Predictions only - who do you think the Democratic Ticket will be

[Taverner]

Not who you want it to be, nor why you don't like who it might be or might not...

Simply play Nostradamus and maybe say why.

OK...my turn - it's going to be Clinton/Richardson.

Obama's camp and Clinton's camp are different sides of the DNC. Clark has that look as if he's not running again. Clinton is probably considering Edwards, but has a bad taste in her mouth from 2004 (and unfarily so). Lieberman, well if that happens stick a fork in our ass, we're done.

[sam sarrha]

1. gore / edwards

[ruiner4u]

2. Gore/Colbert

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. There will be no elections

:-)

Sorry... but now that bush is gonna rule by fiat... nope, no elections are in the future

You do not amass this power to let it go

[Taverner]

7. Great beard of Zeus I hope you're wrong

But that doesn't make it any less likely

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Trust me I hope I am wrong too

but all of this is predictive... even the kabuki theater

;-)

[ourbluenation]

105. Great Odin's Raven I hope you're wrong too.

at any rate, I'm going with Clinton/Bayh. wth.

[mod mom]

82. or at least not a legit election. more of the same bs.

[Al Federfer]

86. You could be right. n/t

[NightWatcher]

Hillary/_(insert lapdog name here)___

[Taverner]

23. Doink

[GodlessBiker]

4. Clinton/Richardson

[Virginia Dare]

95. I think Wesley Clark or Richardson will be Sec of State under Clinton...n/t

[Yupster]

100. I second that

Clinton/ Richardson

[book_worm]

5. As much as I hate to say it I think Hillary will be the nominee: Clinton/Clark

[etherealtruth]

114. That would be my prediction, as well

[RufusTFirefly]

6. Exxon/Verizon n/t

[ruiner4u]

8. Halliburton/OPEC

[Lone_Star_Dem]

12. They've already had their eight-year run

Term limits don't ya know.

[MADem]

9. Well, I really dunno yet. But assuming your ticket prevails, I'd have to

say Richardson didn't hurt himself at this last debate, either. He was the only one who said "Hey, enough!" He'd need to be vetted as to his personal life, though. Put any pesky rumors to rest.

Bayh has been shopped around, too. As have others.

Lieberman is no longer a Democrat. Clinton wouldn't pick him, even if he were, though, because he's been tagged with that LOSERMAN meme, from both sides of the fence. Plus, she's running right, but she is ideologically well left of Holy Joe.

[Taverner]

10. Thing about Bayh is he's eerily close to Lieberman on issues

And I think Clinton is going to want to keep the base from straying. She's going to have to.

[MADem]

64. Well, there are two things that keep his name in the air, really

Mmmmmm, maybe more than two:

1. He's a TABULA RASA--no one knows jackshit about him on the national level (save us, perhaps! And maybe his constituents!!). This can be good if you don't have TOO much to hide.

2. He's pleasant in appearance--won't frighten the children. Not huge and hulky, either, which wouldn't make for a good image on stage with the principal (they DO think of this stuff--it's not a dealmaker, but it could be a dealbreaker with two equally-qualified candidates to pick from)

3. Nice wife. Always helps. Savvy. Would know what she was in for.

4. Comes from a political family that still has deep reach.

5. He has presidential aspirations, but I think he's too lazy to do the hard slogging to get his name out there, or something. It is hard to break through, especially when the incumbent is from the other team. He thought about running awhile back and then blew it off. This would be a way to ride the elevator to the top, assuming he did a good job for eight years and assuming the Clinton administration was popular--of course, I'm reading this and thinking--that's a boatload of "ifs" there!!!

He is on the conservative end of the party, but he's no fool--he'd do what the boss said IF he wanted the gig. He'd have to know that there would be another individual in line to see the boss ahead of him--her husband, and he'd have to, early on, carve out his role and go at it with a vengeance. He'd need a few peaches and plums, too, to keep him happy and interested. He wouldn't want to spend eight years going to funerals...

[Taverner]

65. True - Gore was from the conservative end of the party

He used to be anti-abortion, and Tipper ran the PMRC. People change.

[CTyankee]

69. If he's not prochoice, no deal. n/t

[MADem]

79. That's a parsable platform item. Really. Look at George H. W. Bush.

He was for choice before he suddenly flipped to the anti-abortion side of things upon getting the nod from Reagan.

Funny how that happens.

Everyone KNEW he hadn't "really" changed his stance (Old 'Bar' did an interview where she said she disagreed with her husband on the matter, and that, in essence, 'signaled' to the prochoice GOP that Bush wasn't gonna get all fundy on them). He was just being politically expedient.

Sometimes, it's useful to have opposing views on a ticket, especially for matters that aren't earth-shaking, need lengthy legislative/judicial intervention to move the ball forward, and are unlikely to turn on a dime.

If everything else were hunky dory, it could be made to work. It's up to the candidate.

[CTyankee]

83. Well, I won't get too much into it here, but I think a strong argument can be made

to defend Roe against these constant, and insulting, attacks. Which are really attacks on women. Socalled partial birth abortion affected a tiny percentage of all abortions so politicians felt they could get away with voting for its ban. But some women and their families will no doubt suffer, all the while leaving Roe a shell of its former self. My granddaughters could be affected so I am vigilant for them. You never know down the line when a loved one can be affected by a vote in Congress, or all of us with the pick of a SC justice...

[MADem]

102. I understand and appreciate your point. Completely.

I simply think the idea in some quarters, frankly, is to give lip service to the anti-abortion concept, to keep the fundies from getting riled and whipping up their voter turnout.

There's really not much that can be done to secure the "established law" of Roe until we get a real, as opposed to rubberstamp, Supreme Court. It's pathetic to have to say that, but there it is.

That's why I think that some cadres of the party are working just to keep the whole issue tamped down, and not give those bozos any excuse. And that could play into a running mate choice, too--it's not likely, it probably won't/might not, but could.

[CTyankee]

113. Thank you for your caring response.

Why do we have to give up in sacrifice those women who, through no choice of their own, have a pregnancy that threaten their health and/or their future pregnancies, due to a freak problem of pregnancy?

Say what anyone will about Bill Clinton, he had the decency to veto the first anti socalled partial birth abortion bill in Congress and held a press conference with women of faith who had desperately wanted their babies but whose pregnancies posed significant health/future fertility risks for them. They told their stories and were poignant and genuine.

One by one, and because it is so easy, antichoicers have been weakening Roe. Make no mistake, these people know what they are doing. They are writing bills and Supreme Court briefs, to decimate our right to choice. It is deliberate. They were counting on us to fold on PBA because "it can't happen to us." And it seems they were right. We did, and do, fold.

That is what worries me.

[OzarkDem]

76. Bayh is a conservative

not helpful and not needed in an election year when voters are tired of conservatives and want new ideas.

[Hieronymus]

125. So is Hillary.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Unfortunately, it will likely be the usual "not too liberal" candidate.

As usual.

[MethuenProgressive]

13. Clinton/Richardson!

--

[Taverner]

15. No bashing

I'm trying to keep this from turning into a hatefest

[MethuenProgressive]

21. --

:shrug:

[Taverner]

22. You're right

I should have doinked that one too

[TwilightGardener]

14. Here's my predictions on '08 as it stands today:

Clinton/Clark vs. Giuliani/McCain vs. Bloomberg/Hagel. I think Hillary will be the nominee and choose Clark to go against McCain in terms of military experience. I think Rudy will be the GOP nominee, and he's good friends with McCain, who is still apparently popular with Independents--and they are twin neocon hawks. I think Bloomberg will probably run (signs point to it), and will pick Hagel as VP for foreign policy/military experience and Midwestern appeal. I think Clinton/Clark will win, as Bloomberg/Hagel will pull more from GOPers.

[Taverner]

18. Thing about Clark is - he saw what happened to his friend Kerry in 06

A war hero kicked on all sides from everyone. Someone who was not only truly qualified for the job, but also had a spine (there were other issues that brought Kerry down, but the man had a spine) A man too smart to be President.

And he probably thought "fuck this! I didn't get shot in Nam, put everything on the line for my country for THIS!"

Richardson likes the heat - he and Clinton, say what you will about them, do better under pressure. I'm still scratching my head at Clinton during the last debate. This is usually where she owns.

[TwilightGardener]

25. I think the opposite of you on Richardson--he folds like a card table

under pressure--he comes off poorly at debates. No charisma--though a good and competent guy. He's a worker bee, a good deputy, but I don't think Hillary will risk it with him. Clark, on the other hand, does have some charisma and leadership skills, although he's not that skilled as a campaigner--his one real drawback. But I think she'll chance it--he's not too gaffe-prone, and looks good on TV. And he has more military credentials than Kerry, who had real problems selling himself as a war hero--I don't think the swiftboaters will be as much a concern against Clark as they were against Kerry.

[CTyankee]

70. I agree. Why oh why don't we remember that war hero Kerry was also an antiwar protestor?

That turned the military and veterans against him so vociferously. Not so with Clark, so he will have a much smoother path.

[CTyankee]

116. The problem with your analysis is that Clark was never involved in anti-Vietnam war activities

unlike Kerry. THAT was what sank his campaign rhetoric about being a war veteran/hero. Clark can be sandbagged by other things, of course, but not in the same way as Kerry.

[MrModerate]

27. Interesting -- but I don't think Bloomberg is going to run any more than . . .

Gore is.

Clinton/Clark is a possibility, I just don't think Clark is really on the radar now, so I'm thinking Clinton/Obama (yeah, he'd have to eat some crow). But it would sure as heck set him up for 2016!

I'd jump for joy if the 'Licans put up Giuliani/McCain: Mr. Phony 9/11 plus the Ancient Complainer? The 'Licans'd be lucky to take 15 states -- and small ones at that.

Black box voting is the only thing that'd save the 'Licans with that lineup. And if they BBV *this* one, they'd be . . . let's say . . . "prevented from taking office."

[TwilightGardener]

32. Check out this thread/article on Bloomberg--Newsweek is giving him

a lot of (fawning, positive) ink, for a non-candidate:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2207109&mesg_id=2207109

They're setting him up as a real possibility, and presenting him as Presidential. I think DUers are burying their heads in the sand on Bloomberg--he's got the money, ambition and ego. Giuliani/McCain might be tough, because they both have appeal to Indies, and might even appeal to some Dems who haven't kept up with politics since 2001, when both were still sort of heroic.

[MrModerate]

38. I'd expect rumblings from Bloomberg (the iceberg breaking up perhaps) . . .

If he were moving that way. I haven't heard a peep. Newsweek is birdcage liner just one tick above US News & World Report. If I hear something from other sources, I might think about getting worried, even though I think just about any third party would kill the 'Licans and not the Dems.

Giuliani/McCain *might* be tough, but wider exposure of their basic odiousness as human beings (Rudy in particular) will turn off the indies who might otherwise vote for them, and much of the 'Lican base will just stay home on election day.

[TwilightGardener]

44. He's starting to make peeps and rumblings:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071031/ap_on_el_pr/giuliani_vs__bloomberg

I take him seriously--I think he's been planning to run for a long time, and he won't have to kick into high gear until mid-winter. He timed his switch to an Independent (last June) carefully, and he's starting to act like a candidate and get back into the press after denying and laying low for a few months. I agree with you, I think GOPers are less satisfied, and will jump third-party sooner than Dems. As far as Rudy/McCain, if you're counting on people recognizing basic odiousness, you must have missed the last 7 years! :-)

[CTyankee]

115. Be still my beating heart for your prediction!

However, I think Bloomberg is a real smart guy. Do you really think he will risk all that money, time and prestige on a Perot-style disaster? Maybe I'm wrong and his ego is so massive he can't see the obvious landmines on the way, but whoa!

[Ian David]

16. Clinton / Lieberman. n/t

[MadBadger]

123. Well, this is a dishonest post.

[MrCoffee]

17. Edwards/Biden or Edwards/Dodd

when Edwards wins either Iowa or New Hampshire, followed by South Carolina, Clinton or Obama will fall off the map.

Edwards takes enough states on Super Tuesday to force whichever didn't drop out already to give up.

He'll then offer VPOTUS to one of the two other Senators.

[MrModerate]

29. It's a pretty volatile situation, all right . . .

But not *that* volatile. Edwards is down for the count.

[MrCoffee]

31. i'm not so sure...last polls i saw from IA and NH looked far closer than the national #s

Edited to add that the last IA and NH polls i saw were about 3 weeks ago.

[MrModerate]

40. Could be -- it's going to be a long 8 weeks or so . . .

But I think I've been seeing the flop sweat on Mr. Edwards' brow of late. 2008 is his last chance, and he knows it -- and that knowledge has put him off his game.

[Alcibiades]

20. Clinton/Lieberman

It's meant to be.

[TwilightGardener]

34. LOL! Maybe in hell.

[Alcibiades]

47. It's what the media has already decided.

To paraphrase Colbert.

[TwilightGardener]

49. Well, I was just referring to the Lieberman part with the "hell" comment--

I am not opposed to Hillary. And it already had been decided, you're right.

[CANDO]

24. If it includes a Clinton, I'm not voting.

Why waste my vote when it will be a Republican either way. Flame away. At least I'll respect myself afterwords.

[cali]

28. nope. not gonna flame

and I have no predictions. But I will vote for the dem nominee, and I'll still respect myself too.

[MrModerate]

30. I'll avoid the obvious opportunity to flame and just say this . . .

Nader voters were too fastidious to vote for a dem and look what that got us.

Dems are highly imperfect, but you'd prefer four more years of 'Lican rule?

[CANDO]

101. I wasn't a Nader voter.

And I'm aware of SCOTUS ramifications. Why does there seem to be blinders for Hillary supporters? She barely beats the Rep. nominee, while Edwards or Gore if he should run would blow them away. So why the headlong dive for Hillary when she's a Republican just like her husband? For God's sake, Bill Clinton was to the right of both Nixon and Eisenhower and we want to go with another?

[MrModerate]

127. I am far from sure that Gore or Edwards could blow 'Lican nominees away . . .

I happen to think that the 'Lican field is sooooo weak, that just about any candidate dems could unite behind is likely to win (black box voting notwithstanding), which certainly includes Gore, Edwards, Obama, and Biden (along with Clinton).

But we'd better unite behind someone, and that someone had better be the preference of a sufficient percentage of the electorate to prevent inevitable 'Lican vote fraud mechanisms from succeeding. I'm talking 55-60% of popular vote, translating into 75%+ electoral vote. That's the margin we'll need to ensure the presidency isn't stolen for the third time in a row.

Clinton does rub me the wrong way upon occasion -- the whole dem leadership rubs me the wrong way upon occasion, but I wouldn't trade 'em for the 'Lican leadership. And no, I don't consider Clinton II (or Clinton I, for that matter) to be Republican. That's a gross exaggeration. I do tend to believe she's the most electable of the Dem field, and for that reason should be taken seriously.

And all progressives *must* vote, or risk a Rudy, or a Mitt, or a John, or a Fred presidency, which is a clear recipe for compounding the disaster we find our country in.

[TwilightGardener]

35. SCOTUS. Only word to keep in mind.

(well, acronym)

[Lucinda]

60. You beat me to it! :)

SCOTUS. SCOTUS. SCOTUS.

[Yael]

26. Graft/Corruption

[DFW]

33. At this early point, I have no clue, and therefore no prediction.

[regularguy]

36. Clinton/ someone-with-a- southern-accent. Maybe Clark.

I hope I'm wrong. (about the Clinton part)

[HughBeaumont]

37. Edwards/Obama.

Hopefully not:

Free Trader War Corporatist/Lackey Happy to Ride Coattails.

[emilyg]

39. Clinton/Clarke/Richardson

[karynnj]

99. If you mean Richard Clarke, he is with Obama

not Clinton and as he was in government in the 1990s - it is telling that he is not working with Clinton.

(If you meant Clark, my apologies - I am an awful speller and would not call some one on spelling - as written it is ambiguous.) All 3 do a reasonable job in shoring up the tickets national security credentials.

[LSK]

41. COLBERT / KRISTOL!

:patriot:

[ronnykmarshall]

42. Doesn't matter

Someone's gonna throw a shit fit either way.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

93. brilliant.

you are always spot on

[bunkerbuster1]

43. Clinton / Richardson

I agree with you. It's not what I'd pick, but if I were to bet I'd say Hillary gets the nomination, and I have a hard time thinking of why she wouldn't want Richardson as her running mate.

Frankly, while I lean toward Obama for President, I wouldn't want him to be on her ticket. Not out of spite, but because two Senators, both from IL, aren't a recipe for success in the general election.

[TwilightGardener]

46. I'm not sure I want Obama as VP either (don't want to see him wasted and languishing)--

but I think Clinton/Obama would be a certain win.

[bunkerbuster1]

54. Way-ell, if I were a betting man...

I'd say Clinton/smelly gym sock would be a certain win. As would "AnyDem/smelly gym sock."

I'm wrong sometimes, but I really do think the GOP is going to get the crap beaten out of them next year, in the Presidential, Congressional, and Senate races.

I'm under no illusions that the resulting Democratic majority will be some progressive paradise, but rather, we'll be stuck cleaning up the elephant shit for four years or so, and getting blamed for the elephant shit in the process.

[timber84]

45. Clinton/Bayh

[B Calm]

111. Makes sense.. Bayh is another DLC member!

[AspenRose]

48. I have thoughts on three pairings

Clinton first billing for all three

Clinton/Richardson

Clinton/Clark

Clinton/Biden

Richardson, Clark and Biden are all good regarding foreign relations/policy....Lord knows we need to repair some major damage we've created around the world

[TwilightGardener]

50. Biden said today he wouldn't do it--said VP would just be a ceremonial post.

[bullwinkle428]

55. Wait a minute - what about Cheney ("just ceremonial")?

Oh, that's right - it only works when the "president" has a room temperature IQ...

[TwilightGardener]

58. Right--it will revert back to a ceremonial post when the President

actually has traceable brain waves.

[Labors of Hercules]

51. Gore/Boxer

[rucky]

52. Toss-up

I think Clinton has a 50% chance of getting upset - I just don't know by whom.

Going purely on my gut, Clinton/Clark

[Stewie]

53. Clinton/Vilsack

Though if she needs a Southerner, Clinton/Bredesen?

[flvegan]

56. flvegan/Madonna

As good a realistic prediction I can make right now.

[bigwillq]

67. I would so vote for that ticket!

:) :hi:

[freestyle]

57. I see Clinton/Richardson vs. Guiliani/Rice

Of course, I want Obama to be our nominee, but I am not really seeing that happening. If either Clinton or Obama is on the Democratic ticket, thhe GOP will find a woman and/or person of color for their ticket. I'm seeing Condi, especially since she denies political aspirations so strongly.

[GodlessBiker]

61. Conservatives will sit that election out and the Dems will win.

[MasonJar]

59. Clinton/Clark! My choice would be Gore/Clinton or Gore/Clark

[Ishoutandscream2]

63. Yes, Clinton/Clark. And I'm like you, wanting Gore

but afraid it won't happen.

[BlackVelvet04]

62. Clinton/Mark Warner.........n/t

[MADem]

66. Mmmmmmm....I don't know.

Warner has some shit out there. Not sure what it is, but his own oppo research caused him to 'step back.' Dunno what, it's usually a 'lady problem' but he could have other youthful indiscretions...He was Robert 'Novakula' Novak's choice for Clinton, oddly enough.

Of course, it's harder nowadays to be outraged about personal pecadillos, what with all the work the GOP is doing to make torrid affairs, bathroom liaisons, and diaper-wearing indiscretions just part of the "ho-hum" business-as-usual landscape. Look at the GOP Frontrunner--he loves to wear dresses, makeup and ladies' wigs, he's been married three times, once to a cousin, and he had no problem schtuping his girlfriend(s)--he had at least one other before Princess Judy--in the governor's manse until Wife #2 said 'ENOUGH!' He hung around with sleazebags like Kerik, the fuckmeister extraordinaire, and don't tell me he didn't use that same love nest or one nearby that Kerik used, that should have been reserved for the GZ workers!

So who knows, it could happen...???

[TwilightGardener]

80. Isn't he running for Senate? Don't think he's in the running for VP any longer.

[SteppingRazor]

85. Yeah, he's running for Senate, and he's the most likely Dem. pickup.

There's no way he's dropping out of that race.

[MADem]

103. Well, the name alone is a two-fer.

He has that Governor thing behind him, and that was good for the state, and then there's the 'other Warner' factor...those inattentive old Republicans will think they're voting for the old guy who's retiring, who used to be SECNAV!

[BlackVelvet04]

81. I don't think Hillary would pick one of the other presidential

candidates to run as her VP. Warner just seemed like a decent choice.

I can't imagine Warner having done something worse than what we see from the republicans (as you mentioned.)

[Lyric]

68. Clinton/Easley

I think Clinton will get the nomination, and ask North Carolina Governor Mike Easley to be her running mate. :hi:

[Truth2Tell]

71. Gore/Boxer

vs Thompson/Huckabee vs Bloomberg/CFR

[CK_John]

72. Hillary/Sebelius. n/t

[Raine]

73. Clinton/whoever

the media has already made the decision so apparently it's a given. x(

[rndmprsn]

74. Gore / Edwards...i hope

Edwards/kucinich i'll take!!!

[Greyhound]

75. Doesn't matter. It will be whomever our corporate masters decree.

We have officially become too dumb to live.

[OzarkDem]

77. and the GOP will win

Corporate money in Dem primaries will end up being the Trojan horse.

[yurbud]

92. yep. both nominees have to get the corporate thumbs up before they can even win nomination

[Uncle Joe]

78. Gore/Somebody n/t

[SteppingRazor]

84. Clinton/Obama.

After Clinton wins the primary, she taps Obama to pull in all the disaffected voters of the second-place candidate, shoring up the base. Plus, like a medieval wedding between royal houses, it would draw together a somewhat fractious Democratic party (as you alluded to in your "different sides of the DNC comment). Plus, I think Obama would acquiesce -- he's certainly young enough that eight years as VP would still give him plenty of time to run for the Oval Office himself. Plus, Obama's the party future -- witness his very healthy numbers among younger voters. There's a lot of positives there, and very few negatives.

[Le Taz Hot]

87. Hillary/Hillary Sycophant

n/t

[dysfunctional press]

88. gore/clark...and edwards will make a FINE attorney general.

nt

[Czolgosz]

89. Edwards-Obama

[harun]

106. Me 2, Edwards/Obama (n/t)

[yurbud]

90. Edwards and someone from Midwest or West

Hillary's support is all name recognition, media, and corporations. She has done nothing to endear herself to actual people.

[yurbud]

91. Republicans will pick the Democrat, just like they did in 2004.

[Virginia Dare]

94. Clinton/Edwards..

I look for Wesley Clark as the Sec of State.

[Blackhatjack]

96. Edwards/Webb OR Edwards/Obama would each be a winner.

These would be powerful combinations to go up against either Giuliani or Romney.

[Blackhatjack]

97. Interesting! NO ONE lists Hillary as a possible VP candidate....

I don't think she would do well in that slot, but it interesting that no one lists her as a possible VP if she does not get the Democratic Party Nomination.

[harun]

107. That is interesting, I wonder what that means? (n/t)

[cadmium]

121. The Clintons are too powerful to be VP

Having a Clinton as VP would overshadow any president

[KharmaTrain]

98. They Need To Be Fighters

Hillary already knows this. She surely is expecting the general campaign to be full of mud and will require constant hit backs. Remember, it was the Clintons who prefected the war room and be assured that an even bigger and more efficient one is on the way. If Hillary is the nominee, she'll need a running mate who hammers with her...will be able to play with the "big boys" and stand up to the onslaught that is sure to ensue. This is no job for the weak-kneed.

I don't think Senator Edwards would take the number 2 slot again. He's worked too hard for the top slot and felt stiffled being Kerry's running mate. I also don't see Senator Obama being a good number 2 as he's just learning how to play with the "big boys"...his inexperience (his achillies heel) will hurt him in the torture chamber that is the general.

That leaves several possibilities. My first pick would be Richardson. He's worked with the Clintons before, he brings experience on several levels, isn't really a threat to Hillary or visa versa, would rally millions of Hispanic votes and could play good cop to Hillary's bad or visa versa. I could also see Chris Dodd in this role, but Dodd and Biden both play best in the Senate. Richardson is term-limited in New Mexico and has a popular Lt. Gov...he would be a far better fit. AFA General Clark, I see him taking charge and cleaning up the DOD.

[harun]

108. I agree, rabid fighting take no prisoners killing machines (n/t)

[Alexander]

104. Gore/Feingold or Gore/Obama

[hiphopnation]

119. i like your latter...

[sampsonblk]

109. Clinton/Clark-nt

[B Calm]

110. Edwards/Kuchinich

[cadmium]

112. I would bet with conventional wisdom

Hillary and Richardson

[cadmium]

120. Just betting-not advocating n/t

[LittleClarkie]

117. Biden/Richardson

People might want someone actually qualified for the office this time, ya know?

[AuntPatsy]

118. Clinton / Edwards

Not my first choice but you asked who I thought was likely to get it. Though it might look lately like those two are down each other's throats, I have a funny feeling we are getting played.

[tkmorris]

122. Ya know, that is the one thing about Clinton

That would make me feel just a little better about her winning the primary. Sadly, I think she is far more likely to choose Bayh or Warner as a running mate.

[AuntPatsy]

129. I'm not sure she would have a choice in the matter, in some strange

way I feel like the names have already been set in stone, the only one I am not so sure about is Giuliano's' running mate, I don't think that one has quite been decided yet, I think they are duking it out for the number two spot.

[surfermaw]

124. Edwards...Gore...Biden for VP

Edwards with Gore as VP. or Gore with Edwards VP...and Biden for VP

[DemGa]

126. Clinton/Warner

Mark Warner, Former Governor of Virginia.

[porphyrian]

128. My vote won't count, so I'm not bothering to guess. -n/t

[asdjrocky]

130. When I close my eyes I dream...

Edwards/Obama