harrije

If Huffington is an immigrant, then she is not constitutionally qualified to be either the Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate on any ballot.

The Pres and VP must meet three rules for balot eligibility: citizenship, residency, and age. Only natural-born citizens may be president or vice president, unless one can find a candidate who was a citizen of one of the original colonies at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. Heck, even Thurmond wasn't that old.

There are no such requirements for other positions within the chain of succession, as that is determined by Congress and not the Constitution, but a presidentially ineligible Speaker of the House, for example, would be skipped over in the event the pres and veep simultaneously kicked the bucket. This was in the news briefly when Clinton nominated Madeleine Albright (an immigrant) to be Secretary of State; her office was fifth in line for the White House, but she was ineligible to serve as president.

ohwilleke

I think Clark is better ticket balance for Dean than Edwards.

Despite being a Southerner, Edwards is not particularly conservative, certain far to the left of Graham and Lieberman. He's made his way as a trial lawyer and populist. He lacks the experience to be a viable Presidential candidate so he is in the race to be VP.

But, in the general election, Dean needs to convince the public that is not part of the looney left, which is what his critics, within and wtihout the Democratic party, have him pegged to be.

Kuinich as VP would fall into that trap. (Also, making it into the House of Representatives is no vouching for character. Remember, Ohio is the same state that brought us Congressman Trafficant from just down the road from Cleveland).

Clark would cement Dean's credentials as a moderate in the general election and bring military clout to the ticket, as well as the Southern thing, while keeping the Dean-Clark ticket free of Congressional taint. And, lets face it. VPs come into play in national disasters that caused the death of a President, and in times like those the nation looks for soldier-leader types. So, when asked in a VP debate "what would you do if you got the call?", Clark can give a credible answer.

Clark's lack of a record on most public issues also prevents him from being a liability for Dean. No one hates Clark.

I agree that Dean-Kerry couldn't happen. Also that Dean-Sharpton or Dean-Kuinich would cement the loony left image. Dean-Braun would steal too much spotlight towards Braun and away from Dean as the first black woman VP. Graham doesn't agree with Dean on much. Neither does Lieberman whom Dean has villified in the campaign.

I don't think Gephardt would be willing to be second bannana.

This leaves Edwards and Clark as two of the most likely candidates and Clark would be better.

Clark would also make for a natural Clinton endorsement of the Dean-Clark ticket which would help a lot with Southern Democrats and moderates generally.

ex-idaho

Ultimate long shot fuck you VP candidate to Bush would be Dean-Powell. Can you imaging Powell leaving the Bush admin to join the Democratic ticket?

RED DAVE

As a certified, loony leftist, I am amazed that the country and the cultural-political climate has shifted so far to the left that Dean is considered some kind of a leftist.

Let me disabuse you of this. Dean is no comrade of mine. To reitroduce the quotes i used on antoher thread:

Amen.

RED DAVE

Jolimont

If Dean as much as suggested he's interested in Powel as VP I would immediately stop supporting him. Powell is a spineless puppet of Bush who didn't hesitate to lie to the security council. I have no respect left for him.

peacenik

Originally qouted Red Dave

Well, where I disagree with you Red Dave is that I personally don't believe that capitalism should be abolished. Yes, it must be heavily regulated to run properly, and this includes the following: (1) strict environmental regulations to ensure that businesses account for the full cost(including the environmental costs) of production; (2) reintroduction of the right of the public to revoke the corporate charters of irresponsible corporations that abuse this privilege that this fictitional legal device that provides limited liability to those who accumulate capital; (3) strict enforcement of anti-trust laws to break up large conglomerates including Microsoft, Wal-mart(who has completely devestated Mom and Pop businesses); and other large corporations that have strangled real competition and have thus limited the ingenuity that would otherwise be allowed to surface in a market that is free from the restraints of monopolistic barriers; (4) re-regulation of industries such as the cable industry and other utilities that provide public goods with inelastic demand curves to insure that companies aren't allow to price gouge consumers like Duke power did in California; (5) increase in the minimum wage from its current level to a living wage level and index it for inflation to insure that no one who works full time lives in poverty; (6) provide subsudized governmental loans to middle and low income persons who desire to start their own business and present viable plans for starting such a business; (7) maintain an inheritance tax(perhaps creating an exception for smaller businesses) that ensures that vast amounts of wealth are not allowed to accumalate in the hands of too few people and (8) create a national health care system that covers all Americans and caps the amount of profits that pharmaceutical companies can make(It is absurd that pharmaceuticals in the U.S. are allowed to gouge consumers in the way that they are).

Anyway that's just my two cents. I gather by your moniker that you believe in a total abolition of private property. I just happen to believe that in America you should still be able to own a piece of land or a small business that is yours and not the government's, but unlike conservatives I don't believe that having the right to own your own property and/or business means that you can simply disregard the rights of others by omitting pollution at-will, paying your employees shitty wages and thus producing the social problems that inevitably flow from poverty, or using unfair trade practices to run others out of business.

As far as Howard Dean is concerned, I concede that he is not the perfect candidate, but he is a vast improvement from Bush and in my opinion he is currently the best candidate that truly has a chance of actually winning.

RED DAVE

To peacenik:

If we could put together a movement that supported your program, we may as well go all the way and abolish the motherfucker. That's my view anyway.

I have no personal objections to small businesses. However, under socialism, I think that that form of individual aggrandizement, focused on money and property, will soon grow tiresome to those doing it. However, that's a democratic decision to be made by all, together.

Here are three scenarios: 1) he wins; 2) he doesn't; 3) he doesn't get the nomination.

1) In order to win, Dean will have to head up the Democratic Party. He will have to get the party not only to endorse him but his program. Far more likely, he will endorse its program and waffle. If he doesn't, you get the McGovern scenario. He captures the party and it melts out from under him.

2) If he doesn't win the election, and all the opposition to Bush has been contained in the Democratic Party, the movement, the only thing that can fight Bush in that event, will be weaker than before the election. Bush gets a free hand.

3) Same as "2." Opposition checkmated. Bush gets to play Mortal Kombat for real.

The only way to defeat Bushism and Bush is to build an independent oppostion outside of the Democratic Party. this has been shown over and over again. Every movement that went into the Democratic Party, out of strength, to take it over (labor), or out of weakness and desparation (the peace movement), ended up weak and sterilized and had to rebuild. Labor has yet to do so.

RED DAVE

Darwin26

Go start your own party... i think it's evident that the choir you're seeking is not singing here. Your *crystal ball* clairvoyance of how this next election will turn out is just that...
You'd be better served by getting a soap box in Time Square and moving an ocean bucket by bucket is the only solution...

RED DAVE

What a miserable, whiney rant.

I am a member of different party: the Greens. There is plenty of support for my position on the board. If you don't want to read my posts, don't! I have no crystal ball, but there is some past precednt that just might help to figure things out.

RED DAVE

Krieger

I agree with Red Dave.

Hell will exist before I ever vote for the Democrats.

And clear out your Private Message box, Dave.