Who should Kerry's running mate be to give him the best chance of winning; also, if you are on the fence as to who to vote for, would his running mate sway you at all?

I'm torn between Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan.

John Edwards. Edwards is young and bright. He also is on the same side of issues as John Kerry (when Kerry isn't flip-flopping).

Who should Kerry's running mate be?

John Edwards...he is personable, upbeat, and his viewpoints are close enough to Kerry's that he wouldn't have a problem supporting Kerry's agenda. As number two on the ticket instead of number one, Edwards could pull in more votes nationwide and help Kerry in states that he is weak in.

No, it would not sway my vote even if I were on the fence about my vote. No matter how you slice it, Kerry is running for President and I would not vote for Kerry no matter who his choice of Vice-President is. And I wouldn't vote for Nader, so I guess my vote for George Bush is firm.

My vote was for Edwards also. For one, if the primary had lasted til New Jersey (yeah right ) I'd have voted him... but I also think he has the best chance of getting the swing voters, getting Southern voters, and helping to defend Kerry from the attack dogs of Bush . (He IS a lawyer ).


Course, Kerry's a lawyer also. Got a lot of his money from suing doctors on behalf of bald men who suffered from a controversial, and eventually illegal, hair grafting surgery (grafting carpet fiber into the scalp).

I think in order to appeal to the South, he'll need Edwards. Whether or not it will win him any southern states (besides perhaps NC) I cannot tell. If he got McCain, while a big stretch, I think he could dent Dur Fuhrer Bush's re-election hopes. I guess it's a matter of time before the American people learn of their "choice" for this year's election.

It would be nice to hear the views of someone who doesnt thing that Edwards makes the best vice-presidential candidate but judging by the posts, it seems pretty unanimous. I, too, think that Kerry would benefit the most by choosing Edwards. He is young, smart, and optimistic, a trait not-so-often talked about in politics. His optimism, coupled with youth, gives voters the perception that he has not yet been tainted by Washington's spoils. Not to mention that he's the only candidate that refers the second person plural as y'all, that could even put a dent in Bush's southern constituency.

What s surprise! I think Kerry should pick Edwards too!

I think he is the perfect balance, and Edwards is getting alot of negative criticism right now for how he is handling issues. He needs someone who is a little more "likable" in my opinion.






Now THAT is conservative!

Perot was anti-NAFTA when Kerry was voting for it. Buchanan is a paleo-con; a welcome contrast to Bush's neo-con foriegn policy. Both Perot and Buchanan would help Kerry with the "NASCAR dad" vote. Another liberal, such as Edwards, on the ticket will not help.

Of the individuals with a chance of actually getting the nomination Bob Graham would be my choice. Could tip the balance in Florida.

Without a doubt Edwards. With Edwards North and South Carolina become very winnable and I think Edwards could tip Florida in Kerry's favor. I see Edwards as the only legit pick. I hear Evan Bayh alot but Indiana is to far north and southernors are to conceited to vote for two northernors.

I voted John McCain simply because of the love the big news media has for the guy. They keep hounding him to run with Kerry. John McCain frequently sides with the Democrats but is often used by the news as just a regular Republican. Have you ever watched the evening news when they say something like, "Democrats and some Republicans think this socialist idea is great!" They fail to mention that the "Republicans" referred to were guys like Jim Jeffords and John McCain. I would say that Zell Miller is the DNC's equivalent to John McCain (ideologically), but Zell is treated as a turn coat by the news media and is frequently labeled as a conservative. John Mccain, however, is celebrated and rarely labeled a liberal.

Anyway, John McCain would get a whole lot of free media fan fare for Kerry if he were to join up.

Well McCain is officially out of the running. He was pretty emphatic on Meet the Press yesterday.

I picked Edwards as well. He may give Kerry a chance of a coup in at least 1 or 2 southern states and I think has the kind of charisma that matches up well against the placid Cheney.

Doc

I also voted Edwards, mostly due to the Southern connection.

Edwards was also one of the few Democrats in the primaries to impress me. He was well spoken and seemed to have a thought out position on the issues (rather than a "whatever Bush is doing is wrong" attitude).

I doubt I would have voted for Edwards, but he impressed me, and that says a lot!

I'm going to toss in my vote for Edwards, too. I love Denny, but he has neither a chance of receiving the nomination nor of being on a winning ticket. I think Edwards has some great qualities which will help him out: he's young, charismatic, handsome, and a spectacular orator. He seems to be a bit more alive than Kerry does, too. Plus I think he'll be able to kick in a Southern state or two (and to the Dems any of those will help immensely). But I have a feeling that Bob Graham might also be in the running due to the fact that he could be instrumental in kicking in some vital Floridian votes.

I would go along the lines of this:

A conservative leaning Republican that has simular views to John Kerry.
That may put a HUGE dent in Bush's electorate!

Senator John McCain is by far the best choice, in a class by himself, who is one of the greatest heroes in American History.

Captain John McCain risked his life and suffered severe injuries honoring the highest role model standards as a senior military officer in the Hanoi Hilton where he was tortured beyond the endurance of most human beings, and he has never once failed America.

John McCain is a rare politician who does not follow the leadership of his party blindly, which makes the GOP leadership and campaign finance owners fear him because he is an extraordinarily Honest man who's Honor, Integrity and Dedication of America are rarely practiced cultural values by politicians in Washington DC.

Therefore, I don't give a damn what party John McCain is a member of, or how conservative, moderate or liberal he may be, it's time we put the most honorable Americans like John McCain into the White House for a change.

I believe he should choose Edwards or any southern democratic member of the blue dog conservative caucus. Could you imagine the republicans trying to label Fritz Hollings a liberal?? Kerrey is already going to be perceived(however in a flawed manner) as being the ultimate liberal. He should balance it out by picking someone who votes with teh GOP about 80% of the time.

I think Kerry should choose someone like McCain. I think the fact that both have different views on things politically plays to Kerry's advantage. It will show the nation that we can have the two majority parties working together which is something we REALLY need!! However. a good second choice would be John Edwards, I think the real advantage with him is he talks really positive and is widely liked by the majority of Americans.

In addition, Edwards comes from a middle-class background something most Americans can relate to today.

As John McCain said this week on "Meet the Press", what part of the word NO do you not understand. McCain has no intention of running for VP on either ticket. He supports President Bush, has campaigned for President Bush and will continue to do so.

As far as John Edwards is concerned, by all means go for it, Kerry is welcome to him. It might be kinda fun to look into this "man of the common folks" guy of modest upbringing with a multi-million dollar bank account accrued by filing personal injury lawsuits as a trial lawyer. Might be kind of fun to look into just who is bankrolling John Edwards. Looks like a bunch of financial instutitions and law firms to me. I wonder where John Edwards stands on tort reform.......

You're right about McCain, that would be one heck of a ticket. It's too bad that some independent party(with sane policies, as opposed to fringe ones ) couldn't capitalize on something like that. Perot came the closest to doing so in my opinion. At the same time, his V.P. candidates tended to be obscure and wonkish to a fault. I was really excited about him in '92. I thought that the party could survive and that the candidates might just have their acts together. While McCain rails against "the man"(his GOP sugar-daddy) his loyalty has shown to be greater than any personal advantages he may receie by joining with Kerry. Unfortunately, McCain has said he wouldn't accept a Kerry offer.


(Howard Kurtz, Media Notes-April 12th, 2004 Washington Post)

It's still amazing me to that he is campaigning for a guy who shredded his war record with lies and inuendo during the previous primary campaign in South Carolina.

John McCain could bring a lot of registered republicans, like me, who are fed up of the neocon radical right wing politics of Bush-Cheney.

I do not list a party on this site, but I signed up as an "I Like Ike" republican as a kid in the USAF, have not found it to serve any useful purpose to change it because I am conservative, but the fact is that the GOP is dominated by people I cannot relate to at all. And my main problem with the democrats is that they say a lot of good things about things very important to me like education, public safety and health, but they never have produced any permanent improvements because of incompetence (like our own former Gov. Davis in California), and the bottom line fact is that their campaign finance ethics are no better than the republicans.

That's why I believe in McCain as someone who stands out from the typical bunch of unscrupulous scoundrels in both parties, and he is in a class by himself as the most honorable and patriotic American in congress today. I strongly believe that if it were not for the good people of Arizona that the GOP can't threaten, John McCain would be out of office for not voting as he was told by the GOP "party leaders (ironically, the GOP politicians are treated the same way the union labor is treated by their unions leaders)."

As a matter of fact my own former republican congressman Brian Bilbray was dumped in favor of a democrat because Bilbray voted what he thought was best all too often when the GOP demanded differently, but both parties cut off their noses to spite their faces when it comes to tyrannizing their own candidates.

That would put a huge dent in Kerry's electorate. You don't fix what is not broken. This is what Kerry seems to be forgetting sometimes.

I vote for Teddy K. They both have the same “spin” on current events and are both quite liberal. Kerry has the advantage of being even more liberal than Teddy and Kerry voted more times to gut our defense and intelligence services. Thus he and Teddy are perfect candidates for the left wing of the Democratic party.

I'm sort of leaning toward Senator Joe Biden, though he's a bit more hawkish than I'd like, and I'd need to learn a lot more about him. He seems like a no-nonsense guy. And anybody who has the guts say "When're you guys starting to be honest with us?" (CNN, 2003) to Paul Wolfowitz about how much the war in Iraq was going to cost wins points with me.

But, since I'm fairly certain that will not happen, I think Edwards is probably the best choice Kerry could make to defeat Bush. He's likable, and seems to have a level head....something that has been missing from the White House for nearly 4 years.

Aquilla, I want to remind you, PEOPLE DO CHANGE THEIR MINDS, ITS PART OF BEING HUMAN. Just because McCain said NO does not mean it won't be yes tomorrow. They are good firends which to me is a big factor. However, it does not mean that McCain will change his mind.

All things are possible.

Sure I can, because Hollings is a liberal. Image says one thing, his Senate voting record (85% liberal according to ADA for 2002) says another. Aside from that, I despise him for his vendetta against copyright Fair Use and electronic privacy in general. It matters little whether he's sincere about that or bought and paid for by the MPAA and RIAA; the result is the same and just as bad for that segment of civil liberties either way.

You want a real centrist Democrat? Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu or Bill Nelson are the closest in the Senate, all at 70% (again, ADA for 2002). Or better yet, John Breaux at 65% (ADA 2002), who's retiring from the Senate but has lots of stature and bipartisan respect. No, Lieberman isn't a centrist anymore; he was when he was first elected -- and IIRC Bill Buckley endorsed him then over a liberal Republican -- but he's moved quite a bit left since (85% ADA liberal for 2002).

Well, there is that old saying "Never say never", but McCain came about as close to saying that in the interview as is humanly possible. It would be extremely difficult for him now to change his mind I think. There'd be a whole lot of 'splainin' to do and I think there would be quite a few people who would view it as a case of political opportunism.

I want to change my vote to Rep. Ford from Tennessee. Bright, smart, a great speaker, and a minority to boot. Would make the ticket much more interesting to watch.

For a conservative democrat, how about.....

Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska

Congressman Dennis Moore of Kansas

Congressman Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota

Congressman Harold Ford Jr of Tennessee

Congressman Steve Israel of New York

All but Nelson are members of the Blue Dog Conservative Democrat Coalition. Try and find a liberal in that bunch!!

Sen. John Breaux, a centrist Southern Democrat with a lot of respect from both sides of the aisle. Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. sounds good to me too. Or Sen. Evan Bayh.

If we can get someone like that on the ticket, and then convince Kerry to drop out, I might even consider voting Democrat this time. Not going to happen with Kerry on the ticket though.

I think Wesley Clark is the best option for Kerry if he can get him. He has a strong military background and has the best chance of expressing an atlernative direction in Iraq without coming across solely as a sniping politician trying to score points by criticizing the existing track. He is also a southerner and a D.C. outsider and that could court independents.

Can you please leave antagonism out of this thread, and answer the question?

Ever since the 2000 election and before, I have become convinced that the democratic party must get back to its roots (i.e. they must take care of their base). What better way to do this but to choose Ralph Nader? While it would really rile up the moderate democrats, they would soon get over it: it is just the vice president. I believe the green party sort of 'hijacked' (a strong word, but succinct) the democrats 'base'. As I mentioned in another thread, this co-opting would 'tether' and free Kerry up to explore the center (where I think most Americans really are). At the same time, it would either illustrate the differences between Bush and Kerry leaving voters with a much more clear choice, or it would force both candidates to deal with real issues rather than divisive ones such as abortion. Bush spends too much time in the so-called center, does so just long enough not to overagitate his own base, then he is right back to pandering to the religious right and neo-cons. This is unacceptable to me. If Kerry chose Nader this might actually make me vote major party this year.

Think of it: A mad rush to the center! a place where clearly both candidates are currently uncomfortable. But what a curve this would throw Bush!: Play to the neocons, or reassess his willingness to keep his base happy?

Of course the whole thing is really contingent upon Nader's willingness to accept a somewhat empty office and be second dog, in order to effect some of his agenda. But the office sort of fits his watchdog mentality, no?

I think it's more accurate to say that the Dems have ignored the progressives rather than the Greens have hijacked them.

As David Cobb, a Green running for president ( www.votecobb.org ) said at a speech he gave in Salt Lake City last night "The Democratic Party is where progressive ideas go to die". One need only look at the disdain that most Dems have given Kucinich to see how much respect the Dems give progressive values.

I would actually be against Kerry choosing Nader as running mate for precisely the same reasons you outline -- it will be "throwing a bone" to progressives to free Kerry up to slide the Democratic party to the right a few more degrees.

I doubt Nader would take him up on the offer, in any case, since he knows that will keep the Dems from balancing out the Repubs, which is one of Nader's big issues. Dennis Kucinich might agree to the veep position, however.

In view of Kerry wanting to go the U.N. route with respect to international affairs,
Koffi Annon would probably be a good choice---he'd lock in the black vote for
sure that way too!

There are two main problems with choosing Nader. First, can you imagine the "liberal" and "raise your taxes" smearing bananza the GOP would have with a northeastern Massachusetts presidential candidate AND Ralph Nader??? It would be enough to make Dick Cheney's heart skip a beat. Second-Ralph Nader will never join an organized political party. He promised his father that he would remain a life long independent. I read that in Justin Martin's book: "Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon" That is the reason why the Greens were so peeved at him. They had to suck up to him because he had a viable name and realistic chance, but they couldn't force him to join the party or show deference to the party.

jenreiautter,



What we have are priorities. The same ("throwing a bone") would happen if Kucinich was the 'veep' choice. Radical environmentalism must take a back seat to centrism in today's poilitcal climate if the left has any prayer of gaining any ground in this election. Make a comparison with neocons and Christian conservatives: these are the radicals of the right just like environmentalists or socialists are of the left. I don't believe that the solution to neocons is four years of paramount environmentalism or socialism; this is the same merry-go-round we've been on for the past 20 years.

A choice of Kucinich will only draw in a few extra democratic votes who might have otherwise not voted at all. You can double Nader votes however, because you count both the subtraction of votes for Nader for pres and the addition of the votes of Nader for 'veep'. The only catch is Kerry must move to the center, forcing Bush to do the same (Nader out of the equation causes the pubs to 'grip'). The only alternative is another narrow-mandate-voting-fiasco-amplified-into-repression-of-the-will-of-the-masses scenario which developed from the 2000 election. If both candidates make this move to the center in this scenario, it would have a greater permanence than winning an election by a couple of votes and subsequently going 'ape' (to the far left or far right) with it. If Nader is offered the position and doesn't accept, this would prove my point about the far left (masquerading as progressivism in the form of the Green Party) hijacking the democratic base.

The pubs are counting on Nader to split the democratic vote (again). A close election (both now and then) is indicative of the psychology of most Americans: centrism. It is time the candidates reflected this, and dispense with the contrived dialectic (in the form of mudslinging). There are more issues out there than abortion, taxes, and the war on terror; these issues will never surface in an election with such a contrived dialectic.

As far as reality goes, I took this thread to be about who should Kerry's running mate be as opposed to who you want or think Kerry's running mate to be. I fully expect Kerry to pander (if you'll forgive the verb usage) to the Hispanic vote by choosing Bill Richardson. This would be selling out IMHO.

As someone mentioned before me, I would like to see Joe Biden as the veep choice. This might actually be the only candidate besides McCain (I don't think there is a prayer he would accept it) who would actually draw votes away from the pubs. It would come at considerable cost to the demo's anti-war base however, and thus might actually be detrimental to the dems - they would lose their 'character'.

Edited for additional content

Interesting you would mention the word "climate" -- as the evidence mounts that climate change is going to be a huge problem in the very near future, I believe the opposite -- centrism must take a back seat to environmentalism if we want to continue living on this planet. Centrists are so busy being centrists they sell out all too frequently on environmental issues -- trying to show a "balance" between the environment and corporate profits. The planet won't be able to susatin such compromises for much longer. We'll need to be much more aggressive in environmental protection like many Europeans.


I think if Nader was running for veep he'd probably tick off a lot of his supporters who are fed up with the 2 parties, so I doubt it would really help out Kerry all that much.

Are we talking realities here? I agree that environmental issues are important, but you seem to be incapable of factoring in 'human nature': Is human nature part of the environment? Is human nature to use up resources without a thought to the consequences? Is human nature to keep on breeding without a thought of the consequences? Is human nature going to war without considering the consequences? I hate to say it, but the answer appears to be 'affirmative' on all these questions. Getting angry at centrists only polarizes and exacerbates the same 'human nature' you so despise. I cherish my centrism and independence, for I am not locked down on an any issue. I take into account environmental issues when I vote but I don't think they necessarily have to run contradictory to business issues. In fact, I think entrepreneurship (whatever form that may take) is the only way to get environmental issues on the table in a viable way.

We are getting off topic here. Why don't you start a thread on "how much longer can the earth sustain itself under present consumption and population growth conditions"?

As far as seeing Joe Biden as vp candidate, I just said it was something I would like to see the democrats do, not that I would vote Kerry if he chose Biden. To me it would be an indicator that the democrats are no longer bound up by demographics or special interests and have gained the courage to stand up to a given faction in their party. This, IMHO is why "progressive ideas go to the democratic party to die": progressive ideas are ignored, as opposed to listened to and dealt with in the democratic party; there is simply too much on their plate trying to make everyone happy. I don't believe the pundits when they say "this is the most unified the democratic party has ever been". To me it is a very superficial 'unification'. As far as republicans go, their arrogance causes them to ignore progressive ideas but they are much more 'unified' if only in a retarded sort of way. The choice of Biden would merely serve to illustrate this inification based on incapacity for reason coupled with arrogance, IMO. I really think it would throw in an X-factor which would open up the election to more third parties, the ultimate goal of an independent centrist. You see, I don't like my centrism defined by the media or the major party candidates or any one else for that matter: they only pretend to know where the [my] center is. If I see a running candidate who hits on this, that will be my choice; it is NOT Kucinich, although he does have some good ideas; how can I justify to myself or anyone else a vote for someone who believes so strongly in Affirmative Action (a fundamentally mistaken concept IMO)?

I voted Bill Richardson- he is seen as very non-threatening to western states- he is hispanic, as someone else mentioned, well spoken, and not really seen as a classic liberal- in fact, a centrist. I think he will probably get the nod if he wants it.

I think that this can be admirable, however, there are many cases of centrists (at least the politicians themselves, not the centrist voters) who sell out on important issues in order to get re-elected. They support just enough environmental policy to appeal to that segment of the constituency, but sell out environmental protection to business in order to generate more corporate cash for their campaigns.

I would have to say John Edwards, for the reason of southern competition. Another important factor is how charasmatic the candidate is. Most people don't see Kerry as a charasmatic person, so if he had a runing mate who was, that could help.