Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ghost_flash · Mar 7, 2004, 06:35 PM

I think there will be a suprise VP candidate: Hillary
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...1/153613.shtml

Discuss.

zachs · Mar 7, 2004, 06:38 PM

Personally, I could do without Hillary.

But interestingly, she is favored among Democratic voters.

A Kerry/Edwards ticket does extremely well against a Bush/Cheney ticket, though I don't know if Kerry wants to pick one of his opponents in the primaries.

Orion27 · Mar 7, 2004, 06:40 PM

Robert McNamara. Gravitas, Kennedy Democrat, Whiner.

Orion27 · Mar 7, 2004, 06:43 PM

Forgot McNamara's most endearing qualification, penultimate flip flopper.

IceBreaker · Mar 7, 2004, 06:52 PM

It will be John Edwards.

The Democrats want to win this time, so they do have to have some geographical balance to the ticket.

I personally think it has been a Kerry/Edwards ticket for at least a month, and the continued primary was just to keep getting free publicity for the "heated primary race".

ghost_flash · Mar 7, 2004, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by IceBreaker:
It will be John Edwards.

The Democrats want to win this time, so they do have to have some geographical balance to the ticket.

I personally think it has been a Kerry/Edwards ticket for at least a month, and the continued primary was just to keep getting free publicity for the "heated primary race".

Sorry, Geography only worked ONCE in history, and it ain't enough this time, so I am really inclined to think that Hillary to be the suprise candidate, and she would prompt many, many women to vote.

They'd have a better chance with H.

IceBreaker · Mar 7, 2004, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Sorry, Geography only worked ONCE in history, and it ain't enough this time, so I am really inclined to think that Hillary to be the suprise candidate, and she would prompt many, many women to vote.

They'd have a better chance with H.

It won't be Hillary, unless the Clintons are absolutely sure Kerry will lose this fall. She wants to be Pres in 2008....by 2012 she will be 65 years old.....her only real shots are 2008 and 2012 as the preferred re-election year.

Bumping it back to wait 8 years for the Clintons is not a option they like.

The reality is the Clintons don't want any Democrat to win against W so that 2008 keeps the field wide open for Hillary.

MacGorilla · Mar 7, 2004, 07:30 PM

Hillry would be a choice that would certainly change the equation. I like the idea of a Kerry/Edwards ticket myself.

ghost_flash · Mar 7, 2004, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by IceBreaker:
It won't be Hillary, unless the Clintons are absolutely sure Kerry will lose this fall. She wants to be Pres in 2008....by 2012 she will be 65 years old.....her only real shots are 2008 and 2012 as the preferred re-election year.

Bumping it back to wait 8 years for the Clintons is not a option they like.

The reality is the Clintons don't want any Democrat to win against W so that 2008 keeps the field wide open for Hillary.

I don't follow that at all. She has a great opportunity here, and I for one would love to see her go for it with Kerry. That would be a very interesting presidency, and I think it would be the only way Kerry could actually have a chance against Bush.

Kerry is toast otherwise.

IceBreaker · Mar 7, 2004, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I don't follow that at all. She has a great opportunity here, and I for one would love to see her go for it with Kerry. That would be a very interesting presidency, and I think it would be the only way Kerry could actually have a chance against Bush.

Kerry is toast otherwise.

If she runs with Kerry and they were to win...she would have to run as Kerry's VP again in 2008. She could not very well take on Kerry for the job herself in 2008 if she was his VP.

2008 is the year the Clintons view as their year of return to the White House with her as President. Not as someone else's VP.

Again though, the Clintons don't want a Democrat to win this fall, that is why they had to put the knife to Dean's throat in Iowa..aka having the Torch (Robert Torrecelli) go out and sabotage the Dean campaign.

The Clintons very well know Kerry is just a sacrificial lamb....it is by their own design.

ghost_flash · Mar 7, 2004, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by IceBreaker:
If she runs with Kerry and they were to win...she would have to run as Kerry's VP again in 2008. She could not very well take on Kerry for the job herself in 2008 if she was his VP.

2008 is the year the Clintons view as their year of return to the White House with her as President. Not as someone else's VP.

Again though, the Clintons don't want a Democrat to win this fall, that is why they had to put the knife to Dean's throat in Iowa..aka having the Torch (Robert Torrecelli) go out and sabotage the Dean campaign.

The Clintons very well know Kerry is just a sacrificial lamb....it is by their own design.

Oh. Yep. You are correct. I forgot about that.

Well put.

Zimphire · Mar 7, 2004, 08:07 PM

Kerry has little chance the way it is. If Hitlery runs with him, he wont have even a remote chance.

tie · Mar 7, 2004, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I think there will be a suprise VP candidate: Hillary

Why not Bill?

MacGorilla · Mar 7, 2004, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by tie:
Why not Bill?

He could be but if Kerry died Bill couldn't be President again. It would go the Speaker of the House.

tie · Mar 7, 2004, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
He could be but if Kerry died Bill couldn't be President again. It would go the Speaker of the House.

I don't think so.

(22) No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

vmpaul · Mar 7, 2004, 09:40 PM

Why is Clark so out of favor?

I hear Kerry/Edwards all the time. Wesley Clark was talked about as a VP candidate even before he entered the race.

fizzlemynizzle · Mar 7, 2004, 09:49 PM

the dems have a tough choice to make. if they really think kerry can win then they may want to risk a big name for VP to help put him over the top. the danger is that if they take that risk and kerry loses, the VP candidate's later chances of winning as a presidential candidate down the road become very damaged.. so i doubt it would be hillary. i don't think she's interested in being vice president again, anyhow. she already was for 8 years.

MacGorilla · Mar 7, 2004, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by tie:
I don't think so.

Thanks for that clarification. I stand corrected

saranwarp · Mar 7, 2004, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Why is Clark so out of favor?

I hear Kerry/Edwards all the time. Wesley Clark was talked about as a VP candidate even before he entered the race.

Clark was a total bust and a terrible campaigner.

1) Edwards, for all the reasons people listed. But he probably can't even deliver NC, so the Kerry people are going to do some serious polling to compare him with the other VP candidates in the key battleground states.
2) Bill Nelson, to possibly win Florida and create an dual-veteran ticket. Bob Graham would have been the sure bet for running mate if his presidential campaign hadn't ended so disastrously, but it did, so he's not.
3) Evan Bayh, which would make the DLC cream its pants. Would this bring Indiana into play, though? Sure, but it wouldn't guarantee a win in the solidly red state. Again, I'm sure they'll poll this to death.

Kerry's #1 choice would probably be Bill Richardson, who is Hispanic, very credible on foreign policy, and has a ridiculous amount of experience in politics. He would bring NM, lock in CA and probably win AZ and NV. The problem is that he apparently doesn't want the spot now, though, most likely priming himself for his own presidential run in 2008 if Kerry doesn't win. Things could change, though.

IceBreaker · Mar 7, 2004, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by saranwarp:
Clark was a total bust and a terrible campaigner.

3) Evan Bayh, which would make the DLC cream its pants. Would this bring Indiana into play, though? Sure, but it wouldn't guarantee a win in the solidly red state. Again, I'm sure they'll poll this to death.

Doubt having Bayh on the ticket would give Kerry Indiana. But it might help Kerry in Ohio which has many more electoral votes.

Zimphire · Mar 7, 2004, 11:30 PM

You know, I'd rather have seen Edwards up there than Kerry. He would have given Bush a better run for his money.

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 8, 2004, 06:16 AM

Bill Richardson, maybe. However, there is that ugly footage of Richardson being berated for the loss of nuclear secrets at Los Alamos when he was Energy Secretary (they lost entire hard drives containing nuclear weapons plans) and because he was uncooperative with the Senate investigations. There are parts that would look just wonderful in a Republican campaign ad.

Hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 6/21/00

Senator Byrd, (D-WV)

". . . I've listened to you today very carefully . . . and I have to say, as I think it was William Wordsworth who said, 'No matter how high you are in your department, you are responsible for the actions of the lowliest clerk.'

I haven't publicly excoriated you and I don't intend today to do that, but I feel like it. I want to say that I think you've been very contemptible of the Congress, in which you served . . . . You should know that Congress has a responsibility of oversight over the department. I think there is a mind-set in the department -- perhaps in you -- that the Congress is to be treated like a lap dog, that those people up there don't know anything about what they are doing . . . . "

". . . I have been in this Congress a long time, 48 years, and I have voted on several occasions for resolutions providing for contempt of Congress. And I wouldn't have any hesitancy about voting for such a resolution concerning you. You have waited and you have shown a contempt of Congress that borders on a supreme arrogance of this institution."

". . . We ought to have confidence in one another of what we have to say . . . you have really thrown away a treasure, that treasure being the confidence of the Congress . . . . I am sorry that you lost that credibility . . . . I think it's a rather sad story that you had a bright and brilliant career -- that you would never again receive the support of the Senate of the United States for any office to which you might be appointed. You have squandered your treasure, and I am sorry."

Senator Murkowski, [D-Md] Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

"All along Secretary Richardson has claimed that there was no need for drastic action because he has the labs under control and the national security is adequately protected. Well, clearly it isn't true and that's not the case. We have again learned the hard way that the DOE security is still shamefully inadequate."

Link (Link is rather biased, but the quotes are accurate).

Personally, I think Kerry would be smarter to go for someone like Max Cleland. Richardson's record on nuclear weapons secrets is very bad. That won't play well post 9/11. It didn't play well pre-9/11.

dcolton · Mar 8, 2004, 09:02 AM

Do you really think Hillary could win the democratic primaries in 2008 if Kerry looses. I can't see her doing well in the first few primaries.

spacefreak · Mar 8, 2004, 09:39 AM

Looks like there are some grumblings of a JFK-NBC Ticket:

If he thinks in conventional political terms, the safe bet is Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri. If he wants to make a bold choice, he will offer the job to retiring NBC anchorman Tom Brokaw. <snip>

At the end of this year, the 63-year-old Mr. Brokaw is retiring after two decades as the anchor of the top-rated "NBC Nightly News," and he could probably be persuaded to leave the anchor desk a few months early. Surely his many friends in the national news media would give him an ethics pass on such a departure.

Last year, the New York Observer reported that an ad hoc committee of his media friends, including executives Barry Diller and Howard Stringer along with writers Nora Ephron and Kurt Andersen, "weren't taking no for an answer" when it came to promoting a Brokaw candidacy for president. "He simply is the greatest draft choice you could ever possibly imagine," said Mr. Diller. "He's such a natural on so many levels that I can't imagine how you could create it otherwise. Of course it's absurd, but there it is." Ms. Ephron predicted last year that if Mr. Brokaw changed his mind, "$20 million would come pouring in in about a week." Mr. Brokaw demurred, saying through a spokesman: "I'm not running for anything." But Mickey Kaus of Slate reported last year that Mr. Brokaw remains intensely interested in politics and has thought about running for president.

It's obvious that victory is the only thing Democrats care about. Kerry should just name Oprah and hire the movers.

IceBreaker · Mar 8, 2004, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by dcolton:
Do you really think Hillary could win the democratic primaries in 2008 if Kerry looses. I can't see her doing well in the first few primaries.

Cakewalk for Hillary. There would be some token contenders to take her on to make it look like a fight, but I think she would easily win Iowa and New Hamshire. I seriously don't think she would lose a single state in the primary.

theolein · Mar 8, 2004, 09:48 AM

John McCain.

NYCFarmboy · Mar 8, 2004, 10:08 AM

What is Hillary's position on gay marriage?

vmpaul · Mar 8, 2004, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Looks like there are some grumblings of a JFK-NBC Ticket:

I can't believe that came from the WSJ. What an idiotic suggestion. What are they smoking over there? How in God's name is Tom Brokaw qualified for the position? All he does is read aloud for a living.

vmpaul · Mar 8, 2004, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by theolein:
John McCain.

I heard that a month ago, even posted it myself. It's a longshot but would Kerry even have the power to make a choice like that? I'd imagine he'd get all sorts of pressure within the Democratic party not to pick an outsider.

NYCFarmboy · Mar 8, 2004, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I heard that a month ago, even posted it myself. It's a longshot but would Kerry even have the power to make a choice like that? I'd imagine he'd get all sorts of pressure within the Democratic party not to pick an outsider.

Not going to be McCain..he got bought off by the campaign finance law being signed by Bush....who thought the Supreme Court would never allow restrictions on freedom of speech...so he went ahead and signed.

And of course then the Court gleefully allowed restrictions on speech which is why MoveOn.org is now having problems for trying to air TV commercials.

So much for freedom of speech.

ghost_flash · Mar 8, 2004, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Not going to be McCain..he got bought off by the campaign finance law being signed by Bush....who thought the Supreme Court would never allow restrictions on freedom of speech...so he went ahead and signed.

And of course then the Court gleefully allowed restrictions on speech which is why MoveOn.org is now having problems for trying to air TV commercials.

So much for freedom of speech.

So sad. Moveon.org has such an important message that so many want to hear. not.
Maybe they can buy some time on Larry King Live. Crybabies.

NYCFarmboy · Mar 8, 2004, 10:52 AM

Like or dislike the message..

it is a sad day in America where any group is silenced and not allowed to speak freely.

The same laws being used by the RNC to silence moveon.org will be used to silence other groups as well..maybe even a group you agree with... and the Supreme Court has ruled that is ok.

ghost_flash · Mar 8, 2004, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Like or dislike the message..

it is a sad day in America where any group is silenced and not allowed to speak freely.

The same laws being used by the RNC to silence moveon.org will be used to silence other groups as well..maybe even a group you agree with... and the Supreme Court has ruled that is ok.

No sale here buddy. They can spread their message, as long as they don't break any laws.

And you are a funny one. You are for Nader? He's 70 years old and can only serve to help Bush win in 2004, and that is all. Thanks.

andi*pandi · Mar 8, 2004, 11:15 AM

I don't think Hilary = teh win. I don't know. Are NY voters happy with her?

A McCain ticket would knock-all. It would show true bipartisanship, a union of strength.

McCain is the only Republican I've ever wanted to vote for.

NYCFarmboy · Mar 8, 2004, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
No sale here buddy. They can spread their message, as long as they don't break any laws.

And you are a funny one. You are for Nader? He's 70 years old and can only serve to help Bush win in 2004, and that is all. Thanks.

You just don't care much for freedom of choice do you. That is fine..that is your opinion.

Phanguye · Mar 8, 2004, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by tie:
Why not Bill?

he could put the vice back in the position

andi*pandi · Mar 8, 2004, 11:32 AM

and on the derailed topic:

If CBS chooses to only air Republican messages, then it is by any other definition state-controlled TV. Whether they are getting their instructions because they're being paid off, or forced to comply, that comes later.

It may be difficult to think of the network that produces trivial fluff like Survivor and Raymond as a vital part of our democratic process, but it is. The fourth estate is part of the checks and balances of power.

A network taking political ads should charge a flat fee no matter the buyer, and allow access. An even playing field. Then let loose the hounds.

Dem-o-cra-tic process. Say it with me, folks.

Zimphire · Mar 8, 2004, 11:35 AM

If I start a TV station of my own, I can myself judge what I want to go on there within decency regulations.

Having the government tell me I have to give equal time to what ever would be state controlled.

You gots it backwarded I tells ya.

andi*pandi · Mar 8, 2004, 11:50 AM

hmm, well, I said equal access, not equal time... And it wouldn't be free, so you'd get paid at least. Hmm. Does mean that you as a TV station wouldn't consider journalistic integrity?

ei yi yi... I guess the fourth estate has fallen.

It's bad enough that some candidates without family money don't get any press or recognition, just think it's worse when they have the money and can't buy time. TV has so much power now.

Are we ok with totalitarianism, as long as it's our own totalitarian? Tricky.

ok, this might be another thread. Sorry.

saranwarp · Mar 8, 2004, 01:14 PM

I can't believe I forgot this one...put triple-amputee Max Cleland at #2 on my list. If you're going to go with a southerner who might not even bring his own state, you might as well choose the one that will fire up the Democratic base.

pooka · Mar 8, 2004, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by theolein:
John McCain.

Rawk. Not a complete puss & not a complete nutbag. Perfect compromise.

I'd rather see him as Prez though. Kerry can pull mah finger.

typoon · Mar 8, 2004, 02:24 PM

Why not Algore as Veep again. It'll give him a chance to get back into politics.

Lerkfish · Mar 8, 2004, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I can't believe that came from the WSJ. What an idiotic suggestion. What are they smoking over there? How in God's name is Tom Brokaw qualified for the position? All he does is read aloud for a living.

(joke) at least by being able to read accurately from a teleprompter, he's got the incumbent president beat already!(/joke)

seriously, though, I don't think Brokaw would be a wise choice. He'd have to spend the entire campaign justifying himself as a journalist turned candidate, which in this particular election would the be the albatross around Kerry's neck.

ghost_flash · Mar 8, 2004, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
(joke) at least by being able to read accurately from a teleprompter, he's got the incumbent president beat already!(/joke)

seriously, though, I don't think Brokaw would be a wise choice. He'd have to spend the entire campaign justifying himself as a journalist turned candidate, which in this particular election would the be the albatross around Kerry's neck.

Kerry is an albatross.

Lerkfish · Mar 8, 2004, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Kerry is an albatross.

If so, then you should be overjoyed.

theolein · Mar 8, 2004, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by pooka:
Rawk. Not a complete puss & not a complete nutbag. Perfect compromise.

I'd rather see him as Prez though. Kerry can pull mah finger.

McCain is one of the few politicians, American or otherwise, that I thought had a modicum of integrity. If Kerry could swing that, that would be probably be the election down pat.

eklipse · Mar 8, 2004, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Kerry is an albatross.

Bush is the Walrus (coo coo ka chu)

saranwarp · Mar 8, 2004, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by eklipse:
Bush is the Walrus (coo coo ka chu)

goo goo goo joob

macvillage.net · Mar 9, 2004, 01:06 PM

I think Bush will run as Kerry's VP. Just to ensure he's in no matter what.

Then all he has to do is axe Kerry, making him the president, and he can pardon himself.