Who is Kerry MOST LIKELY going to choose as his VP?

[Padraig18]

Since we've done the whole 'who do you favor as VP?' thing so often, I thought I'd post a poll about 'who do you think Kerry will most likely choose as VP?', just for fun. Please try and put your personal preferences aside, and vote simply on the basis of who you honestly, deeply, truly, cross-your-heart-and-swear-to-Koresh THINK he will pick, even if it's not the person you favor.

Thanks!

:hi:

[cosmokramer]

1. Clark, all day long.

You sure as heck don't see him trotting out Edwards to combat the war issues because Edwards can't. Kerry wants to win, and he will choose a double-barreled military ticket.

It will be Clark.

[Padraig18]

4. I'll bet $100 it won't be.

Not a chance.

[cosmokramer]

15. And I'd bet a MILLION

IT will NOT be Edwards.

ZERO chance.

[Padraig18]

17. We'll see.

If I'm correct, make mine payable in small, non-sequentially numbered bills, please. A cashier's check will also work. ;)

[charlyvi]

6. Don't think so...

Sorry, but I think he's holding Clark for a possible cabinet post. Not that Clark couldn't be a fine VP or SecDef or SecState....but I don't think C's political skills are quite up to snuff yet. Sorry.

[Padraig18]

7. Clark can't be SecDef.

He's not been out of uniformed service long enough.

[charlyvi]

13. Didn't Know.....

SecState then. Thanks

[Darkamber]

22. I think Clark will held for a Cabinet post

I'm sorry but all that Foreign Policy and Military experience wasted in the VP position? I just don't see it.

And would Kerry pick Clark as VP and lock himself into the war as the main issue on the campaign?

Recent polls show Kerry gaining on the War and Terror but losing ground on the Economy.

He he picks Edwards as VP, he still has the option to pick up Clark as Sec. of State or National Sec. Adviser and give Clark a job that Clark would be good at. Meanwhile, Edwards would be excellent as VP and has proven that he has appeal outside of the South.

[ArkDem]

25. Isn't that a 10 yard penalty (from spot of foul)?

[Jai4WKC08]

30. Open your eyes

Iraq and terrorism ARE the main issues. There's nothing anyone can do about that. It's just what is.

And dammit, Clark is NOT wasted in the VP position. It's the only place where Kerry can use all of his expertise. Oh sure, he'd make a fine Sec of State (assuming the Democrats win the Senate back--far from assured), but why lose the national defense and war-fighting experience? Now THAT would be a waste. Lord knows we need it, in Iraq, at home, and God forbid, who knows where between now and 2012.

Not that I think you really believe the "wasted in the VP position" crap. No one really thinks that the VP does nothing, do they? That would be just ignorant of the way the government is structured now.

[Dinger]

27. Exactly!

Edwards has been in hiding. Oh yeah, Kerry is saving him, for something.You make your point well - Clark has been Kerry's voice lately. Who has seen Edwards on t.v. lately?? Where???When??? There's a reason for that. It'll be Clark, and Kerry will win 50 states. Gep?? fergit it. We automatically lose, and bu$h saves a lot of money in that scenario. Edwards? Same thing.

[Sirveri]

2. ZELL MILLER!

I Know it! He wants to throw the election!

Well actually I voted for Edwards, but uhhh... yeah.

[Hippo_Tron]

77. Oh I could so see a Zell/Cheney debate...

Cheney: I think that John Kerry's policy of raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, will hurt our economy. The wealthiest are the entrepreneurs, they are the ones who spend the money.

Zell: Well, I couldn't agree with you more Dick. In fact, I'd like to commend President Bush for pushing tax relief for millions of Americans. He has truly been a great leader and I hope he has the opportunity to serve our country for another four years.

[Aspe4]

82. Edwards

[WI_DEM]

3. I honestly think he is going to pick Gep

because Kerry has said he wants someone who has the experience to be president--and has paid his dues to the party and I think he will go with Gephardt if this is the criteria.

[JI7]

9. i can see him picking gep also, especially with union pressure

considering bush got far more union votes than he should have in 2000 kerry might see picking gep as vp would help get the unions to be especially helpful in the campaign. but he has to look at many things.

[charlyvi]

16. Gep is too yellow...

I don't mean cowardly, I mean yellow. He has no contrast, he's all goldish yellow. And we lost the House under him--the Repubs would have a field day.

[Hippo_Tron]

76. Actually, we lost the House under Tom Foley...

Gephardt was only Majority Leader. Granted, the guy had 8 years and he still never won it back.

[Padraig18]

19. Gep is the dark horse in this race.

He's not my 1st or 2nd choice, but I think anyone who doesn't take his chances seriously is deceiving themselves.

[JI7]

20. yup, i would not be surprised if he picked gep

i sure wouldn't write him off. i know he didn't do well in iowa. but he did campaign for kerry in many primary states afterwards and there are many people who do love him for the work he did for them through the years. and while kerry will most likely get union endorsements and support without gephardt. with gephardt they might do more considering how much they are pushing for a gep pick. so it's wouldn't really be about how gephardt campaigns, but the unions themselves and how they could help if gep is picked. i personally have no problem supporting gep though,e ven though i would like edwards.

[Scoopie]

46. And if he picks Geppy

:boring:

Wake me up in 2008 - if, after another four years of Shrub, we still have the right to vote.

[0rganism]

79. Yes, that would be Gephardt, or maybe Gov. Richardson

Depends on which state Kerry thinks a VP would swing his way. But Richardson's mixed rep could just as easily backfire in NM.

I like Gep's chances.

[JI7]

5. there is no question Kerry wants to win

and so far it seems edwards has PROVEN he can help the most in doing that.

this doesn't mean the others wont help. maybe kerry will think someone with clark's background will actually help the most or that the labor support he will get if he picks gep will help the most. but in terms of what we KNOW edwards is the only one. yeah, it wouldn't be a surprise choice and very predictable, but he is a good safe choice. and assuming they really don't like each other much as fineman claims, they sure do have a lot of chemistry together.

[cspiguy]

8. why no Mcain?

or Dean?

[JI7]

11. mccain is republican and dean is from the northeast

[charlyvi]

14. ONE MORE TIME

JOHN MCCAIN IS A REPUBLICAN!!!!!! He is a Republican---he is a conservative Republican, it's just that * is so far right that he makes McCain seem slightly progressive.

[cspiguy]

10. He WINS MICH BIG if VP= Granholm

n/t

[JI7]

12. granholm was born in canada so unless we change constitution

she is "qualified". although if they changed it she would be an amazing vp and pres.

[ArkySue]

18. Just my opinion

I don't know who Kerry will pick, but I have some ideas who he will NOT pick. He won't pick Edwards- not enough experience: a partial one-term senator with no foreign policy experience, a lackluster Senatorial record, supported and co-wrote Patriot Act, continued to support the Iraq fiasco as part of the war on terror, has questionable campaign donations per media outlets, NYT article about a trial where he "channelled" the unborn baby. He has been vetted by the Kerry campaign and they are aware of these issues. Kerry doesn't need to pick Gep for union support-what, they're gonna vote for Bush instead? Not likely. And Gep continued to give strong support to the Iraq war. I like Gep but he's not very inspiring. His time has passed.
Graham? A little too old and couldn't inspire the Democrat electorate to support him in the primaries. Also a little quirky. McCain? Strong on defense but pro-life and a Bush-supporting Republican, would be the tie-breaking vote in the Senate and would most likely take the Repub side. Just some thoughts, observations.

[Padraig18]

21. Edwards didn't 'channel' an unborn baby.

That particular talking point is straight from an RNC fax-blast. The 'reporter' (sic) from the NYT who used that word completely mischaracterized what Edwards was doing, which was giving an incredibly effective closing argument in a wrongful-death/personal-injury case--- a case he won, in point of fact. Good trial lawyers--- and Edwards was VERY good, by all accounts--- are great actors who engage in good courtroom drama.

[Lefty Pragmatist]

42. But the Times article directly quotes Edwards.

Saying "she speaks to you through me" and "I feel her presence."

We really don't need a return of the "slick" label. Anyway, I don't see Edwards as any sort of a plus. He won't carry NC and he doesn't shore up Kerry on security.

[Scoopie]

70. Bingo

He's an "actor," and that is, more than most anything, why I despise the man.
I think he's a phony.
He could have written the Constitution, but his fakeness would still make me turn my nose up to him. And I think this will be an issue if he's selected. People really only saw the media darling version, not the real thing. The real thing isn't grand - he's all flash and no camera.

[Darkamber]

24. Edwards did not co-write the patriot Act.

Just a few additional facts about the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act was a House bill sponsored by Rep. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin. It derived from previous legislation proposed in both the House and Senate. The Senate bill was sponsored by Senator Daschle (our party's leader in the Senate), and co-sponsored by such right-wing stalwarts as Sens. Hillary Clinton and Bob Graham. Senator Edwards did not sponsor nor co-sponsor any of the legislation. The Act passed with a 98-1 vote in the Senate, including Sens. Edwards, Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton, Graham, and Daschle.

Edwards was on the committee and did make a speech supporting it, however, he noted in his speech that it should have the sunset clause added. This clause was added. Parts of the Patriot Act are good and needed to be added to update things. The Sunset Clause was added to protect our rights and it's because of Senators like Edwards and others that our rights were protected.

[AP]

32. Informed voters like Edwards the most.

So it's not suprising that SueZQ doesn't.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/polls.html

[Crunchy Frog]

41. So basically you're saying

that if someone doesn't prefer Edwards it means that by definition, they are not an informed voter.

Thank you very much for the broad brush dismissal of everyone whose opinion differs from your own.

[Jai4WKC08]

50. I'm still waiting...

You keep posting that silly poll in relation to the VP question, and there's STILL only evidence that it compared Edwards to Kerry.

Time to put up or shut up.

[charlyvi]

23. Let's face it folks....

John Kerry is emminently qualified to be Prez--he definitely does nuance. He has experience, intelligence, maturity. What he does not have, however, is charm and charisma. At least he is perceived as having no charm and charisma. Who, of all the VP candidates, has these two qualities in abundance? Edwards. Like it or not, Edwards can balance this ticket in that area. As far as experience, us DUers look for experience, but many, MANY people vote based on likeability. Edwards again. He learns quickly, he has a good mind and he is a uniter, even though * has given that word a bad name. And we must win. Edwards again.

[Skwmom]

81. Charm and charisma?

Do you really think that is how the voting public will view Edwards once Rove is finished with him? How does smarmy snakeoil salesman sound?

[JohnLocke]

26. He will pick Sen. Bob Graham.

[beyurslf]

28. I think I will go with Edwards for this one but Clark wouldn't surprise me

at all either.

[robbedvoter]

29. How many a day are you guys starting now?

[Padraig18]

31. This is the first.

I don't believe we've had a 'Who will *Kerry* choose?' poll. We've had lots of "Who would YOU choose?' ones.

[Jai4WKC08]

33. Nope, we had one of these

A week or so ago. Maybe two weeks max.

I still don't see the point. So what if more people did think it would be Edwards (which of this writing doesn't seem to be the case)? It means zero.

Asking who people WANT it to be doesn't change anything either, but at least its a forum for discussion of pros and cons. (I won't get into who's the pro and who's the con. :evilgrin: ) This one is only a test of crystal balls. (No, I won't go there either. )

[Padraig18]

35. Odd, since I'm here every day, most all day long...

That that one flew under my radar. I'll have to do a search for it, because I don't remember seeing it--- at ALL.

And on the deep subject of 'what it means', none of this MEANS anything--- not a single thread or post made here, on an anonymous internet board--- but we still post, don't we? I'm not gonna quit posting, just because of that, and neither should anyone else.

Cheers! :hi:

[cosmokramer]

89. hahahahah

love your euphemisms...

[wiley]

37. Edwards would be a mistake

Sorry but the perception that Edwards has broad appeal to moderates and independents and Southern Democrats etc. is a fabrication of the media. Maybe we should sort the results by tendency to be distracted by shiny objects versus all others. Wes Clark is clearly the only candidate who is capable, willing and ready to assume the vice-presidency as the office is now conceived. I think we're underestimating just what a big, difficult mess Bush has gotten all of us into.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BootinUp]

43. This doesn't seem appropriate

I don't think you have a factual basis for the words you chose there.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Crunchy Frog]

48. General Wesley Clark?

Oh baby, oh baby, ohhh yes, yes, yesssssssss! Ahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!

[incapsulated]

51. If you can't control yourself

You should have never volunteered to be a moderator.

[Cuban_Liberal]

66. I don't think he's the one out of control.

I think wiley's comment about Edwards' supporters being fascinated by shiny things is, though.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JHBowden]

34. I prefer Clark; I think the odds on are Edwards though.

eom

[cally]

36. I can't predict this well

I think it will be Edwards, Gephardt, or Clark. All have their pluses and I would guess it depends on which constituency and issues Kerry needs help a month from now. If the issues remain the same as they are today, then I think he will pick Clark. Then Kerry can focus on Domestic issues and allow Clark to deal with the military and foreign policy issues. I think Kerry prefers Gephardt because they are friends and have a long history together. I think Kerry doesn't like Edwards much and is not sure he will be loyal but Edwards offers much populism and charisma to the ticket.

[belle]

47. Yeah, me neither. I hope it isn't Gephardt, though.

Either Clark or Edwards could work. He needs someone with some charisma. And southern background could be a help in key states (yeah, Gep's midwest, but we're more likely to swing there than the south). There's no other point to the veep--sure, Gephardt has been known for some good policies, but as veep, he isn't going to be able to *do* much with them. The only other concern is can they take the helm if something happens to Kerry, and I don't think there are any worries with any of those three. actually, i'd be most concerned about Clark in that event; but i still think it'd be okay.

[Darranar]

38. Edwards, I think. n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

40. Well, I base my decision on

whether Kerry wants to win or not. If he really wants to win against a prez who is running as a wartime prez, he'll choose Wesley Kanne Clark.

44. I'll say Howard Dean

because of all the lingering McCain talk. Dean is the Democratic McCain.

[Kathleen04]

45. Hmm, I just don't know

I think it may be either Clark or Edwards or someone that no-ones talking about yet.

[dae]

49. You guys keep giving me "the primaries" flashbacks, lol.

Come on now, everyone sing-a-long with me,
Komm-ba-ya, Lord, Komm-ba-ya :)

[joanne]

52. According to MSNBC

it would seem that Edwards is the front runner.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5067113/

[Adelante]

53. Welcome to DU, joanne

:hi:

It appears that way to the media for a different one each week. Don't take it too much to heart.

[joanne]

54. Thanks for the welcome!

It's great to be here!

BTW I do think it is going to be Edwards.

Clark would make a wonderful Secretary of State or National Security Advisor. It is almost unthinkable that Kerry would not pick him in some capacity. :)

[Adelante]

64. I have no idea who will be VP

But General Clark is certainly up to any job Kerry chooses for him.

[Scoopie]

71. And Fineman is correct... oh...

less than half of the time.
It's more speculation. Period.
Don't take speculation to the bank.

[juajen]

80. OK padner, that's just wrong

It's Kum ba ya, my Lord, Kum ba ya,, pronouned like "Hume", as in Brit.

[deminflorida]

55. Bottom line,

if Kerry wants to win Florida...He'll choose Wes Clark....

Clark's ties to Bob Graham are extremely close....Graham who is not running for his seat will work hardest for his friend Wes Clark. Graham knows the insides of Florida politics like no other. He was the former governor here.

It's 27 electoral votes....and Clark hits the GOP hardest in and around the military base communities like no one else can.

Clark was extremely popular here in Pensacola, during his "True Grits" campaign tour. The GOP fears Clark most for this one reason....plus the fact that his inside knowledge of the Pentagon will put the office of the Sec. of Defense on their heels due to the abuse scandal all the way to November.

[deminflorida]

56. Let me add....

We don't need to just win in November, we need to rip the guts out of the GOP as a party...the Neo-Cons are placing the integrity of America at risk, (Gore said this best today....).

Clark is the weapon Kerry needs on the ticket in order to dismantle these bastards for the next 16 to 24 years....

Kerry-Clark 8 years
Clark-Edwards 8 years
Edwards-??? 8 years... (My best guess is the young Senator from Tenn.)

[For PaisAn]

57. Love it

"We don't need to just win in November, we need to rip the guts out of the GOP as a party" You nailed it!
Totally agree with you that Clark is the weapon that Kerry and we need.
Great 24 year plan too.

[Quixote1818]

58. If the war + all these terror threats continue to be an issue Clark has it

[Adelante]

59. Why would that be?

The world is on the brink of disaster -- :nuke:

You call a lawyer, no? :crazy:

[Quixote1818]

60. You call the lawyer after the disaster and the general during.

[Hand]

61. Lieberman...

JUST KIDDING!

:silly:

[Quixote1818]

62. You better be kidding! I was about to go slap you!

:spank: :pals:

[Hand]

67. Yes, I was kidding...

Actually, I'm really in favor of Zell Miller and (suddenly I am run over by a truck)...

:silly:

[KittyWampus]

87. I Find Your Two Posts Hilarious... In The Middle Of A VP Thread

Lieberman... actually, could you just imagine if he did. :D

[Eurobabe]

65. definitely WES!

hopefully :)

[Cuban_Liberal]

68. It's gonna be Edwards.

Take it to the bank.

[cosmokramer]

85. I could take it to the bank...

...but it would bounce. Edwards ain't gonna happen. The WAR is the issue of this election, along with our international relations. And that, you can take to the bank. Edwards helps NOT AT ALL on these issues. It will not be him, guaranteed.

[Jai4WKC08]

86. I''d say there's about as much chance

of the name in #68 and the ones in #69. :toast:

[historian]

69. John cleese or homer simpson

[TexasSissy]

72. Bayh.

[Claire Beth]

73. I like Edwards and Clark both...but

I think Edwards has a better chance and is a more experienced debator since he *is* a trial lawyer.

[Capn Sunshine]

74. Other

some heretofore unknown wonk toiling in obscurity who will add nothing controversial to the ticket. Thereby cementing my conviction he was chosen to lose.

I'll be the first to say otherwise if he picks Clark (or even Dean).

This election is Kerry's to lose; we'll see if he can live up to it.

[in_cog_ni_to]

83. Why was he chosen to lose?

To give Hillary the 2008 nomination? :shrug: If he doesn't choose Wes Clark, I think he'll lose, but I am hoping beyond hope that he will see the light.

[0rganism]

78. I guess Max Cleland would be wishful thinking...

It's not like Georgia's up for grabs anytime soon.

[robbedvoter]

84. Why so wishful? Max voted for IWR, Clark was against the war...

[Nicholas_J]

88. All of Kerry strategy

Indicated that it will be a midwesterner, ratther than atttempt to fight Bush in the south. A map of the states in which Kerry has solid leads, and in which Bush is attempting to cut into Kerry's lead is essentially a map of the Midwest. BUsh is not going to Conneecticut, or New York, or New Jersey, or Maine, or any of the states in which Kerry has a lead. But he is going to Ohio and Michigan, where Kerry;s leads are solid. I believe that some pollsters are actually tryng to influence public opinion by issuing poll results showing Bush leading in midwestern states in which Kerry has had clear and large leads over Bush. Recent polls show Kerry leading Bush in Ohio, until a polls released today by Masin Dixon, which totally reverses the findins of Zogby, and ARG. Same thing happened with a Mason Dixon poll released in Minnesota where all other recent polls have Kerry with very large leads over Bush. The other states in the midwest in which Kerry has a samll lead over Bush are the states he needs to turn into large leads in order to win. It is will take Kerry less effort to win Ohio, Iowa, Missouri and Pennsylvania thatn it would for him to try to try to compete with Bush in Oklahoma, Alabama, Louisiana and most of the rest of the south Where BUsh holds significant leads. Kerry must have the midwest, and political convention has always indicated that a favorite son as a running mate has a far better chance of helping the presidential candidate win a region than someone from outside of the region. Kerry will not give up the south, but his strategy firmly is one which does not rely on the south for a single electoral vote. Right now without being ahead in an southern state, Kerry still is in the lead in sttes which right now give him a 70 point lead in the electoral college over Bush. This with the only "southern" state in which Kerry leads Bush by significant numbers being Maryland, which is really a southern border state, and not a significantly "southern" state.

Where Kerry leads:

Solid Blue:


Maine, Vermont,New Hampshire,Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Wisconsin, Michigan,Illinois California.



Leaning Blue:

New Jersey, Maryland,Washington, Oregon, New Mexico

States too close to tell, but where Kerry has been leading in most polls:

Pennsylvania,Ohio,Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Florida.

If you look at the other states too close to tell, Right now Kerry leads in Nevada, but only in a one recent poll.

The other states too close to tell, West Virginia, where Bush has been leading, and Tennessee, where Bush has been leading, but in a recent poll, Kerry has pulled within the margin of error of the poll.And Arizona, Bush leading.

Now lets look at the solid red states. It is literally a map of the south:

Indiana, Kentucky,Texas, Louisiana,Oklahoma, outside of the south we have Idaho,Montana,Utah,South Dakota,Kansas.

Now leaning towards Bush:

North Carolina, Arkansas, Colorado.

Where does it seem that Kerry needs to absoltely shore up his strength, and prevent any Bush upset...Obviously the midwest and states around the Great Lakes. The south is not s viable strategy for Kerry.

Right now Kerry has a significant lead through the entire northeast, in California , with very large counts of electoral votes. He has a good lead, but not an indestructable one in a number of midwestern
states. States that can deliver a good deal more electoral votes than any southern state except for Texas. In the only states that Edwards or Clark could reasonably be expected to deliver, North Carolina and Arkansas, ther are a total of 21 electoral votes. And both those states are in the leaning towards Bush region.

However, in the midwest, there are still a number of states considered close, but in many of them Kerry leads, Iowa, Missouri and Minnesota, where Kerry is ahead, and keeping him ahead is critical and they deliver 28 electoral votes, and would be far easier to shore up, than to try to get state that is leaning toiwards Bush to change directions. Pennsylvania is too close to tell, but has been leaning more towards Kerry than Bush. Same thing with Ohio.

Kerrys strategy has been to take and hold onto as many states east of the Mississippi, and North of the Mason Dixon line as possible. This strategy is largely responsible for Kerry being so much further ahead in electoral votes than Bush. With California all of the Midwest except for Indiana, Pennsylvania,and the entire Northeast, Kerry could conceivably take the electoral college without a single southern state, and without Washington State and Oregon. Bur Kerry's hold on the Midwest outside of Indiana must be absolte and unshakable.

A running mate from this region does not assure this, but makes it far more likely.

Now lookining at the map states solidly for Kerry, or leaning towards Kerry, he is sitting on 216 electoral votes, Kerry is within 56 EV from a win if he can keep them, which is highly likely. Of the states in which he is ahead of Bush by a relatively good margin, Missouri, Iowa and Minnesota, will give Kerry almost half of the 56 needed to win. . The three midwestern states noted above then move Kerry to 243 electoral votes. 27 away from 270, the winning number. Winning both Ohio and Pennsylvania gives Kerry 41 more electoral votes. Winning Florida alone, gives him the 27 needed to win by 270. But that is ONLY if he can win those midwestern states.There are few options for Kerry without a candidate who canb secure Missouri, Iowa, and Minnesota, all states in which Kerry is ahead of Bush. Both Iowa and Minnesota have been solid blue states until recent Mason Dixon polls threw a monkey wrench into the calculations, but which most other have given Kerry larger leads in the recent past. Missouri had been leaning towards Bush until the news that the teamsters wanted Gephardt to be the nominee. After that Missouri started polling too close to tell, not with Kerry in the lead.

Every aspect of this campaign indicated that Kerry is going for a strategy of first winning the electoral college, and then worring about the popular vote. Looking at the same map shows that outside of his own region of the country, Kerry is focusing on the Rust Belt and the Midwest and the West Coast. This strategy is keeping Kerry ahead, and must be maintained in order to assure that he wins. Any other strategy would be tempting fate, and give Bush a very string opening to overtake Kerry's very large electoral college lead. He can waste his strength going after the south. Or carefully defend what he already has fairly well secured, and go after a few choice states, in which he already leads, and would need far less of an effort to take.

The midwest is the key to a Kerry win, and it is the most likely strategy to use for Kerry to win. His running mate must absolutely be able to help him hold onto and secure the midwest. This invariably leads to the selection of a midwestern running mate, someone who has a political base in the area. By cherry picking states, some of Kerrys opponents for the nomination were able to do well in a few midwestern states, but it took a massively concerted effort, which relied on focusing totally on one state at a time. This type of one state focus will not be available during the height of the campaign season. Someone who is a regionally known figure will have a better chance than any of the people who ran against Kerry for the nomination. Gephardt, Vilsack, Bayh, ir some other yet to be revealed chouce will be the only safe way to give erry the best chance in the region he needs to win. Not speculation that One of the opponenets "MIGHT" do well in the Southwest, because they did well in one state in the midwest or in the southwest during the primaries. In that case, by and large democrats were running to attract the votes of other Democrats. During the campaign for the White House, someone who has a record of attracting either independents OR Republicans in the regions and states needed is what is necessary. Remember, think Midwest. Remember that I said it. It is the region that will either make or break the democratic attempt to retake the White House and then Congress.

As noted in a recent article:

In 2000, George Bush swept every state in the region against Vice President Al Gore, including Gore's native Tennessee. With the 2004 election little more than five months away, Kerry remains a virtual stranger in much of the South.

Republicans argue that once swing voters in the South learn more about him, many will be turned off by Kerry's opposition to the death penalty, his votes against banning a procedure known as partial-birth abortion and other stands that are out of step with the region.

Even some Democrats suggest Kerry would be better served by steering his resources to battleground states in the Midwest and West where he is more likely to prevail...

But while jockeying for the nomination, Kerry drew flak for suggesting a Democrat could win the White House without winning in the South...




http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/4803747.html

The article does go on to state that Kerrys staff have stated that they will not wite off the south.