Burnt Orange Report

Kerry & Cohen? My God, you might as well nominate a pair of sycamores. It'll be stiffest, most esoteric ticket in Democratic history since Adlai Stevenson brought the term "egg head" into the mainstream.

But, it has merits. The only time a Veep mattered in terms of his state was when LBJ ran with JFK. Hell, Cheney lived in Dallas until he decided he should be the running mate and rediscovered Wyoming! The regional balance argument doesn't matter because the nation's politics are more nationalized than at any time since 1836.

A friend of mine here on the Law faculty at OU had an idea: leave it to the convention to decide. And, as a lead-in, screen about fifteen competitors, and have Clinton, Carter, Dukakis, McGovern and Mondale eliminate one each week on national TV, a la the Trumpster.

I really like Bill Richardson, but until we put Bush, Cheney & Rove into early retirement we can't afford the risk of the overwhelmingly negative campaign (specifically national security attacks) that would follow a Richardson nomination. For that reason, along with the charisma and moderate appeal of Mark Warner, I strongly support a Kerry/Warner '04 ticket. Hopefully Richardson can be Warner's VP in the 2012 election!

Cohen? If you are going for a Republican, go for a maverick: McCain.

It won't be a 'Phant though.

I've got to agree with the others who've nixed the idea of Cohen. First off, naming a Republican seems to show little faith in your party. Secondly, he wasn't even Clinton's most impressive Defense Secretary, that was Perry. If you're going to go with a Clinton cabinet member (other than Richardson) I like Donna Shalala. Plus I like Jay Rockefeller for points 1 and 3 and Ed Rendell for points 1 and 2. Vilsack's intriguing but I don't know much about him.

I like the idea of giving the appearance at least of leaving it to the convention. Let's showcase all the potential stars. It might improve the convention's tv ratings for the week.

The idea of nominating a Republican leaves me cold, but if that's who the nominee and the convention should choose, I'd go along in a New York minute. My fantasy guy though is Gavin Newsom. So far he's shown more cajones than any Democrat I've seen this year. We're not going to beat Bush just by hating him. We need to show the American people that we have a vision of where this country needs to go. Newsom represents the future of the Democrat party. I'd go with the future.

Brad Henry would be a terrible choice...guy can't even manage to make a splash in God-forsaken Oklahoma. An accidental governor.

"God-foresaken?" Losing to OU at football so badly, so often makes you people snippy.

But Henry (whom I've spent time with) is no VEEP prospect. He's a nice guy and a pretty good state legislative operator, but he's not national calibre.

You might as well propose Roy Barnes. Or Cynthia McKinney.

What do people think about Gov. Tom Vilsack or Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA)? Vilsack would probably bring Iowa, and Cantwell could concievably help in Oregon, which was close in 2000.

Vilsack is not in a position to be VP right now. He's having problems with his budget in his own state. And kerry will win Iowa by more the Gore did without Vilsack. To me its obvious Gen. Clark is the best choice. He helps in many parts of the world with independents and also would more than likely carry ARK and LA when he goes stumping down there with Clinton. he also helps with the Military vote. Not to mention carry is fighting the notion he is weak on defense. Clark shuts that talk up

Maria Cantwell is OUR Senator and you can't have her. Richardson doesn't want it and said so - he's at home as King of New Mexico.

Cohen is a great choice, and Clinton thought so when he picked Cohen as Secretary of Defense. .

Cohen reportedly is a quarter inch of charm covering hard cold steel. He moved his Philosophy library to the Pentagon when he took office. Unlike Cheney who, like Woddrow F. Call, don't know a philosophy. I will pay cash money to see Cohen debate Cheney.

Brenda in Seattle

I agree with the general assessment of Cohen, above, and that is why I have reservations. You want to have an inspired ticket of Platonic Statesmen, yes, put Cohen up. Indeed, I suggest all of you read Richard Fenno's SENATORS ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL (1996) which has a fairly detailed account by Fenno of his time travelling with the campaiging former Senator Cohen. Kerroheny is a ticket that warms my intellectual heart, but it is also a ticket that cools the enthusiasm of the dwindling number of swing voters, and it can't activate the base.

And, though I hate to be the one making this argument, don't go selling Cheney short . . . the man studied political science and philosophy at University of Wisconsin (one of the best programs in the world) and had an APSA fellowship to work on Capitol Hill before the lure of GOP power circles took him away from the academy.

I don't know if anyone is still reading this thread, but let me comment. I was just throwing names out there, I really know nothing about Brad Henry. I just hadn't heard anyone say his name which makes him a likely candidate for VP. Also, let me reiterate- NO ONE VOTES FOR THE VP. VPs have 2, maybe 3 things that will help the ticket- 1. Organization in their home state for having been the boss of the party/politics for so long, 2. The VP bounce that is generated in the polls after the VP is announced and sometimes 3. Turning out minority group support in key areas if that person is a member of the community. Having said that, people WILL vote AGAINST a VP- case in point, Dan Quayle. So you don't want a bad choice. Picking Clark/Dean/Edwards/Gephardt/Graham or any other Presidential candidate will end your chances of any real VP bounce because the media coverage won't be "check out this great person you've never heard of" but rather "look- he picks someone everyone already knows about, move along." That's why we need someone unique. I think that Cohen would be great, Landrieu would be pretty good, Warner would be very good. I'm okay with any of them.

As for leaving it to the convention, there are definite pros, but i see them as outweighed by the cons. Pro- the convention gets watched by more people, they see the parade of speeches and we get a huge convention bounce. Cons- we have to wait until late July to get our VP, which means s/he has less time to raise money, speak on behalf of the ticket, etc. I like the idea of naming the VP in late May, right when the summer media lull (the one that always creates sensational stories like SARS or Shark attacks...) rolls around and we get a bounce there and then have a great convention that should provide something of a bounce in late July. i like Kos' idea of a shadow cabinet, we can start rolling that out after the convention to keep the bounce growing. Thats a whole other post though...