If John Kerry announced his intention to do this, would it unite the Left?

[Fridays Child]

These designations aren't intended to provoke argument. They're just an example.

VP: Howard Dean
Attorney General: John Edwards
Secretary of State: Dennis Kucinich or Carol Mosely Braun
Secretary of HHS: Dick Gephardt
Secretary of Defense: Wes Clark

[Padraig18]

1. Clark cannot be SecDef.

He's not been out of uniform long enough. As to the SecState choices, I can't see Kerry passing over about umpteen better-qualified people to pick either CMB or DK; it might unite the left, but it would cause many more to question his judgment...

[JI7]

7. Richard Holbrooke as sec of state

holbrooke is already advising kerry and from what i hear the job is his to accept or turn down.

[Padraig18]

9. A good, solid choice!

:thumbsup:

[TriMetFan]

2. I can go for that.

[AntiCoup2K4]

3. Clark isn't eligible to be Sec of Defense

Apparently you have to be out of the military for at least 10 years.

Obviously Dean would be a great VP, but I don't believe he's interested.

As for Gephardt..... I'd make him Secretary of Labor, only because he's got a good history in that area. Honestly though I don't think he deserves shit.

How about Kucinich at HHS and turn him loose on Health Care reform.

[IndianaGreen]

4. If Kerry announced that he will bring the troops home from Iraq NOW

he will get solid support from the Left.

No one really cares about VP or cabinet except for political wonks. Those selections generally don't help, although they can certainly hurt if an idiot is selected, i.e., Dan Quayle.

[waldenx]

8. exactly. cabinet positions are worthless

However, there does seem to be a lot of morons who gobble up trivial crap and treat gossip as more importnat than ideology.

[NNadir]

5. They might "unite the left" but would lose the election. n/t

Kucinich and CM Braun were extremely weak candidates, among other things.

[cosmicdot]

10. they were not necessarily "wealthy" campaigns ...

... and, were marginalized by corporatists in the Media, their own Party, etc. The GOP hardly had to raise a finger ...

but, of course, in America, that's interpreted as extremely weak candidates ... if one can't buy themselves into the action ... or sell-out to Times Warner et al ... you can't cut the mustard in these United States

[Padraig18]

11. Ummm...

As a former Dean supporter, let me assure you that wealth does not guarantee success. One reason you might want to consider about CMB and DK's weak showings in might just be that the voters don't care for them as candidates. Just a thought... :shrug:

[revcarol]

26. $5.00 more for Dennis!!

Where have you been?

[Padraig18]

35. Huh? n/t

[Democat]

14. I agree

Learn from Bush.

Win the election first, then decide whether you want to move further left. Don't do anything too shocking to moderate voters before the election.

[Hippo_Tron]

34. Agreed, Al Gore would be presidnet has chimp announced Asscroft...

Before the election.

[JI7]

6. many on the left already support Kerry

such as ted kennedy,george mcgovern, and barney frank.his problem is mostly with moderate voters. and Edwards is the one who has proven best able to help in that area.there are others who could help as edwards does but kerry will have to figure out who those are. those who say they are on the left and don't already support kerry based on his own record and based on bush's record can't be depended on to vote for kerry.

[mike_c]

12. No. Kerry supporters just don't get it....

It's not about who's on the ticket-- including Kerry-- it's about changing the direction America has been going in since the Cold War, particularly with respect to foreign policy. End the occupation of Iraq NOW! Dismantle the permanent military bases in the middle east NOW! Quit the WTO NOW! Prosecute the bastards responsible for lying to the Congress and the people to start their own private little war NOW! Put environmental concerns ahead of corporate profits NOW! Close the WISC NOW! Stop subsidizing the slaughter of Palestinians NOW!

That's what I want to hear Kerry say. If he does, I'll do whatever I can to help him get elected!

[jpgray]

13. How do you do that by keeping Bush in office?

I love the plans of some people to change the system by not liking it. That's a good start, but unless we have people within the system at least sympathetic to our own views, it will NEVER CHANGE. You don't move the country left by electing authoritarian right wingers. You DO move the country left by electing someone sympathetic to leftist positions on as many issues as possible. If it were 'all my values or nothing', I couldn't vote for a single politician in good conscience.

And if you are one who believes Bush is good because he riles up the left, let me just say using the death and suffering brought by authoritarian right-wingers for political gain is pretty disgusting. 'Ends justify the means' doesn't fly with me. Just as people rightly lambasted the Dem apologists who say 'Oh, they're just setting up the Bush admin by going along', I would say to 'things need to get worse first' people that it is better to try and stop the tragedy than use it for political gain.

[IndianaGreen]

16. Bush should be impeached TODAY for knowing about 9/11

His own PDB is evidence that they fumbled the ball or LIHOP 9/11.

[Democat]

15. Getting Kerry into office will stop extremist Supreme Court appointments

If Kerry got elected and did everything exactly the same as Bush, except nominating moderates to the Supreme Court, it would be worth it.

He will do many things better than Bush, but that one thing alone would be enough to make it worth your effort to fight for him.

[zulchzulu]

27. Actually you don't get it

What you mentioned would wreak havoc in the Middle East. Leave the WTO?

Isolationism and cutting and running from our allies is not the solution. These junior-league parlor policies would guarantee a Bush victory.

I'm guessing you're for that guy with the least delegates that is still attempting to run for President with a vanity campaign that is going nowhere.

Your "policies" are like faded, stereotypical bumperstickers on a rusted-out '66 VW van in a junkyard.

[jsw_81]

17. Sure

But it would alienate the vast majority of voters who do not consider themselves to be on the "left." Bush would go on to win a landslide. Kucinich at State? What a nightmare that would be.

[Bill Todd]

18. No.

As has already been noted, it's not about the players, it's about the issues.

Probably nothing will completely unite the party (and the problem isn't only with 'the left' - at least I consider myself a centrist, and I'm certainly not yet on board), but clear and firm commitments to a bunch of things would help move toward that goal:

A non-neocon (slightly left of center) foreign policy that replaces bullying via use of military and economic power with leadership by example and diplomacy.

A non-neocon (again, only slightly left of center) economic strategy, coupled with real fiscal responsibility. Part of this entails at least partially reversing the dramatic concentration of wealth that has occurred over the past couple of decades and shifting the tax burden back a bit toward corporations (in neither case anything drastic, but at least a beginning).

A non-neocon (do you see a pattern emerging here?) stance on universal health care (not necessarily single-payer out of the gate, but with that eventual goal).

A real jobs plan.

Hell, it's 'way too late tonight to formulate an entire platform, but you get the drift. The problem is not standing for much of anything and leaning in the wrong directions - and that problem can be fixed if Kerry and the party are willing to.

- bill

[LividLiberal]

19. No, it wouldn't satisfy everyone on the left.

There is nothing Kerry could do to satisfy some on the left.

That aside, the ticket you have proposed would be foolish. I've never heard of those positions ever being filled by all losing candidates before.

Sorry, but Dean as a VP on a Kerry ticket would sink like a rock.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

20. The only way "the Left" could entirely be "united"..

..is if David Icke was Kerry's Vice President.
In other words, the conspiratorialist-whacko wing of the Democratic Party can stay in their own little world.

[IndianaGreen]

24. That "wacko wing" was the one that said that Bush LIHOP 9/11

Current disclosures have shown that to be true. The "wacko wing" is also right about Iraq.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

28. Nothing has shown that LIHOP is true.

Also, a lot more than the "wacko wing" was against the Iraq War. A lot of moderates, a lot of regular progressives, and a lot of conservatives, were right about Iraq.

[dolstein]

21. Well, he might get the votes of Naderites, but he'd lose mine

I wouldn't vote for Bush, so I'd probably end up not voting at all for president.

[Hippo_Tron]

33. Why would you not vote for Kerry if he announced his cabinet?

Granted I think it's a DUMB idea, but I would still support the guy.

[MoonRiver]

22. I'll vote for Kerry regardless of who is his VP or in his cabinet.

This is a simple and perfect nobrainer. Could anything on earth at this point in time be more obvious than the absolute necessity of voting for John Kerry for President of the United States in November 2004?? I ask this in all sincerity.

[Bill Todd]

25. In all sincerity?

I've got to consider that hyperbole, given that just today you've participated in discussions explaining why people might not agree.

Talking at rather than with people seems to be on the rise lately. It's unfortunate enough when it occurs between the right and left wing nationally (which likely helps explain why close to half the voting population still is inclined to support Bush): I can't believe that it's any more desirable here.

- bill

[MoonRiver]

30. That was a nonsensical statement as a response to my statement.

You can choose to believe whatever you wish, but I have a desire to defeat * that far exceeds these quaint debates about which of Kerry's potential VP or cabinet members most closely reflect our various positions. * is the greatest threat on the face of this earth today, IMHO, and that's a heck of a lot more important than this petty bickering.

[Dookus]

23. No

it would be silly to pre-announce ANY cabinet positions.

First, the pool of candidates will NOT be known until after the election. Second, if he loses, it would be damaging to the people he picked - they'd be known as the "shadow-cabinet losers". Third, he does NOT have the time right now to be vetting candidates for his cabinet.

on edit:

Pre-naming Kucinich or CMB as Secretary of State would lose the election for him.

[Blaze Diem]

29. Where will Big Dog Bill Clinton be seated? UN? Foreign Affairs?

Sec of ???
Will Kerry bring J Carter on board?

Powerful players. They are the only ones that might bring a reasonable existance to the Middle East.
After the disaster Bush has created, it would take true diplomats like Clinton and Carter.
They are trusted in that part of the World, even if they are Americans.
Thanks dumb ass George!

[Hippo_Tron]

32. On the lecture circuit, writing books, and raising money for dems

The guys already been President of the United States for eight years and I'm fairly sure that he's enjoying private life just fine.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. Why would DK or CMB be secretary of state?

CMB I can sort of understand because she was an ambassador but I think that both of them would do much better work as head of a department that deals with domestic affairs.