June 17, 2004
HI-HO, HI-HO...:
Dem prospects jockey to run at Kerry's side (Jill Lawrence, 6/16/04, USA TODAY)
Edwards is the most active prospect on the party circuit and the one Democrats would choose if it were up to them. An Associated Press Poll this week found 43% of Democrats wanted him on the ticket. Second was Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt at 19%, followed by retired general Wesley Clark at 18%. Other visible Democrats include Florida Sens. Bob Graham and Bill Nelson, Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh. [...]Some Democrats are urging Kerry to name his choice in the first half of July; others say he should do it just before the Democratic National Convention on July 26 in Boston. No decision on timing has been made, aides say. In past years, nominees of both parties have waited until a week or less before or after their conventions started.
It's not helpful that only Richardson, Graham, Bayh and Vilsack would so much as make good cabinet secretaries. Posted by Orrin Judd at June 17, 2004 8:31 AM
Kerry and Edwards may not get along but given the preference for Edwards by the Dems and Kerry's penchant for yielding to pressure Edwards may get the nod. That would also enable Kerry to say he is competing in the South even if Edwards really doesn't help him there.
Posted by: AWW at June 17, 2004 9:32 AMWhat criteria are you using to judge whether any of the candidates would be good president, veeps or cabinet secretaries?
(Unlike many of my questions, this one is not sarcastic.)
Posted by: Brandon at June 17, 2004 9:34 AMI can't speak for Orrin, but in January 2003 I aruged that Edwards was unqualified to be president because he had no executive experience and no significant legislative accomplishments. He hasn't even been a committee chair, much less a mayor or governor. On his own site, his biggest accomplishment was the sponsorship of a bill that helped trial lawyers (though he did not put it that way), which did not pass.
Edwards makes Dan Quayle look overqualified. (Edwards may be better looking than Quayle, but I'll leave that to others to decide.)
Posted by: Jim Miller at June 17, 2004 2:06 PMYes, Jim, has it. Executive experience of any kind is already lacking at the top of the ticket.
Posted by: oj at June 17, 2004 2:13 PMKerry would be better served to pick a bright, moderate black politician that whites could vote for, like Congressman Ford.
1) The party needs a black VP slot before ever giving it to another minority. I was surprised that so many blacks objected to Liebermen being the first "minority" candidate, but they have a point. Blacks are a loyal consituency and should be rewarded just like any other constituency would be.
2) It would be a disaster for the party if the Republicans ever become the first party to nominate a black or minority for the VP slot. The Democrats should do so now when they have the chance.
3) The Democrats need to groom black leaders that are not seen as unfriendly to whites. Many whites who would never vote for a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton have no trouble voting for other black politicians, but few exist with a national following in the party. Ford is one such leader who could use the spotlight.
Ford might lack executive experience, but there is no doubt experienced black Democrats who are governors, businessmen, or mayors of cities larger than Vermont who could meet that criteria.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at June 17, 2004 2:50 PMCongressman Ford is not eligible.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 17, 2004 3:20 PMChris - valid points. But a) Dems already get 90% of the black vote and it isn't clear that this would add non-black non-Dem votes, and b) there is a lack of respectable black national candidates for the Dems to choose from (while the GOP could pick Powell, Rice, Watts)
Posted by: AWW at June 17, 2004 3:50 PMThe time for a black Democratic VP nomination has already passed: the Latino reaction (towards the GOP) would override any potential gain.