Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 30, 2004 Will be Hillary. He's reporting that Hillary is the massive front-runner to this slot. Now, I think this will end up biting him in the ass --- it might encourage Bush to move Cheney to Sec. of State and move Powell to VP, and Hillary has TONS of baggage --- but I think it's a little sad that she's the best they can come up with. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted June 30, 2004 Bah. I'm still saying Edwards... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 30, 2004 Bah. I'm still saying Edwards... I'd personally say Richardson --- but the Dems still have a love affair with Clinton. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest INXS Report post Posted June 30, 2004 Either one is a great choice in my eyes. Hilary is the best bet tho in my opinion...damn..it is SO Kerry's year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 30, 2004 Either one is a great choice in my eyes. Hilary is the best bet tho in my opinion...damn..it is SO Kerry's year. No, it sadly isn't. Hillary won't bring out the voters (she is devoid of charm --- and her comments about tax policy will REALLY hurt if she's the VP) --- and Kerry STILL isn't leading Bush, even after over a year of slamming the guy. Heck, the moment Kerry makes public appearances, his numbers drop like a rock. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bobobrazil1984 0 Report post Posted June 30, 2004 Interesting, but the article/quotes read more like an insider who is speculating rather than actual inside information. Who knows though, it will certainly liven up the election. It was starting to get boring. And we all know that these days elections are good for only one thing. Entertainment. edit: and now that i look at the headline, indeed it just says "Speculation Increases in washington" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted June 30, 2004 OK, INXS, you're not from America so I'll give you a pass on this one. The problem with having her as a running mate is that although she'll fire up the rank and file in the New Yorks and Californias of the country, she'll also bring out the people that loathe her. And for Kerry's sake, if he does sell his soul with this move I hope he never takes a stroll in Fort Marcy Park (sorry, I couldn't resist...) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 30, 2004 Interesting, but the article/quotes read more like an insider who is speculating rather than actual inside information. Who knows though, it will certainly liven up the election. It was starting to get boring. And we all know that these days elections are good for only one thing. Entertainment. The reason I give it serious consideration is because Kerry, going by his track record thus far, is INCAPABLE of generating enthusiasm in the Democratic base and will try and link up with somebody who can. Bill is unable to run (the Constitution DOES bar people from running for VP who aren't eligible to be President) --- so she's the next best thing, I s'pose. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted June 30, 2004 This is what you get for reading Drudge too much. The chances of Hillary for VP are 0. There is no chance in hell. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 30, 2004 This is what you get for reading Drudge too much. The chances of Hillary for VP are 0. There is no chance in hell. Tyler, who else makes sense? I agree that Hillary wouldn't be a good choice (VP's overshadowing the candidate? Didn't the Dems learn from 1988?) --- but who else brings much of anything? I think Richardson is a bright guy and can help them in the SW --- but I actually believe him when he says he's not interested. Gephardt might be even LESS interesting than Kerry. Edwards hasn't really shown much ability to draw votes from the South. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted June 30, 2004 As much as I denied him even being in the running a few months ago, it's either gonna be Edwards, or a complete wildcard. For all your claiming that Edwards has no play in the south, you're obviously ignoring the fact that he won South Carolina by a mile and recently, a Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney ticket had the Dems up by 3 in North Carolina. He's got plenty of pull, and Kerry isn't going to pick someone who overshadows him. That means Hillary, who obviously has presidential aspirations of her own in 2008 or 2012. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
godthedog 0 Report post Posted June 30, 2004 hillary does nothing for the ticket. nobody would vote democratic based on HER who wasn't already voting democratic. edwards balances out the ticket, has a ton of charisma, and lets them at least have some chance in the south. imagistically, he'd also be much better for the vp debate, as cheney would look like a a dirty old man who's mad at the world if he was sitting next to him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 30, 2004 As much as I denied him even being in the running a few months ago, it's either gonna be Edwards, or a complete wildcard. For all your claiming that Edwards has no play in the south, you're obviously ignoring the fact that he won South Carolina by a mile and recently, a Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney ticket had the Dems up by 3 in North Carolina. He's got plenty of pull, and Kerry isn't going to pick someone who overshadows him. That means Hillary, who obviously has presidential aspirations of her own in 2008 or 2012. Tyler, I'm also quite aware of how much work and time Edwards plowed into SC to win here. He had working this state for a LONG time. BUT, he couldn't win his own state, NC, primary. That, to me, signals a REAL problem with his ability to connect with voters. If he can't bring NC to the table --- which is much more in play than SC will ever possibly be --- I don't really see the usefulness of Edwards. And, "hypothetical tickets" always fare better than they would in reality. I don't see any reason to assume Kerry/Edwards would be able to beat Bush and most anybody. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted June 30, 2004 BUT, he couldn't win his own state, NC, primary. That, to me, signals a REAL problem with his ability to connect with voters. If he can't bring NC to the table --- which is much more in play than SC will ever possibly be --- I don't really see the usefulness of Edwards. By the time NC rolled around, Edwards was already practically out of it. That's the problem with frontloaded primaries. He won't have any trouble having a draw in the south, and as gtd stated, he'll look very good next to Kerry. He might even be able to spice up Kerry's message a bit. I, personally, think it's going to be a wildcard, though. Edwards seems like the obvious pick, but... I don't buy it. For all the talk about it, I really can't see him picking anyone that has aspirations for 2008/12. So, perhaps someone like Russ Feingold, maybe? A ticket of two Senators is less than appealing, but Feingold may help to neutralize the effect of third parties, and he'd be another Cheney-type VP. I'm not saying he'll pick Feingold, but if I had to bet, it would be someone out of right field like that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted June 30, 2004 Feingold? Don't think so. You've given up on Howie already?... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted June 30, 2004 They despise each other so much that I couldn't possibly see it happening (even though it would neutralize the Nader/Green effect completely). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 30, 2004 BUT, he couldn't win his own state, NC, primary. That, to me, signals a REAL problem with his ability to connect with voters. If he can't bring NC to the table --- which is much more in play than SC will ever possibly be --- I don't really see the usefulness of Edwards. By the time NC rolled around, Edwards was already practically out of it. That's the problem with frontloaded primaries. He won't have any trouble having a draw in the south, and as gtd stated, he'll look very good next to Kerry. He might even be able to spice up Kerry's message a bit. I, personally, think it's going to be a wildcard, though. Edwards seems like the obvious pick, but... I don't buy it. For all the talk about it, I really can't see him picking anyone that has aspirations for 2008/12. So, perhaps someone like Russ Feingold, maybe? A ticket of two Senators is less than appealing, but Feingold may help to neutralize the effect of third parties, and he'd be another Cheney-type VP. I'm not saying he'll pick Feingold, but if I had to bet, it would be someone out of right field like that. The "dark horse" I've heard more than anybody else is Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack --- but I can't see them going that route. He's WAY too unknown. Heck, pick Kucinich --- you'll lock up the loony vote and he seemed popular enough in OH at one point... -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted June 30, 2004 Yes, "anonymous source" has such a great track record. This has as much chance as being true as the possibilities of it being McCain. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted June 30, 2004 They despise each other so much that I couldn't possibly see it happening (even though it would neutralize the Nader/Green effect completely). But McCain HATED America's Vietnam War Hero and Big Media pimped this possible pairing, so anything's possible. Like I said before, Edwards is my first guess (Big Media all but said he'd be an ideal VP for Kerry), followed by Gephardt... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted June 30, 2004 I can't see him picking Vilsack, just because he'd bring absolutely nothing to the ticket (certainly not excitement, anyway). If it's not Edwards, it's gonna be someone who is a straight shooter and a refreshing face in the process. Edwards fits the bill, but I have a suspicion it won't be him. It's just a hunch though, of course. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 30, 2004 I can't see him picking Vilsack, just because he'd bring absolutely nothing to the ticket (certainly not excitement, anyway). If it's not Edwards, it's gonna be someone who is a straight shooter and a refreshing face in the process. Edwards fits the bill, but I have a suspicion it won't be him. It's just a hunch though, of course. Well, going with "anonymous sources" --- yes, I hate using them as much as anybody --- the list is basically Gephardt, Edwards, Vilsack, and Hillary. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted June 30, 2004 I'd still argue to nix Hillary from that list, but that's basically what we've been hearing for a few months now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 30, 2004 I'd still argue to nix Hillary from that list, but that's basically what we've been hearing for a few months now. None of them really wow me. Gephardt, I think, would be an unmitigated disaster. I can't see him drawing a soul. Edwards MIGHT --- but he's an insanely unproven commodity. Vilsack is totally unknown. I doubt Hillary will energize the conservatives enough to kill Kerry --- but she could hurt him BADLY with the "undecideds". -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spaceman Spiff 0 Report post Posted June 30, 2004 If Kerry picks Hillary, he might as well prepare his concession speech now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted June 30, 2004 No see, if Hillary is the VP an Kerry happens to win, then this screws up Mr. Dick Morris's theory that Hillary is sabatoging Kerry in 2004 and will go on to run for Prez in 2008. (LOL) I am not going to say that there is "NO CHANCE IN HELL" that it is Hilary that will be chosen as the VP, however Drudge is hardly ever reliable, and usually will go after any smoke signal out there, so who knows. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 30, 2004 No see, if Hillary is the VP an Kerry happens to win, then this screws up Mr. Dick Morris's theory that Hillary is sabatoging Kerry in 2004 and will go on to run for Prez in 2008. (LOL) I am not going to say that there is "NO CHANCE IN HELL" that it is Hilary that will be chosen as the VP, however Drudge is hardly ever reliable, and usually will go after any smoke signal out there, so who knows. I will say, honestly, Drudge is about as reliable as the NY Times. Take it as you wish. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted June 30, 2004 So, whatever happened to the Kerry-had-an-intern-affair scandal that was fueled solely by Drudge? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 30, 2004 So, whatever happened to the Kerry-had-an-intern-affair scandal that was fueled solely by Drudge? What PRECISELY did Drudge report? That papers were investigating the rumor. Which they were. -=Mike ...Should I mention Martha Burke? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted June 30, 2004 He exploded all over the scene like this was something that would BURY John Kerry. THIS WAS THE BIG THING!!!! And it turned out that it was absolutely nothing. You don't make front fucking page headlines with wailing sirens and obnoxious 100 pt fonts when it's just something "being investigated". He's a fucking tool. He's nowhere near a legitimate news source. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 30, 2004 He exploded all over the scene like this was something that would BURY John Kerry. THIS WAS THE BIG THING!!!! And it turned out that it was absolutely nothing. You don't make front fucking page headlines with wailing sirens and obnoxious 100 pt fonts when it's just something "being investigated". He's a fucking tool. He's nowhere near a legitimate news source. Let's look at what he said. This is from 2/13, when he broke the story: CAMPAIGN DRAMA ROCKS DEMOCRATS: KERRY FIGHTS OFF MEDIA PROBE OF RECENT ALLEGED INFIDELITY, RIVALS PREDICT RUIN **World Exclusive** **Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT** A frantic behind-the-scenes drama is unfolding around Sen. John Kerry and his quest to lockup the Democratic nomination for president, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal. Intrigue surrounds a woman who recently fled the country, reportedly at the prodding of Kerry, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. A serious investigation of the woman and the nature of her relationship with Sen. John Kerry has been underway at TIME magazine, ABC NEWS, the WASHINGTON POST, THE HILL and the ASSOCIATED PRESS, where the woman in question once worked. MORE A close friend of the woman first approached a reporter late last year claiming fantastic stories -- stories that now threaten to turn the race for the presidency on its head! In an off-the-record conversation with a dozen reporters earlier this week, General Wesley Clark plainly stated: "Kerry will implode over an intern issue." [Three reporters in attendance confirm Clark made the startling comments.] The Kerry commotion is why Howard Dean has turned increasingly aggressive against Kerry in recent days, and is the key reason why Dean reversed his decision to drop out of the race after Wisconsin, top campaign sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT. http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2...208_mattjk1.htm There is nothing factually inaccurate there. Drudge doesn't make a comment HIMSELF that is not factually accurate. He DOES quote other sources --- but we can get into how bad quotes from sources are for ALL media, if you'd like. How the PRESS portrayed what Drudge reported is a different story --- but remember what was ACTUALLY reported. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
