STORM2K

There are rumors that Kerry will announce his VP choice tommorow.Edwards,Gephart and Vilsack are the strong contenders.Let's see who it will be but I think Edwards will be his choice IMO.

That's my feeling, too. I think there's a very good chance Edwards will be selected as his running mate.

the bigger question is where is the bush campaign? it is invisible. kerry and the media keeps pounding him with no reply. bush's non-campaign is rather puzzling.

rainstorm wrote:the bigger question is where is the bush campaign? it is invisible. kerry and the media keeps pounding him with no reply. bush's non-campaign is rather puzzling.

Don't think that is the bigger question considering this thread isn't about Bush. You have enough of those.

I would hope it isn't Edwards. That puts me in a moral dilemma. I anticipate Vilsack actually.

but if bush continues to do nothing, castro could be kerrys running mate and he would win.

rainstorm wrote:but if bush continues to do nothing, castro could be kerrys running mate and he would win.

lol

Patience my friends, just have patience. Bush will move at the right time and in the right place.

Kerry is supposed to announce his running mate here in the Burgh. He really wants this state!!!

Fat chance.

rainstorm wrote:but if bush continues to do nothing, castro could be kerrys running mate and he would win.

Does Helen remind anyone else of "chicken little"?

Thats one thing she reminds me of

I think it'll be Kerry with Edwards

I dont care who it is. It wont change my opion about him. I mean, he is the one running for president. Not Edwards or Visalack. This past week, the Kerry campaign announced they were stoppings ads in Arkansas and Louisiana, two states where the Democrats are competitive. Speculation is that this *COULD* mean they are moving AWAY from a southern strategy(Edwards) and will pick someone from elsewhere. Gephardt from Missouri seems to be high on the list right now. Is what I have heard from other sites.

Obviously KC is not a big Kerry fan lol

Josephine96 wrote:Obviously KC is not a big Kerry fan lol

Understatement of the year. LMAO

Im hoping for Edwards (then again, Im still a little peeved that he wasn't the Dem nominee....I think he would have been a much better candidate than Kerry).

WX247, what kind of moral dilemma?

I think it'll either be Edwards or Gephardt(Missouri). The thing that is keeping me off the Edwards bandwagon is the fact that him and Kerry don't have a great relationship and is also inexperienced. The plus side is he is very likable(even to me, even though I would NEVER consider voting for him as VP over Bush/Cheney). The positives for Gephardt are Kerry likes him and he's from Missouri(which is a bellweather state, meaning whoever has won Missouri has won the White House). It went for Bush in 2000 by 4 points I believe. The negatives are Gephardt is boring and bland.

There's a *reasonable* chance he will pick someone not on the short list, more of an unexpected choice. I think it's unlikely he'll pick Vilsack(this weekend at a rally they kept their distance, plus no one outside of political junkies and Iowans know who he is).

stormie_skies wrote:Im hoping for Edwards (then again, Im still a little peeved that he wasn't the Dem nominee....I think he would have been a much better candidate than Kerry).

WX247, what kind of moral dilemma?

I was a staunch supporter of Edwards and even did some work for his campaign. I very much dislike Kerry and see my future vote for Bush as a vote for the lesser of two evils.

If Edwards was VP, I might consider voting Kerry strategically to help Edwards eventuall become president. If the Dems had been smart they would have chosen Edwards in the first place. He was the only Dem. who was attracting huge numbers of crossover votes in open primary states, MY WHOLE FAMILY included.

I will barf if it is Gephardt.

wx247 wrote:I will barf if it is Gephardt.

Better have a bag ready in the morning. LOL!

I was a staunch supporter of Edwards and even did some work for his campaign. I very much dislike Kerry and see my future vote for Bush as a vote for the lesser of two evils.

If Edwards was VP, I might consider voting Kerry strategically to help Edwards eventuall become president. If the Dems had been smart they would have chosen Edwards in the first place. He was the only Dem. who was attracting huge numbers of crossover votes in open primary states, MY WHOLE FAMILY included.

I will barf if it is Gephardt.

I agree, it was a HUGE mistake on the part of the Democrats to nominate Kerry over Edwards (I think they were in the process of changing their minds, too, but McCauliff so frontloaded the primary process that, by the time buyers remorse set in, it was too late ) I also did a little work for Edwards campaign.
I will vote for Kerry as the lesser of two evils IMO, but he will be making a HUGE mistake if he passes up Edwards. Gephardt is too much like Kerry - he has a long, burdensome record, he lacks anything resembling charisma and he could never excite swing voters, rural voters or young people the way Edwards could.

stormie_skies wrote:Im hoping for Edwards (then again, Im still a little peeved that he wasn't the Dem nominee....I think he would have been a much better candidate than Kerry).

WX247, what kind of moral dilemma?

thats why edwards wont help kerry at all. edwards did nothing in the primaries. kerry beat edwards in the south. edwards will be no help to kerry whatsoever. edwards is also a lightweight with no experience in foreign policy. it will be interesting how the media plays it. they made fun of dan quayle.

p.s-3 mos ago in the newsletter i predicted edwards. and, bush is in big trouble. he is getting punched and he is just taking it.

Bush has no foreign policy experience either (or as much as Edwards) when he was elected.