Straight from top sources inside the beltway... Hillary Clinton is willing to accept the VP nomination and it looks like Kerry is going to offer it to her. :eek: Of course, nothing is 100% for sure. But shhhhh...you didn't hear about it from me.

I read about this on the Drudge Report this morning. I'm thinking it will be a HUGE boost for the Kerry campaign should it ever happen...

Originally posted by pine trees
I read about this on the Drudge Report this morning. I'm thinking it will be a HUGE boost for the Kerry campaign should it ever happen...

Noooo. Too many people still viciously hate Hillary. Kerry could stand to lose a lot of swing votes over it.

shit

Originally posted by BlueStar


Noooo. Too many people still viciously hate Hillary.

Not the democrat base though, which isn't all together right now. Her nomination would galvanize that base.

More people love Hilary than love Edwards, though. Kerry is a lot more moderate than people though and will get some of that swing vote.

Originally posted by pine trees

Not the democrat base though, which isn't all together right now. Her nomination would galvanize that base.

No, it wouldn't. The Dems will vote for Kerry no matter what. GOTV this year will be INSANE. And, if nothing else, the Dems will come out in full force for Kerry because he isn't Bush. Hillary as the nominee isn't going to solidify the Dem base...there are still a lot of Dems that dislike Hillary. Kerry doesn't need to solidify his base...he needs to fucking worry about the swing voters and pissed off Repubs.

Originally posted by sppunk
More people love Hilary than love Edwards, though. Kerry is a lot more moderate than people though and will get some of that swing vote.

Repubs and Independents don't like Hillary. They do, however, love Edwards. In all the "who do you want for VP" polls, Edwards kicked Hillary's ass.

Kerry/Edwards would definitely get my vote a lot easier than Kerry/Clinton

Originally posted by BlueStar


Repubs and Independents don't like Hillary. They do, however, love Edwards. In all the "who do you want for VP" polls, Edwards kicked Hillary's ass.

In poll's, Dean was kicking everyone's ass as well. Hilary has the "big-name" factor. She'll bring in women voters where Bush does nothing but alienate them. She'll bring in voters just to spite people, just to be like, "holy fuck this is crazy."

Kerry's more moderate than Kerry, he's Bush-lite. I wouldn't worry about him not getting a lot of swing voters.

Originally posted by sppunk

She'll bring in women voters where Bush does nothing but alienate them.

Not really...there are a lot of women that dislike Hillary too. Hillary is really only popular among hardcore Dems. I don't think she'll have much of an impact on non-Dem women.

Originally posted by jczeroman
Kerry/Edwards would definitely get my vote a lot easier than Kerry/Clinton

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">
This is bullshit.</font>

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros
<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">
This is bullshit.</font>

Let's hope so.

Originally posted by BlueStar


Not really...there are a lot of women that dislike Hillary too. Hillary is really only popular among hardcore Dems. I don't think she'll have much of an impact on non-Dem women.

Eh, a lot of my mother's friends consider themselves Republicans but said they would vote for any ticket that had anyone as dynamic as Hilary on it.

I don't believe this is true (Hilary as VP), but it's interesting to argue the strenghts/weaknesses of the idea.

Edwards tops Kerry veep poll
Gephardt would be respondents' second choice
Wednesday, June 30, 2004 Posted: 9:58 AM EDT (1358 GMT)

(CNN) -- [i]Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina gets the most enthusiastic response from Americans asked in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll about possible running mates for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry.

Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri places a solid second in the poll released Tuesday.

Seventy-two percent said they would be enthusiastic or satisfied with an Edwards pick, compared with 64 percent for Gephardt.

A Kerry-Edwards ticket either satisfied or made 80 percent of the Democrats enthusiastic, along with 62 percent of Republicans. Only Bayh approached that last number, with 57 percent of the GOP voters saying they would be satisfied with his candidacy with Kerry.

Originally posted by BlueStar


This poll doesn't ******* H. Clinton as an option though, does it?

Isn't there another poll that has Hilary Clinton beating even George Bush in a head to head election?

Originally posted by pine trees


This poll doesn't ******* H. Clinton as an option though, does it?

Isn't there another poll that has Hilary Clinton beating even George Bush in a head to head election?


*******

*******

Why is i n c l u d e censored? :confused:

Originally posted by pine trees


This poll doesn't ******* H. Clinton as an option though, does it?

Isn't there another poll that has Hilary Clinton beating even George Bush in a head to head election?

No, that poll does not. However, past polls have *******d her...and Edwards was still on top.

There have been numerous polls putting Bush head-to-head with numerous Dems...and every single Dem was within the margin of error of Bush. Basically, in those polls, it was all the Bush vote v. the anti-Bush vote.

The major bonus to Hillary Clinton as the VP is Bill Clinton. Everyone still loves Bill Clinton. And it can also remind voters of "better times"...good economy, focus on health care, etc.

Originally posted by jczeroman
Kerry/Edwards would definitely get my vote a lot easier than Kerry/Clinton

this news is almost making me cry

why can't the democrats get their heads out of their asses for at least 15 minutes to choose edwards as the VP candidate??

please...


the DNC hasn't done anything right since 1996

Originally posted by pine trees
Why is i n c l u d e censored? :confused: in<jhjk>clude is censored?

Originally posted by severin
in<jhjk>clude is censored?

How funny.

I have an honest question for you Samantha, since I'm completely out of the loop: If Hillary did get asked to be VP, and if the Dems win, do you think she'll make as good of a VP as Edwards could?

Originally posted by jczeroman
Kerry/Edwards would definitely get my vote a lot easier than Kerry/Clinton

Originally posted by BlueStar
Everyone still loves Bill Clinton.

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">I wouldn't say everyone. I also wouldn't say loves, either.

And no one really likes Hillary. If Kerry wants to be all President Jeff Bridges about it he should nominate someone who rocks, like that senator from Maine.</font>

Originally posted by pine trees
Why is i n c l u d e censored? :confused:

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">It has something to do with metatags and board tampering.</font>

Aargh. That's possibly the most harmful thing Kerry could do for his campaign. The most vital aspect of selecting a running mate is to find someone who's not going to hurt you, and Hillary could very easily hurt Kerry, both among Dems who don't like her smugness and among swing Reps who will vote for Bush just because they will never vote for a Clinton again. Gephardt, Vilsack, Edwards--those guys are safe picks, yeah, but barring the revelation of any skeletons in the closet, they're also not going to hurt him.

Ultimately, what it boils down to is this: People don't vote for the vice president. Sure, you might pick someone who could help you carry an extra state, but none of the reported finalists for the job would guarantee a state for Kerry (and Gephardt actually could hurt Kerry in Missouri). The best thing for Kerry to do right now is to pick someone who helps galvanize his message and someone who seems presidential. Which is why he should pick Vilsack or Edwards.

Hillary would be a disaster.

Originally posted by pink_ribbon_scars
I have an honest question for you Samantha, since I'm completely out of the loop: If Hillary did get asked to be VP, and if the Dems win, do you think she'll make as good of a VP as Edwards could?

I think Hillary would make a good VP. I like Hillary. But, Hillary's demeanor and manner can be very abrasive. She is fabulous at speaking to the base, but not very good at uniting. She would definitely help to continue the whole left v. right thing. Edwards, on the other hand, (besides being liked by more people) would be more of a uniter. Plus, the VP choice is the first, and pretty much only, important decision that a candidate makes before the election. The VP absolutely needs to be an excellent campaigner. He needs to be able to respond to the challenges of the opposition. Edwards would be amazing at that.

Originally posted by BlueStar


I think Hillary would make a good VP. I like Hillary. But, Hillary's demeanor and manner can be very abrasive. She is fabulous at speaking to the base, but not very good at uniting. She would definitely help to continue the whole left v. right thing. Edwards, on the other hand, (besides being liked by more people) would be more of a uniter. Plus, the VP choice is the first, and pretty much only, important decision that a candidate makes before the election. The VP absolutely needs to be an excellent campaigner. He needs to be able to respond to the challenges of the opposition. Edwards would be amazing at that.

I have learned so much from you in the last 5 years or so. Thanks.

Advice on veep: Beware the hot dog syndrome

Kerry may be wise to avoid any surprises on his running mate

By Howard Fineman
MSNBC contributor
Updated: 2:09 p.m. ET July 01, 2004

WASHINGTON - Long before he was the impresario of the Fox News Channel, Roger Ailes was the message meister of George H.W. Bush's 1988 presidential campaign. I covered Ailes at the time, and one of the tales he told me is relevant to Sen. John Kerry as he chooses a running mate now. Ailes' lesson: Don't throw a hot dog into a shark tank.

Say what? Well, what Ailes was talking about (at a post-election seminar) was the way Bush the Elder, in secret, had chosen as his No. 2 an obscure senator — Dan Quayle of Indiana — and then had tossed him into the media whorl without introduction. The result, at the Republican convention in New Orleans, was a feeding frenzy of rumor and misinformation.

Word spread that Quayle was worth $400 million, which wasn’t true. He was from a wealthy family but didn’t have much money himself. And campaign officials didn’t know every last detail of Quayle’s draft history and their inability to explain it clearly from the start left Quayle looking like a draft dodger, which he wasn’t.

To be sure, Quayle was no Thomas Jefferson, but whatever help he might have given to the ticket was lost in the ensuing campaign fumbles. Bush Senior won the election, of course, but did so despite Quayle, not because of him. Quayle's debut, Ailes recalled, was "like throwing a hot dog into a shark tank."

Kerry is being as secretive as his Skull and Bones kinsmen as he prepares to unveil his veep choice soon. At his wife Teresa's Heinz's estate in the suburbs of Pittsburgh, Kerry is hashing over the last details of the possibilities, I am told. If he is going to settle on someone almost totally out of the blue (the fascination and nightmare of political reporters) his campaign had better be prepared to answer every conceivable question about the pick in a big fat hurry.

No need to 'go long'
The senator from Massachusetts may want to surprise us all, but he is under no pressure — as Bush the Elder was in 1888 — to "go long" with his choice. Kerry is running neck and neck with Bush the Younger; there is no sense of desperation in his camp, or in the Democratic Party. In some ways the least risky, and therefore most sensible, thing to do is to pick one of the candidates fully vetted by the political and media process — Sen. John Edwards (who ran this time and was vetted by Al Gore in 2000) or Rep. Dick Gephardt, who ran in 1988 and again this time, and is as known as a quantity can get.

The downside, of course, is that while there will be no feeding frenzy, there will be no frenzy at all.

Kerry is operating as if he wants the result of his deliberations to be a shocking surprise. Until now, there have been fewer leaks out of this veep-selection process than any in recent years. He also made no secret of his desire to pull off a daring, out-of-the-box maneuver, and select a Republican, Sen. John McCain, as he running mate. So the potential is there. Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa is known to political insiders, and is close to Kerry personally, but he has "hot dog" potential. Gov. Bill Richarson of New Mexico served in the Clinton cabinet, and was in the headlines from time to time, but, again, has never been subjected to the kind of ferocious scrutiny that a presidential campaign engenders. Sen. Bob Graham ran for president this time around, but no one noticed his campaign. I'm told that the Kerry campaign asked to read all of his voluminous and detailed diaries. (Pity the bright young law grad who has that duty!)

Then there is Hillary Rodham Clinton, who strenuously denies that she would accept the spot — even if Kerry came begging. There is no evidence that he has done so, but if he's looking for someone who is already vetted to the max, but who would still cause a frenzy, then she would be the one. Hillary's been in the shark tank for so long she's one of the sharks.

You know, Drudge is only right about 25 percent of the time on his "exclusives." I have never heard Hilary pushing for VP, or even the presidency.

Originally posted by sppunk
You know, Drudge is only right about 25 percent of the time on his "exclusives." I have never heard Hilary pushing for VP, or even the presidency.

I agree. Nothing about this is for sure the truth. But, I didn't even hear about if from Drudge. I got it straight from high-up DC people, which kinda makes me wonder.

However, in support of the better and wiser choice...Edwards' Chief of Staff is already all lined up to be the Chief of Staff for Kerry's VP apparently.

Originally posted by BlueStar


I agree. Nothing about this is for sure the truth. But, I didn't even hear about if from Drudge. I got it straight from high-up DC people, which kinda makes me wonder.

However, in support of the better and wiser choice...Edwards' Chief of Staff is already all lined up to be the Chief of Staff for Kerry's VP apparently.

Drudge's report came from a member of the Democratic National Convention party apparently. It's most likely a high-tailed rumor.

Kerry has asked three people to be on alert with cell phones at all times. He wants to announce his running mate by Tuesday, apparently.

I hope to God it's not Gephardt.

Originally posted by mpp


this news is almost making me cry

why can't the democrats get their heads out of their asses for at least 15 minutes to choose edwards as the VP candidate??

please...


the DNC hasn't done anything right since 1996

i wish democrats had their heads removed from their asses when they chose kerry for the seat... i can't justify myself to vote for him, but with hillary I just may... I rather her be president and him be vp, but oh well...

kerry is going to be one of the lamest democratic presidents ever... i may just vote green because I'm sure kerry will get california anyways (unless what I predict happens, then who knows)...

I don't even have faith in our election process so I shouldn't even be posting.

I wrote about this very topic this week:

http://www.dailytarheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/07/01/40e4098583d65

Not a lot of space, unfortunately, but it talks mostly about Edwards and what he could bring/not bring to the ticket.

Originally posted by sppunk
I hope to God it's not Gephardt.

Originally posted by Future Boy