Let's see who is god here before the real VP shows up with Dean in the 2004 campaign. I read that none of the current democratic presidential candidates would be on Dean's choice list because in the last dem debate nobody raised his hand for Ted Koppel's question - if they thought Dean was capable of winning the election. Let me guess - Hillary Clinton.
Don't be ridiculous. Hillary's not playing second fiddle to anyone, especially this sure loser. If Dean's got brains, it will be Gephardt. He'll bring along the old-line industrial labor unions, the ones that aren't enamoured of Dean. He'll also be viewed as a moderating voice on the ticket, especially taking a bit of the edge off the anti-war message which appears will be Dean's dominant issue. It's also accepted wisdom nowadays to select a veep who is an old hand at the Washington game to help the former governors that have been winning presidential elections lately. Carter had Mondale, Reagan had Bush, Clinton had Gore, Bush has Chaney. Makes total sense. Dean-Gephardt.
That was some in-depth analysis. So the anti-war candidate should pick as his running mate the man who led the Democrats in Congress who voted for the war? Brilliant strategy. Dean is the one getting union endorsements, not Gephardt Again I ask, why would the anti-war candidate, who got Al Gore's endorsement last week for being the anti-war candidate, pick as his running mate the man who led his party to vote for the war in Congress? It just doesn't make any sense. You also assume that Dean has any intention of taking the edge off his anti-war message, which I haven't seen any evidence of. I can't speak to Carter and Mondale, but Reagan certainly did not pick Bush because he was an old hand at the Washington game. He picked him because they fought tooth and nail in the primaries, and when it became obvious Reagan was the nominee, he brought Bush into the fold to unite the party behind the ticket. Of all the ones you highlighted, perhaps the only one that fits your discription is Bush/Cheney. Makes no sense at all. Any votes Dean may add with Gephardt would be lost by people who are following him because they think he's firm in his convictions. Choosing Gephardt would abandon some of those convictions and hurt him a heck of a lot more than it would help.
What are you suggesting Dean do? If he runs on a big anti-war platform, he'll be slaughtered. McGovern got clobbered running an anti-war campaign during a war which was vastly more unpopular than this one, against perhaps the most disliked politician America has had over the last fifty years. Plenty of presidential candidates have selected veeps who are not exactly on the same page as they are. By the way, you left out mentioning who you think he should pick. Or don't you want to go out on a limb?
You know it's funny. 99 times out of 100, the person saying that Dean can't win as an anti-war candidate is the same person who doesn't want Dean to win. They also seem to be the people who keep bringing up Hillary's name even though she's not in the race. They're not in the same book. I already said it's too early to have this discussion - nobody has even cast a vote in a primary yet so it's presumptuous to say the least to be picking a running mate for anybody at this point. Even assuming that Dean does win the nomination, you learn a lot about a candidate's strengths and weaknesses during the primary season - where did he do well, where didn't he do well - who polled well in areas where he didn't. In a hypothetical, let's say Dean swept the primaries but got killed in Florida. So if Florida is the only state that a VP candidate has to help you with, you pick a guy who helps you in Florida. If you do everywhere but the Midwest, you assess the situation based on that. It's way way too early to know where or on what issues Dean is going to need running mate help, or even that he'll be in a position to need a running mate. For the record, this would have been posted about 20 minutes earlier had the US not been playing Argentina in the U-20s at the same time
if Dean wins, forget about the south entirely (and prepare to spend the next 20 years trying to win back the Senate seats we're going to lose). Dean needs a midwesterner or southwesterner that's strong on defense/foreign policy issues. I think Bob Kerrey or Bill Richardson will be his nominee. I think Richardson would be the better choice, but I'm not sure he'd want to join the Dean campaign.
General Clark. He has not been combatative with Dean at all during the debates and adds that international experience than Cheney added to the Bush ticket in 2000 And what is the south's fucking problem? Northerners have no problems voting for a southerner but no self respecting southerner would vote for a yankee. What is that shit all about?
He certainly would remove the tag, that the Bush administration has tried to place since this Iraq mess began, that anti-war = anti-military. Y'all burned our cities and then your carpetbaggers moved down here and took our land.
150 years ago. And then you sent us Hillary Clinton. I think we are even know. Besides we get flack from states that we didn't even burn, like Texas. In debate over public transportation as part of the most recent transportation bill, Senator Hutchenson (sp) decried it as unnecessary because it would only benefit the northeast. But if Chuck Schumer said that he would have been scolded and called a northern elitist.
Nice try. Hillary's from Chicago. She was a carpetbagger just like the rest of 'em. I do believe that you did, however, and despite the popular warning, mess with Texas. There's kind of a double standard with the South and the flyover states that they're allowed to badmouth or shortchange any program that affects only the coasts (including, unfortunately, anti-terror funding) but the east or west-coasters better not touch our ethanol etc.
I think Clark would make a good choice. It sure as heck won't be (Hillary) Clinton. Zell Miller pointed out (quite convincingly) on the Daily Show that Gore's endorsement of Dean is a bombshell in a powerstruggle with the Clintons for control of the party. This is a real sea-change for Gore, and the suggestion makes some sense to me.
I LIKE the Harold Ford pick! Personally, John Lewis is my choice. He's very liberal, but I don't think he's said anything outrageously stupid a la Cynthia McKinney. Ford is probably the most conservative black democrat out there. But that may make him palatable towards some who would otherwise have prejudices against voting for a black man.
Not really. Texas was not really part of the Civil War. No real battles were fought here. However, since Texas was one of the states that seceded and joined the CSA, it did find itself under occupied and run by the US military during Reconstruction.
Ah, now this is a good topic. And by the way, most of the "best" picks could be taken regardless of who wins the nom since none of the current people running for President except Clark would be, in my opinion, a decent VP choice. In rough order of preference: 1. Bill Richardson -- Hispanic, former Energy Secretary and UN Ambassador, huge White House and foreign policy experience, will help carry New Mexico which was a very tight state in '00 -- and possibly Arizona as well. Cut taxes and increased medical coverage in NM. Nominated four times for the Nobel Peace Prize. I'd vote Richardson for President if I could. 2. John Lewis -- This would be a historic pick. It would thrill the base to no end, connect with religious voters, and put Georgia up for grabs. He's the son of sharecroppers -- how much more home-spun good a background can you get? But does he have the gravitas that we expect for national office? 3. Mark Warner -- If, and this is a big if, he can make Virginia a toss-up, he's a no-brainer of a pick. Since he's term limited in '05 anyway as VA Governor, Dems give nothing up in supporting him. 4. Evan Bayh -- Same as Warner, but for Indiana. Bayh can also help a Dean Administration with Congress. 5. Wes Clark -- I've been saying "Dean/Clark '04" for months but I don't think that Clark would take it if offered by Dean. If Clark as VP gets Bill Clinton on the campaign trail full-time, then he moves up the list to #2 or #3. 6. Anthony Zinni -- Mentioned by someone on DailyKos as a real sleeper pick who voted for Bush in 2000 but has since turned against him. Would cause the most substantial shake-up of any of these candidates. 7. Bob Graham -- Florida, moderate Dem, but did not run a good national campaign. 8. Max Cleland -- Not the buzz that John Lewis would bring but you plop down his 3/4 of a war vet body across from Cheney in a debate, and after the first question about Iraq Cheney loses. Also can help spur the base a bit after the slap-in-the-face campaign run by Saxby Chambliss against him. 9. Tom Harkin -- Small state but very well-respected and provides a Washington insider / outsider balance. 10. Al Gore -- Why not? Gore was a fine VP (a better VP than Clinton was President) and he'd campaign like a bulldog.
I'm not going to comment on everybody just because but here goes: He sounds like a good choice. I haven't heard his name pop up that much yet, but as I've already noted we're VERY early in the election cycle. I love Bob Graham and he's from my state, but he's a bit kooky for VP. Two words: Daily diary. Max definitely got screwed with his pants on. And he just resigned from the 9/11 commission. Interesting, but ain't gonna happen.
The obvious choice has to be Wesley Clark, for the following reasons: Dean has the "liberal" label, and Clark is more of centrist. Having a centrist on the ticket will help in the general election. Dean needs a centrist to get the middle and southern states. Plus Clark's exemplary military record will help with those states as well. GWB is spoiled, yellow, wussy, AWOL goin' coward who talks smack but can't back it up and has a history of failure but always being saved by Daddy's money and power. Cheney is a crook, plain and simple. Dean was a respected doctor who had a successful governorship. Clark was number one in his class at West Point, was a decorated war veteran, and a four star general. This country, after Clinton's sexualy escapades and GWD's train-wreck presidency, is desperate for candidates with character and a history of acheivement. Clark is highly intelligent and smooth. I saw him on Russert's show, and Russert was in constant attack mode. It did not even phase Clark, and he made Russert look like a jack-ass. Clark has tremendous international experience, after having been head of NATO forces in Europe. The other possibilities are either too boring or are too polarizing. Gephart is even more boring than Gore, Kerry is likable but boring, Leiberman has the personality of a toad, and Hillary is far too polarizing to get any important middle or southern states.
F_ck all that sh_t, pick me. I'll be great. I'll campaign tirelessly, rip Dubya a new arsehole and crap all over the GOP. Come on guys, I'll be the political Michael Dubbery. VOTE STAMEN !!!. Being born in London won't hinder my chances will it ? .
Technically you can be VP without being US-born -- Article 2, Section 5 doesn't say that you can't; it's just the President that has to be from the USA. But if for any reason the President can no longer be President, you can't take over, so I'd say the Supreme Court probably would stop you just because you as VP defeats the primary purpose of VPdom.