guys -- I think we can have mini-primary disagreements (mini meaning our 2nd and 3rd tier candidates, not Kerry) on this forum and it won't get ugly, because let's face it -- our hearts are only with ONE candidate!!

[TayTay]

37. Warner sounds like he would make a fine VP candidate

Your description of his service as Gov of VA does show him as a firm Democrat. It sounds like he is a fine man and I would love to see him get some foreign policy experience to round out a stellar resume. Then, who know, he is still a young man. (for politics.)

[Mass]

21. beachmom, Edwards;s comment is the perfect sign on how light weight

Edwards is.

He showed how he was light during the primary debates, each time something new came, both on the domestic and foreign policy issues. He is perfect to answer with scripted answers,though.

[_dynamicdems]

7. He's oily.

His smarmy smile doesn't inspire trust and some of the things he said about "his friend", John Kerry, during the 2004 election really turned me off. He was one of those people who dammed with faint praise. It's all in the inflection with Biden. He can say someone is wonderful and end up leaving the impression that he doesn't really think they are wonderful at all. He's got the skill of a surgeon when it comes to backstabbing. Quite adept.

Frankly, I don't like the man.

[JI7]

3. Biden ?

i can't see how Biden can get on first tier instead of Warner and Edwards and some of the others.

[blm]

38. I heard Kerry really liked Clark, Gephardt and Vilsack and Dem advisors

like Clinton, Carville and Begala were pushing Edwards. I could have heard it wrong, but don't think I did.

[ginnyinWI]

39. Ok, Biden is really not ready for prime time. Get this:

Speaking to a group of 130 twenty- and thirty-something supporters of his leadership PAC last Thursday, Biden indicated that while he thinks he could be an effective chief executive, as far as the job itself goes, he could take it or leave it.

“I’d rather be at home making love to my wife while my children are asleep,” he said.

Biden’s PAC spokeman, Larry Rosky, said the line illustrates that “this is not an egostistical pursuit for him” and that he is “frankly totally in love with his wife.”

Now I have to wash out my brain.

http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/UndertheDome/062706.html

x(

[Mass]

40. I guess that he thinks this shows him in touch with people.

However, given that his kids are all adults (I think the youngest is in her 20s), it is as phony as it gets.

[Dr Ron]

46. Kerry moving up elsewhere

National Journal also moved Kerry up, plus moved Warner down partially due to the Armstrong scandal.

New conventional wisdom: the one person worse than the person who gives crooked stock advice and uses astrology is the person who takes advice from such a person.