Per Bob Shrum: Hillary was considered for Kerry running mate in '04

[WI_DEM]

but was "quickly ruled out because quiet polling found she was too polarizing." Interesting.

How do you think a Kerry/Clinton ticket would have performed?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/15/politics/main2572867.shtml

[Mass]

1. I trust Shrum about as much as I trust McAuliffe.\nt

[WI_DEM]

2. so you don't think she was really considered?

I'm not so sure. I think anybody whose as well known as Hillary Clinton and with that last name, which to many democrats is considered magic, would be considered, but I also believe that she was, as the story says, quickly discarded when the polling numbers showed she really wouldn't be of any help to the ticket. Besides, I don't see how geographically she would have been any help, but then again Edwards from the south was no help in southern states either.

[Mass]

4. The problem is that, when you do not trust somebody, it becomes very difficult to know whether

what they say is true or not.

I am not sure Clinton would have been worse that Edwards as a VP nominee, but I am not ready to listen to any of these "strategists". They are too busy making themselves look good to be bothered with truth.

[Gato Moteado]

3. mccain was considered also......

....just shows you how out of touch kerry's advisers were.

[Mass]

5. Actually, it makes more sense on a purely strategic pow. Of course, it is totally idiotic

given their different positions, though.

[karynnj]

8. That has been debunked many times

Both kerry and McCain have denied it.

Kerry said that no one other than the person helping him and Kerry himself would know anything about the search. Kerry very much wanted to avoid what he went through of being listed as on the short list, then not picked. To my knowledge, Kerry has said nothing.

It might be that Shrum or others tested various potential candidates and sent the results to Kerry. I remember Hillary saying she was uninterested. As it is Kerry selected Edwards.

[blm]

11. McCain WASN'T considered - that was a rumor fueled by the McCain camp in their effort

to gain more power for themselves and get Bush campaign to kiss their butts for his support.

Biden mentioned it casually to McCain in Jan 2004 as a 'wish' of his that there would be a unity ticket, and McCain camp spread it around like wildfire.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

13. No. I read that Kerry asked McCain

if he would consider it, and if he should put him no his shortlist.
This was in a NewYorker article by Connie Bruck from 2 years ago.
It sounds credible, is well researched, and I have no trouble believeing Kerry wanted him since they formed such a close bond through the POW/MIA commission.

...Kerry had apparently been thinking of McCain as a possible running mate for some time; in August, 2003, he met with him to propose the idea and to suggest that they announce their pact before the Iowa caucus, according to a McCain aide. Then, in the spring of 2004, in a series of phone conversations with McCain, Kerry offered to augment the power of the Vice-Presidency with the defense portfolio—in effect, a combined Vice-President and Secretary of Defense, according to John Weaver and Mark Salter. “Kerry was saying, ‘You can still call yourself a Republican,’ and John was saying, ‘No! I can’t just call myself a Republican,’ ” Salter recalled. “ ‘We don’t have the same philosophy. I’m a hawk, I’m for nation-building, I’m pro-life, I’m a free trader, I believe in small government. If you’re hit by a lightning bolt and I become President, the people who voted for you will feel betrayed.’ ”

Kerry asked Warren Beatty, who is a good friend of McCain’s, to call him. Beatty is a diehard Democrat who disagrees with McCain on a number of issues but likes him, and he admires his efforts to reduce the influence of money in politics. “I thought he might do it,” Beatty told me. “Of course, I’m a fantasist by trade.” Even as Vice-President, he went on, “With John’s personality, he would be able to say what he wanted to say, and to do quite a bit.” He paused. “Whether that would be good for John Kerry was less clear.” ....

...The Kerry offer carried other risks, too. Chuck Larson recounted to me a conversation that McCain and he had over breakfast one day, when the speculation about a Kerry-McCain ticket was most feverish. “I said, ‘Let’s just say you accept it, John. Today the press is salivating about this dream team. But it would quickly shift from stories about this bipartisan dream team to people saying you’re an opportunist, you’re a traitor, you’re doing this because you’ve hated Bush ever since what he did to you in 2000—instead of focussing on the issues, and who the two of you are.’ ”....

...He also brought up an issue that dogged Kerry throughout the campaign—Kerry’s having voted for the war but against the eighty-seven-billion-dollar measure to fund it. “On the fundamental question of going to war, he agreed, but then because at the time he had to beat Howard Dean he voted against the money. Americans do not understand why you would say, ‘Send them, but don’t pay for them, O.K.?’ And, look, that’s when you gotta stand up,” McCain said, his voice rising. “He’s a friend of mine! But you gotta stand up for what you believe in! He knew you had to fund those troops! But he voted against it for political expediency.”

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/05/30/050530fa_fact_bruck?printable=true

I like what McCain says at the end about Dean. It is sadly true that Kerry had to contend with the insurgent peacenikism of Dean, and the vote against the $87 billion bill was a huge risk Kerry took to get through the primary, but hurt him (probably fatally) in the general.

[ProSense]

16. Kerry asked Warren Beatty to call McCain?

Complete fiction. From someone who would likely know:

Through a remarkable orchestration of behind-the-scenes politicking, John McCain's advisors thrust him in the middle of the John Kerry Vice Presidential selection process - the McCain as VP rumors started not in the Kerry camp but in the McCain camp.

link

These conversations were private and McCain has said the offer was never made. The scenario in the article you linked to seems highly unlikely, and reads more like a rumor.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

17. Is Connie Bruck such a serial fabricator?

I have no idea. Anyone else know?
The New Yorker is an excellent magazine, frequent publisher of Seymour Hirsch's exposes. I have a hard time believeing they'd print utter crap.

[karynnj]

23. The New Yorker is uneven

and the credibility of the content of the article is that of the writer. The quality of the writing is superb. This does look like she was likely used by McCain people with an agenda. When you put it with the Newsweek article where Kerry supposedly ended up screaming at McCain when he wouldn't - the stories were clearly coming out of the McCain camp. (Also, as Kerry said to Sam Fox in his hearing, he (Kerry) is not a screamer - that story actually had Kerry, usually referred to as one of the coolest people in politics, acting with the bad temper that McCain himself really has.)

[Leopolds Ghost]

19. Insurgent peacenikism? Dean was right.

I think Dean has a fair amount of "blue collar values" compared to his fellow millionaires (all of them, especially the "blue collar hero types" are millionaires... interesting.)

[karynnj]

22. This seems well researched with a huge amount of detail,

but it contains some things as facts that are not true.

An easy one is the $87 billion. The Republican claim was that this was a political vote because of Dean. In fact, Kerry went to great pains to explain that it was NOT a vote to not fund the war. That he had voted for a different version that PAID for the war by rolling back the tax cuts on the top 2% and had some oversight on how the money was spent. If you google, you will not be able to find a 2003/2004 Kerry quote that says he voted against the war because he was against the war - he NEVER said that and always explained it had to do with how to pay for it, including in the Democratic debates. Kerry is STILL against defunding the war. Second, Kerry did NOT agree on going to war, which is why he said "Don't rush to war" in a January 23, 2003 speech at Georgetown. (Larson's comments are pure Republican spin 2004 vintage - and show both those votes as political))

Reading carefully, the source of the supposed conversations (Weaver, Larson and Salter) is clearly McCain. As BLM posted, McCain did play with the idea and encourage did encourage speculation to build up his own mystique. Do you honestly believe that Kerry would give the Secretary of Defense position as well as VP to McCain? In 2004, Kerry's NYU speech (and some earlier ones lay out what he would do in Iraq - McCain and Kerry were 180 degrees apart.

The Beatty comments seem disjointed - why would Kerry ask Beatty to call McCain. What does Beatty bring to the table - especially when Kerry was widely quoted saying that he would not tell anyone who he was interested in until announcing a selection. There are NO Kerry quotes (or insider quotes) on the likely selection. So, this article wants us to believe that Kerry spoke to a Hollywood star to make a sensitive inquiry - instead of calling himself or having the man working with Kerry on this meet with McCain. (This seems like Beatty bragging about his closeness with McCain and Kerry)

I had not seen this article, but had seen the Newsweek after the election article. Note that both this New Yorker article and the Newsweek one have NO source near Kerry and they include arguments that distort Kerry's positions. The only Kerry quote on McCain as VP prior to Edwards' selection was a quote in Paul Reichoff's book where he and other vets suggested McCain to him and Kerry said that that was not an option. (Note that in 2005, when this was written both McCain and Clinton benefit by making Kerry look bad - and this makes him look pathetic.)

One thing this does suggest is that Kerry or someone very close to him likely should write a book on his run for the Presidency. It is because he has not put out his story that others have been able to write things like this. One problem he had in 2004 was that he did not have a group of media people shilling for him and getting his message out. Both the Clintons and MCain have many media people in their fan club.

[blm]

25. Kerry had no interest in voting for that 87billion because it was NOT ACCOUNTED FOR

in the bill as written.

Kerry was FOR the 87billion that WAS accounted for, and that has nothing to do with pressure from the Dean camp.

Amazing how INACCURATE so-called journalists can be.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

6. Kerry made a good choice in Edwards

He really added the youth factor to the ticket that Kerry needed (as well as being a smart guy with good blue collar Dem values), and as I have posted before, the excitement for the Kerry Edwards ticket was real, and a real draw.

Here's also a good explanation of why Kerry did as well as possible: http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/11/05/kerry/index.html

[Gato Moteado]

18. i agree edwards was the best choice

that was the smartest thing kerry did.

other than that, i wasn't super impressed with kerry. he let the swiftboat liars walk all over him.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

20. I think Kerry handled the Swift Liars O.K.

It's kind of like, how do you respond to an insane, ranting lunatic on the street?
I usually don't give them much credence.

[Gato Moteado]

21. you expose them as being linked to bushco (as they were)

and then you pound them as unpatriotic pieces of crap for not supporting their fellow troops. you keep pounding until they bleed and run away. then you follow the money up to the people that funded them and you expose those pieces of human garbage. then you keep hammering away at the fact that they were attached to bushco and use it as proof that bushco doesn't support the troops. then you keep bringing up the fact that bush and cheney dodged nam. and you keep pounding that into people's heads. and you don't stop until they are bloody.

kerry did none of that.

[karynnj]

24. He did that

It was the Kerry campaign that quickly showed that the SBVT lawyer, Ginsberg, was also a Bush/Cheney lawyer. They also showed that the initial funding of the SBVT was from Perry, a TX Bush ally.

The media and the public had everything they needed to know to reject allegations made with no proof that were contrary to:
- All the naval records - all on his website. (including fitness reports that spanned the entire interval and were uniformly glowing - even when written by future SBVT. Out of curiosity, I looked at them. Kerry actually needed a higher security clearnce for the job he got back in the US. Clearly his superiors (many SBVT) in Vietnam had to attest to his character for him to get it. So, did they lie putting national security at risk in 1969 or did they lie in 2004? When were they rewarded to lie and when was there motivation to lie?)
- All the people on Kerry's boats for all the medals were 100% behind him
- The VN era Secretary of the Navy John Warner said he checked the Silver Star back then and it was deserved
- Nixon is on tape having checked Kerry out in 1971 - and he was clean and a war hero
- Brinkley is a historian and his book (which Kerry had no editorial control) contained accounts by hundreds of people and backed Kerry. (this was not camopaign literature)
- Admiral Zumwold, who was dead, had spoke highly of Senator Kerry in 1996.

Think about that and consider what in YOUR life you could provide more proof on. (Consider how you would prove your academic record - if your transcipt were not considered proof.). Even with all this the media played it as he said, she said. Kerry's team then discredited many specific stories - many told by people who were not even in the same place at the same time as Kerry. No matter how many stories were discredited, the media simply went on to the next.

The SBVT came out twice in the spring and the Kerry campaign had knocked them out. In August, within days the link to Bush was known and all the truth was available - ask yourself if the media played fair - is this how they handled the TANG/Rather story? Then, consider what proof the Clinton people ever put out to counter Gennifer Flower, draft dodging and all other 1992 stories - on NONE did they as definitively proof the link to Republicans and that the charge was a lie.

Continuing to blame Kerry simply swiftboats him again. His actions in 1968-1969 were heroic and commendable and his country repaid him for his sacrifice by using that to destroy his good name that he earned over three decades of scandal free public service.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

27. Yes. The Kerry research was quick and deep

after all, what would you expect from such a talented prosecutor?
The NYTimes also ran an excellent, in depth report digging up and charting all the ties between the various Texas organizations and groups who put to gether the Swift Liars. They even went and interviewed Kerry's nemesis O'Neil, who was quoted by friends of his saying that he thought "George Bush was an empty suit", due to his obvious shirking of duty when in the Guard, and that he was unfit to be CiC.

[dysfunctional press]

28. the choice was made by the dlc, not kerry.

nt

[madinmaryland]

7. The problem is, that with a repub gov, Hillary probably would

not have stepped aside to run with Kerry.

[sandnsea]

10. The article says she wouldn't have

That she said she wanted to fulfill her commitment to serve. I think she's only interested in being top dog.

[sandnsea]

9. On a list of 25

I think it would have been disrespectful not to put her on an early list. She didn't want it because she was calculating to run for the President back then. Sounds like it was merely a political formality. She may have been a better attack dog than Edwards though, so there is that to consider. She'd have beat the hell out of Cheney in a debate too.

[DefenseLawyer]

12. Per Bob Shrum: I have never won an election for dog catcher

much less President of the United States... but I am a brilliant strategist!

[yardwork]

14. Bob Shrum is an overpaid moran - imo

[mnhtnbb]

15. "Bob Shrum should never be allowed near a campaign for any office ever again"

said my 70+ year old aunt who at one time was very high up in CA Dem politics.

[Bucky]

26. The real problem with putting Sen Clinton in as VP is that it would make the nominee looked "owned"

Kerry made a great choice for VP. Putting Mrs Clinton in the second slot, then or now, would make both nominees look like stand-ins for Bill Clinton. You need to have nominees who look like they're in charge. Plus anyone who knows Senator Clinton could tell you she would never have accepted the second slot on the ticket.