What if Bill Bradley had waited

[soleft]

I was wondering today - here's a name you don't hear much of anymore. What if instead of challenging Gore for the nom in 2000, Bradley had waited til 04 - or who knows - 08 (if Bush hadn't stole the election).

Would he have been the front runner this year? Unfortunately I don't remember too much from the dem primary season in 00, did he do anything that prohibits him from - other than losing - from getting into the mix again?

Would he make a viable running mate for Dean or Clark?

[Eric J in MN]

1. part of the problem the last time

Part of the problem the last time was that heart problems limited Bradley from non-stop campaigning.

With regard to him as VP, New Jersey isn't a swing-state (the Democrats will win New Jersey if they even come close nationally.)

Dean, Clark, Edwards, and Kerry have all displayed strengths such that I think whichever one is the nominee should first consider the other three.

If Dean or Clark is the Presidential nominee, my personal first-choice would be Edwards for VP. He speaks with economic populism which is important these days.

[ferg]

2. nope - Bradley was a snooze

The only reason there was interest in him was because the press hated Gore.

Granted, more exciting than Lieberman, but not by much.

[mndemocrat_29]

3. I think that if Bradley had waited until 2004

He would've been a frontrunner now, would've lost, and would've ended up on the ticket. It probably would've ended up Clark/Bradley or Dean/Bradley. The biggest disadvantage that Bradley would've had in 2004 would be that he'd been out of office for eight years (though if he did have presidential aspirations, he may have been selected to replace Torrecelli in 2002).