John Kerry's running mate

[Mitchell]

Well, as all who follow politics know, with John Edwards dropping out of the presidential race today, John Kerry will be the Democrats nominee for president. I personally feel Kerry is a fine choice. He is a war veteran with solid experience who stands a good chance to beat Bush in November. Tonight I have been watching a number of political talk shows in which they are discussing the subject of Kerry's running mate. This is my view.
In my opinion, I feel Kerry should pick John Edwards. Edwards is young, vibrant, and can bring Kerry needed votes in the southern states, which are crucial to winning the White House. I also feel that Edwards can make up for Kerry's shortcomings, and the fact that Bush will label Kerry a "Massachusetts liberal" to try and scare centurists and more liberal republicans who are unhappy with how Bush runs things, into voting for Bush, and not Kerry. In fact, from what I've heard from him and read about him, Kerry is not a liberal, but rather a democrat who will care more about the middle classes, something Bush just doesnt do. I do hope that Kerry will pick Edwards, but I've also heard several other names floating around.
A couple of spin doctors, in addition to more rational choices like Dick Gephardt, Bob Graham, or such, have floated ideas that either Hillary or even Bill Clinton should be picked for their political clout. I was supportive of the Clintons when they were in the White House, but even as an admirer of them, I think this would be a TERRIBLE idea! It would be one thing if down the road, Hillary launches her own campaign for president, but it will be quite another if Kerry's campaign against Bush, a crucial one for the purpose of getting this terrible president out of the White House, becomes focused on the Clinton machine. The campaign needs to be about John Kerry, the economy, Bush's awful record, the war, and getting him out. Bill and Hillary somehow have a way of dominating the spotlight, and I dont feel this is what the country needs now. It is my personal hope that Kerry picks Edwards, but, if not, I truly hope he picks someone new and fresh and not Hillary or Bill. It would be awful if this campaign was centered on or even lost on the Clinton issues, instead of attempting to oust Bush for his awful record as president.

Mitch

 

[Krokus]

I am a Kerry supporter, and I also think that he has the best chance of beating BUSH. If I were him, I would also select Edwards as Vice prez...I think Hilary would hurt him more than help in the long run.

 

[Mitchell]

Thank you, Krokus. It seems we see eye to eye on the important issues in this debate. I completely agree with you about Edwards, and also that Hillary would hurt Kerry in his chance to beat Bush.

Mitch

 

[Mimi]

I have to echo you both on this issue. Kerry and Edwards were both fine, strong candidates to face Bush in the upcoming election, but I think they would be even stronger together. A lot of democrats were torn between Kerry and Edwards...both had a strong following, as they both represent a wide spectrum of democratic values. I feel if they team up and run for Pres and VP combined, they'll have a good chance of beating Bush in November.

Mimi

 

[Mitchell]

I absolutely agree with you Mimis, and I feel that Edwards should be Kerry's running mate, to give Kerry a good chance to take many important southern "swing states" away from Bush and put them into Kerry's column.

Mitch

 

[MrMacphisto]

I agree that Edwards should be Kerry's first pick as a running mate. The Southeast is basically the weak spot of the Democrats, and since it is the fastest growing section of the country (in total population, not percentage of growth), it will make the most difference in this upcoming election. The Democrats are sure to get California, and the Republicans are sure to get Texas and Florida, but many of the swing states are located in the Midwest and Southeast. Edwards's home states, North and South Carolina, could make quite a difference in this election. While Republicans generally have an advantage in both of those states, Edwards could counter that.

It's incredibly doubtful that Bill Clinton would relegate himself to running for V.P. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that no former Presidents have subsequently ran for V.P. Obviously, the reverse happens all the time (the first Bush, for example), but never this. Hillary would definitely take the spotlight in the election if she became the running mate, but yeah, that's pretty doubtful too. I would suspect that Hillary would flat out run for President if she was interested in the executive offices, but I think she wants to develop some experience as a Senator first.

 

[babinsky]

.............I can't remember his name. He played Grampa Munster.

 

[Mitchell]

I agree with most of what you said Macphisto, except for one thing. You mentioned being "Sure" that Bush is going to get Florida. Remember, Florida is where the whole problem was in 2000, and it is highly possible that a lot of the disenfranchised voters there will be outraged at what happened, as well as Bush's record in general, and vote Democratic. Clinton won Florida in 96, and Gore wins Florida in 2000 without the whole fiasco. Texas definitely will go for Bush, but, as for Florida, that could be a tossup in my view. Even so, Florida will not tell the whole story. "Old 41" (George HW Bush of course) won Florida in 1992 and Clinton beat him handily anyway. One problem I see for the Democrats in Florida is the whole "Massachusetts liberal" tag that Bush will undoubtedly give Kerry, and whether that will ride for southern voters. Then again, especially from West Palm to Miami, many senior citizen voters there are transplanted New Yorkers, many of whom are Democrats. I think both Florida and my state of PA are key toss up states, and I know for one that Mr Bush has been here many times. I expect both candidiates will be visiting both Florida and PA numerous times during this campaign.

Mitch

 

[Dr. Bill Kobb]

Dangit! I'd like to weigh in on this topic, but I can't figure out this darn "Post Reply" button.--Signed, A Floridian

 

[JPie1]

Dangit! I'd like to weigh in on this topic, but I can't figure out this darn "Post Reply" button.--Signed, A Floridian

Too funny Bill !!


I think Edwards should be the running mate not Hilary. I think Kerry\Edwards ticket would be the strongest push against Bush..

 

[the_Baron]

babinsky - that would be al lewis. yeah, i like him. a nice jewish boy from brooklyn! 😛


mitch, how come no one seems to be mentioning wesley clark? isn't he stronger than edwards, and still able to deliver the south?

 

[MrMacphisto]

While it is true that Democrats have a chance at getting Florida's votes, after seeing Jeb Bush getting re-elected, I have very little faith in the intelligence of Floridians. Jeb could probably appoint Fidel Castro as his assistant and Floridiots would probably re-elect him. It makes me ashamed to have been born in Florida....

 

[grippedchimp]

Imagine if Howard Dean was Kerry's No.2... that'll be a laugh...
Kerry: "The country will be in our capable hands, won't it?"
Dean: "YEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!"

OK, so I can't vote (me being a Johnny Foreigner and all 😛 ), but I want Kerry to get the duke in the election, with Edwards as No.2. He has the bona-fide credentials of an American president.

 

[Krokus]

Oh good lord, the Howard dean yell was hilarious. i still say that is what killed his chances.

 

[natural tickler]

I say Howard Dean should be his running mate, so Kerry can get practice yelling Yeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

 

[crydun]

I think Kerry should pick Edwards.

 

[Jason_F/M]

Does anyone really care?

Does it really matter? The vast majority of people who voted for Kerry in the primaries have know idea what he stands for or his voting record(the exit polls have proven this). They just voted for him because they "think he can beat Bush" and more or less are following what they think they should do as rank and file liberals. The fact of the matter is you could put Bin Laden on the democratic ticket and the Bush haters would still vote for him. If these primaries have proven anything it's that people who don't like Bush will vote for anyone who goes against him without knowing anything about them or what they stand for. I've never seen a more hypocritical, waffler as Kerry. He will flat out say one thing and the next week say the exact opposite depending on what group he is talking to. Of the course the liberal media never calls him on it. For most democrats, you might as well just put "Bush: yes/no" and not even list a candidate as they are so filled with blind hate that they don't even need to know who the prez is as long as it's not W. Who does he pick as a running mate? The question is moot.

 

[MrMacphisto]

Well, Jason.... If the point is indeed moot, then you have to ask yourself why so many people hate Bush. It's not just liberals either. Plenty of moderates and even conservatives hate Bush. The problem with Bush is not that he's conservative; the problem is that he's a corporate *****. He's not even consistently conservative, and that's what pisses off many conservatives. The leadership of the Republican party is veering away from its core ideologies and becoming more and more the pawn of corporations and of the religious right. It's this situation that has brought us to the "anyone but Bush" mindset. If things don't get better soon, you may find yourself in a very different kind of America from the one you were born in or moved to. Brave New World comes to mind....

 

[asutickler]

Kerry would be wise to select a political centrist with a strong military record. Wesley Clark would be, in my opinion, a sound strategic choice. The Kerry campaign just HAS to know that it's only a matter of time until someone (*cough cough* the GOP *cough cough*) starts waving around every copy of The New Soldier that they can get their hands on...

 

[Mitchell]

I see Macphisto's point, and also asu's. I never thought about Clark as Kerry's running mate, asu. It would be an interesting idea, but I doubt it will happen, so I guess Edwards is the next best choice.
About Macphisto's point. It is pretty sad when a President even alienates people in his own party. I did hear a disturbing poll today that Bush and Kerry are now neck and neck. The "Nader factor" where old Ralph is getting 6% of the vote. Unless you are GOP, and want Bush to win, or despise Kerry so much that you want Nader to screw it up for him, the Nader factor is very disturbing. As a Democratic voter, one would hope that most Democrats will just ignore Nader when they step in the booths, vote for Kerry prefect or not, just to defeat Bush. It will be pretty sad if Bush gets in there again due to the Nader factor.

Mitch

 

[ticklebutton]

...It will be pretty sad if Bush gets in there again due to the Nader factor.

I agree - I can't imagine how he's rationalizing running again after what happened in 2000; and after watching 4 years of this administration, how can he not understand how important it is to get them out.

Button

 

[venray]

and even sadder that it will be Blamed on Ralph instead of credit given to Bush. The Dems would like to believe that Kerry can defeat him...truth is they dont have a candidate that stands for anything
worth voting for.

 

[Mitchell]

I was channel surfing tonight, and happened to have come across an interview with Hillary Clinton. She told the person interviewing her that in her view, neither her or Bill has an interest in becoming vice president. Hillary said she is too busy in the Senate, and claims Bill is too committed to finishing his book, and his charity work. I think the REAL thing is that Hillary wants to serve her term and get national noterity so she can run for President in either 2008 if Bush (Heaven forbid!) gets back in there, or in 2012 if Kerry takes over and serves two terms. Maybe it is just me, but this is my feeling. Although I like Bill and Hillary, what she said doesnt completely upset me, because, as I've stated, I think the country needs a new democrat not named Clinton to take over, to focus on the issues and not to have the spotlight be the Clinton's lives.

Mitch

 

[ticklebutton]

On the contrary, John Kerry is very strong on repairing & preserving the environment - which is one of the most urgent issues facing the world.

Among other things he has:

Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior.

Voted YES on an amendment to cut the $47.4 million provided for Forest Service road construction by $10 million, and to eliminate the purchaser credit program [which provides credits to timber companies to offset what they owe the government].

Voted YES on requiring risk assessments of new EPA regulations. Reference: Safe Drinking Water Act

Voted YES to prevent the plan to severely weaken the EPA Clean Air Act, that Cheney & his secret committee of Energy Industry execs have proposed.

Voted YES on continuing desert protection in California.

 

[MrMacphisto]

I did hear a disturbing poll today that Bush and Kerry are now neck and neck. The "Nader factor" where old Ralph is getting 6% of the vote. Unless you are GOP, and want Bush to win, or despise Kerry so much that you want Nader to screw it up for him, the Nader factor is very disturbing. As a Democratic voter, one would hope that most Democrats will just ignore Nader when they step in the booths, vote for Kerry prefect or not, just to defeat Bush. It will be pretty sad if Bush gets in there again due to the Nader factor.

Mitch

Therein lies the problem with democracy. Even if 100% of all eligible voters participated in the next election and even if all voters actually based their choices on policies rather than images, you'd still have a subtle problem with how votes are measured. In any forum that is democratic, people only get to vote for their first choice. When more than two candidates are involved in an election, there is always a chance that someone will be elected without the majority of votes. For example, Clinton won in '92 with only about 40% of the popular vote due to the significant number of votes that went to Perot. In 2000, Nader got a much smaller percentage than Perot did, but it was enough to allow Bush to get elected (so to speak). Many electoral reformists suggest that voters should be able to list their preference of candidates when there are more than 2 running.

In this upcoming election, this reform would work in the following ways.... Let's take a typical Nader supporter: it's no big secret that most Green Party members and independents that would vote for Nader would prefer Kerry over Bush, so under choice #1, they would mark Nader, but choice #2 would probably be marked Kerry. On the flip side of things, most Libertarians prefer Republicans over Democrats, so if Harry Browne runs again, they could mark Browne as choice #1 and Bush as choice #2. Essentially, everyone could rank all candidates by order of preference.

First, all the #1 choices would be recognized. The candidate with the least votes as a #1 choice is then disqualified. Then, all the people who voted for that disqualified candidate as #1 have their #2 choices recognized. Their votes would go to choice #2. Then, of the remaining candidates, the one with the least votes is again disqualified, and all those who chose him/her have their #2 or #3 choice recognized. This would continue until only one candidate is left. It sounds complicated, but if you think about it, this would guarantee a candidate to get into office that, at the very least, the majority of Americans could stand. With the current system, the candidate with the most loyal voters has an extreme advantage. Essentially, our version of democracy favors political parties and groups that are the most conformist and regular in their voting habits. It's not about the issues, it's about numbers. Until the previously mentioned reform is implemented, we will continue to have a system that shuns the idea of more than 2 parties in an election.