2008 Democratic Presidential ticket. Which one is your choice?

[sandrakae]

I know, I know, concentrate on 2006. I am so angry over this current administration, I cannot help but look forward to 2008.
I am leaning Kerry/Clark

[Mass]

1. I choose Kerry-Bayh, because my choice kerry/gore is never going to happen

[demdiva]

54. Gore would be great, but you're right

Why on earth (no pun intended) would he sign up to be VP again?

IF however, for some reason, Gore did run in 2008 (big if) and did get the nomination (bigger if), I think a Gore/Kerry ticket would be great ... sort of a "make things right" ticket

[karynnj]

2. I picked Kerry/Bayh, but I'm not really happy about that.

Mainly by process of elimination. I thought that one important thing was someone who had considerable domestic policy expertise and was not a novice on foreign policy. I doubt Clinton or Gore would take it. I wasn't impressed by Edwards last time. Clark still is untested running a race which may be less the case when a VP is needed.

[JI7]

3. mass and karrynj

i'm surprised both of you picked Bayh . i would have guessed he would have been one of the last picked. it doesn't really make sense unless you are looking at it in terms of balancing the ticket.

[karynnj]

9. Actually it is balancing

Bayh was a successful governor and is on his second term in the Senate. My guess is that he is really MORE liberal than his voting record because Indiana is pretty conservative. He is consider boring - but from last time I think media determined charisma is over rated. He is suppose to be very clean.

So, I assumed he would bring few liabilities and he is a serious, qualified candidate. If the issues include no corruption - he may be better than many others.

[JI7]

10. i can see that, i think there is probably a comfort level with him

that many people may have. he isn't anything near being a liberal and one of the most conservative so it might make those who are easily fooled by the big liberal commie who is going to take over feel better.

Cheney kind of did the same for Bush. he didn't have charisma and most people don't like him personally, but they had a comfort in that he did have foreign policy knowledge and experience.

Lieberman kind of did the same for Gore in the area of morals and values after the whole Clinton adultery stuff.

but i still don't like Bayh. there has to be others who could bring the same "comfort" areas he has while not being so conservative.

what if something were to happen to Kerry and Bayh became President ?

[Mass]

17. It was largely an elimination process. Truth be told, Durbin would be my

choice.

Clinton and Edwards are not even close to my list. I really dislike them and they dont have the experience anyway.

Gore and Feingold would be my top choices in this list, but I dont believe that Gore would even consider it and I dont see Feingold as somebody who would help the ticket win (unfortunately).

Clark and Warner lack the experience that would make them plausible VPs (in the same way that Edwards did), and I dont particularly know enough of them at this point in domestic policy, and dont particularly like the way Clark sees foreign policy.

Remains Bayh. While he is more conservative that I would like, he has a good record on many points (not worse than Edwards in trade, for example), and a real experience in government. What I dont like is his stance in foreign policy (too hawkish for me).

[karynnj]

28. I like Durbin too

When I heard that he was one Kerry liked in 2004 - I wished he had picked him. I think his calm competence (like Kerry's) and obvious basic decency would have stood up better in the debate with Cheney. It would have been a far more experienced choice. (The same is true for Bayh.)

[JI7]

4. Murtha

if he was vp he probably wouldn't considering running for Pres similar to Cheney.

since vp doesn't do much Kerry can asign him to a few areas like Iraq.

but i'm not sure, based mostly on his debating the Republicans this week.

[partisan]

5. Kerry/Richardson

[sandrakae]

12. I thought of him, but he has that whole baseball scandal.

[ProSense]

14. Great poll!

Still thinking about it because I'm conflicted about a couple of the choices!

[rox63]

6. I picked Kerry/Feingold

I'd love Kerry/Gore, but I also know that's not going to happen. Gore's been there, done that. If he runs for anything, it'll be president. I think Kerry/Feingold makes a nice liberal dream-team.

[Blaukraut]

7. I also picked Kerry/Feingold

Is it a realistic combo? I don't know, but I think it might just work :-)

[INdemo]

51. This would be a Fantastic ticket,...a dream ticket...

I think Feingold would be an outstanding campaigner.Unlike Edwards he would have more than one message(all due respect,Edwards spent his time still running for Pres. as a VP candidate)..Yep this ticket would definitely be classed as unbeatable,if Kerry could move toward the left with Feingold...I can just see the Democratic convention now ..it would be better than the Clinton/Gore combination..

[fedupinBushcountry]

8. Kerry/Edwards

seems to me these 2 got over 59 million votes, I think that is still the winning ticket. I believe in second chances and I will not rule it out.

[globalvillage]

11. Hillary '08!!!

Just kidding. I picked Kerry/Clark. Feingold and Clark have each had the Senator's back on different issues, and I think that's an important role for the VP. Of the two, I think Clark might bring votes that Feingold would not. I might rather have someone else as VP, but I don't think anyone else, right now, would be a stronger running mate.

Kerry/Clark '08!!!

[_dynamicdems]

13. You guys are probably not going to agree with this, but...

I'd like to see a Kerry/Powell ticket.

That is, of course, if Colon Powell were to do what Jim Webb did and denounce his party and say he was scammed about Iraq by Bush. Okay, that's not going to happen. Powell might think that but he probably won't ever admit it. Still, can you imagine if he did?

A reformed Republican Powell on the ticket with Kerry. Some liberals might not like it, but it would be an unbeatable ticket.

[globalvillage]

15. I hate it.

Sorry. Colin Powell is the person who lied to JK about Iraq. If it weren't for him, the Senator would not have voted for the IWR (Cobra II page 130).

It might be a winning ticket, but I think it goes too far.

[_dynamicdems]

18. Oh I know, but it's very probable that Colon Powell was lied to himself,

and only if that were to be the case, and if he were to come out and say so, would this be a good ticket. In any case, I'd like to see Powell repent.

I don't think this will happen, it's just wishful thinking. Powell could vindicate Kerry's vote by admitting that he got scammed, apologizing for the misinformation he gave the Senator and then supporting Kerry '08.

[fedupinBushcountry]

19. I luv ya DD

but instead of standing up for what was right he sat down and let it go on.

He knew he was being lied too but was afraid of speaking out. He lost his leadership qualities and my respect right then.

He did repent to a point and then went right back to the administration's talking points.

[globalvillage]

21. I see your point.

I just can't look at the man. Eight years of thinking of him holding up that little vial would likely have me throwing things.

[Dr Ron]

16. Too early to say

A lot will depend upon the nomination race, and what these people do between now and 2008. If someone like Clark or Warner look strong in the primaries, and appear like they can actually pull in southern states or strengthen the ticket on national security issues, then they would be a stronger consideration.

I like Feingold, but I don't see him as being likely to help in a national election.

[Island Blue]

20. John Kerry / Brian Schweitzer (Governor of Montana)

He might help JK pick up a couple of red Western states. I think this will be important because I don't have much faith in my brothers and sisters in the red Southern states helping out too much (even if there is a Southern/Semi-Southern VP candidate like Edwards, Warner or Clark).

[JohnKleeb]

22. I like this one the best or Kerry-Warner(yeah I am a Warner homer somewhat

I think though who ever the nominee is though will make a choice from someone who isn't running. Kerry's choice of Edwards was relatively rare. Consider this, Lieberman, Gore, Bentsen, Ferraro, Mondale, Shriver(originally Tom Eagleton), and Edmund Muskie were not candidates when Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, McGovern, and Humphrey ran for the nomination. Edwards was the first VP to be a primary candidate since JFK chose LBJ in 1960.

[sandnsea]

40. I like that one too, that "vouching" thing

I thought Edwards would be able to do that, but he couldn't pull it off. If we're going to have one of them 'libruls' on the top of the ticket, we've got to have a solid "voucher" on the bottom. The south isn't going to have any of it, but maybe they would in the rockies.

[TayTay]

23. Kerry/Durbin

I don't trust anyone else not to bring their own agenda and desire to someday run for the Presidency themselves to the table. (I don't.) Sen. Durbin would be my choice. He knows what he believes in and would put everything else, including his own ambition, to the side to advance the good of America first. He would not be in competition with a Pres Kerry, but a compliment to him.

I would never nominate Edwards again. See above.

[globalvillage]

24. Good pick.

I think that could be a winner.

[JohnKleeb]

25. Kerry wanted Durbin in 2004

Chose against it though because he thought that some voters would have a hard time with two Catholics on one ticket. I'd like the ticket that said since Durbin is a great compliment since while he is from a solid blue state, it is also a midwestern one and Durbin has proven that he can appeal to more socially conservative voters.

[TayTay]

26. And he did not run himself

And thus would not have a conflicting agenda that the press could use to show 'disunity' of purpose. Loyalty matters to me, perhaps to a severe fault. I think Sen. Durbin would be a good choice.

[karynnj]

29. But 2 Southern Babtists were OK

Strange country

[JohnKleeb]

30. Yeah I hadn't thought of that

Bush and Cheney are both United Methodists too. I find it pathetic that there's only been three Catholic nominees for president by the main two parties since elections started in 1796 though i of course find it more horrifying that we've never had a minority or woman nominee either.

[rox63]

44. I believe the Methodists

have all but tossed * out of their ranks. I think they came very close to supporting impeachment over things like the Iraq war and the Katrina response.

Edit to add: It was a specific leader in the Methodist church that supported impeachment. Here's the link: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/36864/

[ginnyinWI]

45. Did he really?

Aww, that would have been a wonderful ticket. Durbin is smart, gutsy, articulate and full of heart! A great VP choice. Sigh. I don't think the Catholic issue would be very important. Sigh. Sigh.

[JohnKleeb]

47. Yeah I heard that somewhere

May have been here even. I don't think it's either but American Politics is bizzare.

[beachmom]

41. Hate to re-remind you guys, but Durbin's Nazi comment

disqualifies him. It was a stupid comment at the time, and they would make ads with it. "Durbin thinks our troops are Nazis" No, that's not what he meant, but that's how it sounds. Still, I was turned off by those remarks because they are historically inaccurate because of SCALE. He won't help Kerry at all to get votes.

I picked Kerry/Warner (surprise, surprise from a Virginian). I got people who voted for * in my state saying they would vote for Warner IN THE GENERAL in a heartbeat. All we have to do is swing Virginia to win next time. Yes, Warner wants to be prez, but so did Gore, and he did a FINE job for the Clinton administration. Warner is no backstabber -- I have read or heard of NO instance of him being slimy. Just because he's ambitious doesn't mean he wouldn't work hard with the VP job he had. His technocratic skills are impeccable -- we NEED that in '09 to clean up the fiscal mess.

[karynnj]

43. I agree with you that this might make him a drawback in 2008

that he wouldn't have been in 2004.

The way the Democrats warped Durbin's comments are extremely unfair. It is true that Durbin would have better made the same point by saying the actions were not consistent with American values and that we had to speak out. I wish more Democrats would have defended Durbin, even while saying the words were unfortunate.

The thing is there is a double standard. Republicans have said some pretty awful things - and no one calls them. The Democrats have to worry about how every sentence they say can be parsed on a stand alone basis. (See DD's swiftboat thread's link, where DD did a fantastic job showing how a freeper took a Kerry sentence out of context in an extremely bizzare way.)

On prison abuse, the Democrats get it from both sides:

- Bush and his administration are shown by their own documents to have AUTHORIZED torture

- The press, however, has spent as much time going after the Democrats:

- Durbin is absolutely trashed by people repeating his comments out of context when the real point that the actions are wrong and un-American is ignored.
- Kerry, who spoke out very carefully, is trashed by Joe Klein and Sullivan who claim he never spoke out on torture. To the extent they called him complicit. The problem is Kerry would have had to go to level of his 1971 comments, the Murtha Haditha comments or the Durbin comments to make these 2 agree he spoke out sufficiently.

The gotha nature of the press and RW makes speaking out a mine field. Remember Kerry's comments on the US doing the search and destroy missions. Kerry had to speak out on changing the policy and he had to explain why the status quo was a disaster. He did a great job explaining both how bad this was for the soldiers and how it looked to Iraqis, especially on Hardball, where Chris Matthews, of all people, immediately caught what Kerry's point.

It was clear though that this issue was a mine field. Many people simply can't believe that citizens of other countries could ever see our soldiers as anything but a positive force. Kerry showed great sensitivity speaking about it, but eventually got caught on one word. (That what he said, in context, was not controversial can be seen by the fact that Scheiffer was nodding "yes" as Kerry said it - didn't question it and didn't look disturbed.)

I'm not equating the two. Kerry was far more careful and he was being interviewed versus Durbin reading a prepared speech. It just seems that we need to have some way to get the full stories out in cases like this.

[wisteria]

49. Durban seems like a real nice guy and he really seems to care

about what matters. Yeah, I could see this ticket. (LOL, here we are choosing his running mate for him).

[wisteria]

27. I picked Kerry /Clinton. I was just thinking about this today.

It's too early and I may change my mind tomorrow, but there is something interesting about both of them on the the same ticket. For me, it unites the progressives with the DLC. And, she certainly can raise money. Bill Clinton would definitely support this ticket because he wife was on it.

[globalvillage]

31. That's really interesting.

I met Hillary this week, she's very gracious and I do admire her, but I don't like her Iraq position and her voice, to me, is like nails on a chalkboard.
Besides, she's divisive. We need someone who will bring the country together, and I don't think she can.
I'm still leaning Kerry/Clark.

[wisteria]

42. Kerry/Clark is fine with me.

I just wonder how much pull he has outside the blogs. Can he help do some of the important things like raise money and gain mainstream voters. Being on Fox news may well help him in this respect. Of course, everything he has ever said is available for review, airing.
Like, I said, I play around with a lot of names-it's fun, as long as Kerry goes in the top slot.

[ginnyinWI]

52. maybe in 2007-8, Iraq won't be such an issue anymore.

If somehow we get a troop withdrawal, that is. If either the repubs are forced to do it, or the Dems get control and do it for them. Here's hoping, anyway.

That will clear the way for serious discussion of homeland security and all of the other domestic issues.

[politicasista]

32. A lot of Clinton fans would love that

Plus, they wouldn't have to jump on Kerry for not picking a diverse VP like Hil, a woman or Obama, an Afro-American.

[ProSense]

33. OK! I'm narrowing it down:

Clark is definitely off the list. I posted about Biden in GD, and Clark is pushing similar nonsense!


On edit: I misread the information on Clark, it was mischaracterized by the poster!

[karynnj]

34. That explains the inexplicable posts from obvious Clarkies

It is pretty strange that now that they can't argue that Clark wants out faster, it's "not moral" to leave Iraq.

[ProSense]

35. The post was about

faith and science, but you know the information that is being posted by them is turning me off!

[globalvillage]

36. OK, you've confused me.

What was said about Clark?

[ProSense]

37. It was confusing to me!

The poster claimed that Clark said Democrats need to reframe (read better frame) the security and faith issue. Then the post offered a snip from the YearlyKos science panel on faith and science and another smip from Clark's site about not believing in war. It was a conflated post! It had nothing to do with faith and security as Democratic issues.

[karynnj]

39. "not believing in war"

What?
No one should want war, but how does a 4 star general not believe in war? I'm not even sure what it means to believe in war -I believe it exists.

[JanusAscending]

38. My " sixth sense" or in other words, my heart are telling me...

Kerry/ Obama !!! It's the right time. He will have a lot more experience under his belt by then. If we are going to be the liberal party,....lets be the liberal party. I feel that he stands for everything we love about Sen. Kerry. He's an up and coming STAR of our party. Call me crazy, but I can't think of anyone better at the moment. This too can change, but I've got a good feeling about him attracting the young voters, the Afro/American voters, the downtrodden middle income and poor working stiffs. Maybe even the hispanic bloc of voters. He could be another MLK (meaning a uniter):applause:

[ginnyinWI]

46. From a purely political perspective, Kerry/Edwards.

Because if he chose him once, he'd have to have a good reason to by-pass him this time. I don't think he was such a bad choice, although I tend to favor those a bit more to the left. I'd like to see a new-and-improved John Edwards--less tiresome and repetitive stump speeches for a start.

In a spin-free world I think there are many good, smart Dems to choose from who would be great veeps.

But I don't think Kerry thinks (nor do I) that he needs to balance out the ticket by picking a more centrist person. Kerry is already where most of the people in this country are, if the truth ever got through the RW Noise Machine.

[paulk]

48. to echo Dr. Ron, at this point it's just too early

I can see pros and cons for all of the choices - but, I think a veep has to be chosen for his or her ability to help win the election.

It's hard for me to see Edwards as viable because he couldn't even deliver his home state in 2004 - and that, to me, is a primary criterion for a vp nominee. Also he's only a single term Senator who will have been out of office for four years.

Will Hillary be as divisive as many think? I'm not sure I agree. I know that my extensive family and friends in the heart of red upstate NY have changed their initially negative opinion of her since she's been in office there. I don't think the "divisive" factor is a given, myself. Also, one must consider her proven ability to raise money, always a plus in a campaign. That and the Clinton political machine, which while an arguable asset, has won two presidential elections... On the other hand (DU aside)- most of America will see a Kerry/Clinton ticket as decidedly liberal. And it will be seen as two northeasterners by many in the rest of the country - and therefore geographically unbalanced. And, living for the last 27 years out here in the wild west - believe me, there is a definite bias against northeasterners . I've experienced it firsthand.

I've always had a hard time seeing Clark as a legitimate candidate for such a high office, being that he's never served in an elected position before. Perhaps it's a personal prejudice - but I think someone has to prove that they can get people to vote for them first. And not just in a primary.

I can't imagine Gore accepting a VP slot.

Fiengold would provide some geographical balance - but, again, it would be a ticket seen by many as overwhemingly liberal.

Bayh, Richardson, Warner, and Vilseck - all deserve strong consideration. They all are more conservative than Kerry, and would balance the ticket there, and they all have won statewide races in states that went for Bush in 2004, with the strong possibility of bringing a red state into the blue fold in a Presidential race. They all also provide geographical balance to the ticket.

[BlueIris]

50. I'm certain the nominee will be JK, but the VP nom is...not in that poll.

No way do I believe, for various reasons, that any of those folks are going to run as Kerry's VP, with the possible exception of HRC, although I really, really doubt that will happen. I've been pretty frustrated for a while now trying to come up with a good running mate/actual VP for Kerry next time and coming up with...nothing. Nothing that would get us the kind of support we'll need to win, and from among the VP candidates I think are plausible choices (that still elicit only the most lukewarm response from me personally, unfortunately) nothing that is available to be VP in '08-'12/'16. I'd love it if Edwards would agree to do it again, but...his time isn't quite here yet, in my opinion, and even if it were, um, er, egh...not going to happen. I'm totally stumped on this one. I'll let this forum know when I come up with a theory.

[demdiva]

53. Kerry/Obama

Although I do think the Durbin option is intruiging ... truth be told I never thought of him as a national ticket person, but I do love my Illinois senators

[Luftmensch067]

55. What do you think of Kerry/Hart?

Hart's got baggage, but so, really, does everyone else. He's also, by any standard, paid his dues in the 18 years since the Donna Rice scandal.

He's brilliant, an excellent speaker, and loyal to JK.

I think they'd be a dream team!

(I also love the idea of Kerry/Durbin -- we need someone who is as passionately committed to the good of the country as JK is, and as honest and forthright. So Durbin got smeared for one remark -- it's up to the Democrats, and US, to work like hell to make sure people see what he REALLY stands for! God knows the people in THIS group won't let "swiftboating" or smears stand in the way of presenting the best candidate!)

[karynnj]

56. I really liked Hart when he ran

He was brilliant on technology as well as foreign policy. (In fact, I han't thought of it before, but his intelligence and curiosity really are a lot like Kerry.) His long ago affair can't be used if McCain or Guilliani is the candidate. How old is Hart now?

[demdiva]

57. McCain ... affair????

[karynnj]

58. McCain's current wife is his second wife

She was a 24 year old heiress when they married a few weeks after he divorced his first wife who had raised their kids alone and waited for him while he was in VN.

[demdiva]

59. Sigh .... I never know the good gossip

But .... it doesn't matter much to me either way

[zann725]

60. By mistake, I hit the "Kerry/Clark" vote. My REAL vote was "JK/Feingold"

Didn't know how to correct it. But one of those "Clark" votes is truly "JK/Feingold" WIHTOUT hesitation.