My Crystal Ball: VP will be either Graham or Richardson

[WI_DEM]

This is my prediction. It will come down to one of these two gentlemen:

Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who is retiring from the Senate this year.

Or

Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico.

A case can be made for either. Graham comes from the electoral vote powerhouse state of Florida. The most recent Florida polls indicate that the race for president is close between Chimpy and Kerry. In a close race, a homestater who knows the score might make the difference. Graham is also a well-respected former two term Governor. He is on the Intelligence Committee in the US Senate. He opposed the Iraq resolution but doesn't come across as being "weak on defense". In the primaries he challenged Bush hard on intelligence issues.

on the other hand,

Governor Richardson also has broad experience (which I think voters will be looking for)as Governor, Congressman, UN Ambassador, Energy Secretary, and dipolmatic troubleshooter. He is from New Mexico which doesn't have a load of electoral votes but is a battleground state which went to Gore by a razor thin margin in '00. His selection would energize the latino community and could make the difference in states like Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada.

I think either of these men would be real assets to the ticket.

[nickinSTL]

1. Graham/Richardson

Of course, Richardson has said he will finish out his term as Governor.

Not that it'd be the first time a politician has gone back on a promise :D

However...if he does stick to it, that would give it to Graham.

I do think, though, that trying to predict who the choice will be is...interesting but such guesses tend to be wrong.

[LandOLincoln]

2. Sorry, but I think either of these choices

would be a major disaster.

Graham's a good man, and rightly well-beloved in Florida, but IMHO the general perception--if they've heard of him at all--is that he's a boring, sickly old man.

And Bill Richardson--my governor--has repeatedly promised us that he'll serve out his full term as governor.

Now, y'all may dismiss that as politics as usual, but we take him at his word--and he breaks that word at great political peril.

Just so's you know...

[beyurslf]

29. And my friends in ABQ say they don't care if he promised

They would LOVE him to be VEEP and would release him from that pledge in an instant.

[JI7]

3. gephardt , vilsack, or edwards

for now i think it will be one of those 3. and all have to do with appealing to the same type of voters (conservative leaning) which are not part of kerry's current base of support.

[Brotherjohn]

4. My hunch right now is that it would be Edwards.

He captured a lot of people's fire and imagination during the primaries, and Kerry needs this.

In addition, he's Southern (though I don't think that's an automatic necessity), and appeals at once to the populist vote and the good-ole boy. Although he's fairly liberal, he comes off as pretty moderate to many people.

But mostly, he has that fire we need. Dean had the fire, but the press has trashed him. Clark has some fire, and I'd love him to be the veep, but I just think Edwards is more capable of igniting passion in voters on a broader scale.

I think we need to stick within the pool of ex-presidential candidates this time. There were just too many, and too many good ones. And they've been through the ringer to an extent, and have a certain amount of name recognition.

[displacedtexan]

5. I think you're right.

I keep coming back to Edwards, too.
Clark would be great, but he can't deliver any votes that Kerry couldn't get on his own.
Yeah, Graham is honorable, but he doesn't inspire Joe Public.
Edwards has that "Southern, cute-as-a-button, I'll defend you" thing going for him.

[Brotherjohn]

7. Besides which, he came out of the primaries as everyone's "darling"...

... I even know some conservatives who spoke well of him.

And look at how positively both he and Kerry did during the primary season in polls against Bush, when they were allowed to have some press time. This lack of press time, and the onslaught of Bush ads (and near absence of Kerry ones) in the past month, I think, or two is solely responsible for Bush gaining whatever he has lately in the polls. And I really think he is barely treading water, despite all the hoo-ha over recent polls.

When Kerry and Edwards were given their say, people liked both of them.

[LandOLincoln]

6. I agree with everything you've said, but my conclusion

is that Wes Clark will be the Veep.

If domestic concerns were foremost in the minds of the public, of course Edwards would be the obvious choice for Veep--with Wes Clark as SecState--and I'd be perfectly happy with that combo.

However, Kerry regularly polls well below * on national security/foreign policy issues, so unless there's a major upheaval in the national zeitgeist in the next couple of months, Kerry would be crazy as a March hare to choose anyone but Wes as his Veep.

YMMV, of course...

[indie_voter]

10. I agree. I am betting Clark n/t

[Skwmom]

17. Once the press is through with Edwards

he'll be in far worse shape than Dean.

"In 1985, a 31-year-old North Carolina lawyer named John Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl.”

"She speaks to you through me," the lawyer went on in his closing argument. "And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?ex=1390885200&en=4fb97ac07a96f186&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

"One evening while he was campaigning for the Senate in North Carolina, Edwards was faced with a choice of several events he might attend. An advance man suggested, 'Maybe we ought to go to the reception for Leah Rabin.' Edwards responded, 'Who's she?' 'Yitzhak Rabin's widow,' replied the aide. 'Who was he?' asked Edwards" (Charles Peters, Washington Monthly, June 2003).

“ Edwards, who comes from a state where banking is big business, played a critical role in brokering legislation to allow banks to sell mutual funds and insurance, and to engage in other speculative ventures. This law, worth hundreds of billions to the banks, blasted a gigantic hole in the Glass-Steagal banking law’s firewall of protections designed to prevent the kinds of bank collapses that marked the Great Depression of the ’30s — meaning that it put the money of Joe Six-Pack depositors at risk.” (A Populist Make-Over Meet John Edwards, the Corporate Man, http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan04/Ireland0129.htm

Why do you think the corporate *hores are salivating for Edwards? Hint: it's not because he would help the ticket.

[saracat]

32. Wow! If

thats all they,ve got, Go Edwards! Edwards has the charm thing going on and everyone will forgive him anything. Its like the Bush"charm offensive"(gag) that I never did appreciate, but this is real and backed with intelligence!

[GR]

8. Clark Is The Only Winner...

If he picks Clark, we'll win, otherwise, I don't know...

I would have a real problem with Richardson...he's too soft and they would hang the interview with Monica to get her a job in NY around his neck.

Graham would be my second choice after Clark as he is tough on Bush and on his Iraq policy.

Edwards is too soft and would be skinned alive by Dick "Jason" Cheney...

We can't afford another Jolly VP candidate like Joe Lieberman sittin' and grinnin' while Cheney eviscerates them in debate.

Vilsack is a complete unknown and not ready for the national stage.

[Dinger]

13. I Totally Agree With This Quote:

"We can't afford another Jolly VP candidate like Joe Lieberman sittin' and grinnin' while Cheney eviscerates them in debate."

You are so right GR.

[Claire Beth]

15. I don't think Clark would take veep

I like Clark and supported him, too. He would make a great VP, but I just don't think he will take it. I think Edwards is a winner, too. The gopers can't say anything about Edwards not having military experience after all, neither does Cheney.. and Edwards connects very well with average people, he has charisma and we need that. It's not that I don't think Kerry can connect but he doesn't have the same appeal as Edwards. Kerry/Edwards OR Kerry/Clark would be GREAT.

[LandOLincoln]

18. I don't think Wes Clark would ever refuse to serve if asked.

He'll always put service to his country above his personal wants.

[NMDemDist2]

33. i got the impression he enjoyed campaigning too n/t

[VOX]

22. Cheney did NOT "eviscerate" Holy Joe -- it was a mutual love-fest!

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/06/debate.wrap/
October 6, 2000 CNN
Even-keeled Cheney-Lieberman debate takes global view
<snip>
...It was a good debate that steered clear of personal attacks and covered important issues...90 minutes of even-tempered debate...
<snip>
Both candidates said they had prepared for much tougher rhetoric. Cheney said he and Lieberman joked afterward that they could have set aside much of their preparation had they known the polite tenor of the sole vice presidential debate...
<snip>
The give-and-take between both No. 2 men on the major party tickets was never testy or acrimonious, as was the debate between their principles, Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush...
<snip>
- - - - - - -
Don't sell Edwards short -- he is a seasoned trial attorney, and has gone up against some very tough combatants in the courtroom involving high-profile cases. And won.

Cheney would come off like a miserable wretch next to the sharp and nimble Edwards, IMO. And it's not like Edwards wouldn't know going in that Cheney will play the foreign-policy card. He'd be extremely well-prepared.

[LandOLincoln]

23. Of course he'd be as well prepared as possible--

but no amount of cramming can make up for years of hands-on experience, not to mention the head of state status bestowed on Wes Clark by virtue of his position as SACEUR.

[salonghorn70]

9. Edwards-Cheney

Well, I think that Edwards would do just fine in a debate. BUT, Edwards' weakness is his lack of national security credentials.

[Brotherjohn]

11. I agree that Clark would shred Cheney in a debate, while Edwards...

... would only do so-so.

But as far as most people are concerned, the VP debates don't even exist.

That being said, I'd be as happy with Clark as with Edwards... in different ways, but just as happy. My post above merely expressed my "hunch" that it's going to be Edwards.

[Claire Beth]

12. I think it will be Edwards....

Graham is my second guess....but who knows?? time will tell.

[madeuplikebowie]

14. I'm guessing

Gephart or Edwards. You're right Edwards doesn't have any military background, which will probably keep Kerry scoring low on terrorism. However he does have the national charm and he could stir up the passion. He'll bring in alot of women votes too with that charm of his.

Gephart will help in the cruuuuuuuuuucial midwest states. However, hes not exactly the epitome of excitement.

[napi21]

16. When was the last time a candidate picked someone who was predicted?

I'm trying to remember back as far as I can (Kennedy), and each time it appears that everybody was surprised by the choice.

I agree it does look kinda like an Edwards choice, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the choice was someone we aren't thinking about.

I also think we won't know for at least another month. Keep the media and everyone else guessing! It keeps your name in the discussions and adds a little drama.

[LandOLincoln]

21. When was the last time we had an election like this one? nt

[napi21]

25. Actually, in 2000. It was hate motivated just like this one.

In the 2000 election, ALL the Pubs really hated Clinton, and they transferred it to ALL Dems. That hate motivated them to not only fight very hard for their guy, but to use ANY tactics they could find. It didn't matter if it was legal, dishonest, or all lies, they believed the end justified the means.

This election is very similar in that it is hate motivated on the Dem side. I don't necessarily condone the dishones and illegal means they used on us, but I do believe in fighting the enemy with better amunition. Bigger bombs and more boots on the ground, to use the military analagy. (Not real amunition you understand!)

I just hope whoever Kerry chooses as VP will be a fighter who is fast on his feet and great with the verbal shots that hit the bullseye.

[mrgorth]

19. Again

please not Graham. He's a great man with no charisma at all. I'm worried about Clark. Would he be able to parry with Chain-me on economic matters?

[LandOLincoln]

20. You do know that Clark has an MS in Economics

from Oxford University, don't you? :evilgrin:

[Claire Beth]

27. Clark is a Rhodes Scholar....

very intelligent. Economic major. Yup, he can handle anything they wanna throw his way.

[mrgorth]

31. 20 and 27 are right

sorry, forgot.

[TSIAS]

24. I sense Gephardt or Vilsack

I think Kerry will concern himself more with the Midwest than the South. Bayh would be on the list, but I don't think they realize that he would alienate too many liberals.

[dolstein]

26. It won't be Graham

There's a reason why Graham has gone 0 for 3 in the VP sweepstakes. This time will make it 0 for 4.

[democratreformed]

28. I like Richardson

I am kind of leaning that direction (in my wishful thinking) right now. He is going to be at the J-J Day dinner in Little Rock next weekend. It's my anniversary and I don't know if I can get my hubby to agree to go there. I'm hoping so.

[mouse7]

30. After news that Richardson was "the big leak"...

...Richardson is done.

Graham? NO.

The polls say pick Edwards. I say go with the polls.

[fujiyama]

34. I really, really, REALLY

hope it's not someone like Evan Bayh. That would be a HORRIBLE pick. It would be a slap in the face to liberals in general. He's way too conservative, is from a state that Kerry has a very little chance of carrying. He'd also alienate too many liberals.

Gephardt doesn't excite me in any way. I also don't think he brings much to the table and I'm not confident he can deliver Missouri. He does help with union voters, and may help in Ohio as well.

Vilsack is the governor of a state that barely went for Gore, but one that's not worth a huge number of electoral votes. I also don't know if nominating a midwester, makes it any more likely that other midwestern states will vote for you. If he secures Wisconsin as well, then maybe it's an idea worth keeping in mind. I have no idea if he's a good speaker/campaigner.

Richardson seems like he really wants to finish his term, but I suppose it's possible that he wouldn't pass up an offer to be the VP. Republicans would attack him on security lapses at Los Alamos during his tenure as Energy Secretary though. He would help among Hispanics for sure. He secures NM, makes AZ, NV and maybe even CO more competetive.

Edwards is a good looking, charming senator from a state Kerry has little chance of carrying. Edwards might make it competetive. Not very sure of that though. However, he's well known, is a good campaigner, and got a good number of cross over votes from independants, and even moderate republicans. He would help in Ohio, Florida and all over. He'd be a good pick. Only problem is that he doesn't have much in terms of national security experience.

Clark would also be a good pick. He's extremely intelligent. Has FP experience, and is a good attack dog. His campaigning skills were somewhat weak, but he's improved since he ended the campaign.

Graham is old and sorta goofy. Also a bit boring. He's supposed to be popular in FL, and would make it even more competetive. He has pretty good national security credentials.

Who else is there? Maybe Mary Landruei, but she wouldn't make Louisiana a lock in any way. She won her reelection by a pretty small margin. She's a bit on the moderate side, but I don't mind her.

Breux would almost guarantee Louisiana but I've heard he's unlikely to consider it. Also has a pretty conservative voting record.

Hmmm, anyone else out there?

[DaveSZ]

35. I think we can win with Edwards or Clark

I'm not sure about anyone else.