What do you figure Edwards'll be doing for the next four years? He gave up his Senate seat. He doesn't have anywhere to go. If he loses this time and isn't on the ticket, he'd have to go up against much tougher competition in Hillary and probably Gore and Richardson next time -- all without his Senate seat. If they offer VP, he'll take it in a second. It's pretty much his only chance to ever be president.
Wow. I never realized until now that he was up for re-election this year. Don't know why, but I never checked it and missed seeing that in whatever I read about the guy. He's really going for broke, isn't he.
interesting speculation over on instapundit about how kerry's boxed himself into a corner VP-wise over his continued harping on the Vietnam war issue. basically, the arguement goes, he's got to pick someone who served, since that guy will be just a heart beat away. This would rule out edwards, and point more towards Clark, or, more intriguingly, Max Cleland.
btw, anybody know why edwards chose not to run for senate as well, or at least keep his name in the running? his presidential chances were always something of a long shot, and he's definitely a rising star in the senate. if he's not veep, how does he spend the next four years?
Edwards wasn't a lock for re-election. Polls actually showed him running behind. Kerry was caught by a mike he didn't know was on the other day saying something like, "He says he can win in the South, he can't even win in his own state." I don't have any idea how he spends the next four years if he's not VP. The instapundit stuff is some of the dumbest stuff I've ever read. Please tell me that's not another one of your ultra right wing blog sites. The ONLY reason service is an issue in this election is because the GOP's running two chickenhawks who have chosen to wrap themselves in the flag and question the patriotism of the opposition. The issue is not service -- it is high hypocrisy.
Edwards just now on Larry King: King: Have you completely ruled out vice president? Edwards: I am completely... focused on the presidency. I'm not even thinking about anything else. Translation: I would LOVE it.
of course edwards would love it, that's not the question. the issue is whether kerry and terry mccauliff, having hyped up this issue, can select a guy who never served. wouldn't it seem hypocritical to you? and since when have BC questioned anybody's patriotism? the only people bring this issue up are the democrats, usually crying "stop questioning my patriotism!" shades of michael dukakis in the debate, and we know how well is worked for him. trust me, this is an issue that will backfire in the general, and even in the primaries, dem voters are telling us that iraq, and by extension war in general, are way down on their list of priorities. is kerry paying attention> apparently not, since he's outsourced his phone banks to canada, and we know how they feel about W up there.
Hilarious, basso. Of all the virtually indefensible ideas you've floated on this board, this truly is one of the very dumbest ones. Who is BC, by the way? Clinton? Doesn't make sense. The Democratic party talks about patriotism because the GOP makes it an issue. Everybody knows this. Bob Novak wouldn't defend your position on this. It is just that dumb to suggest that Dems ever made patriotism the issue. And Bush-Cheney-Rove have made it THE issue. And it is coming back to bite them in the ass, because they know they can't use it against Kerry and, in fact, that since they've opened that can of worms it can be used against them. My favorite stuff he's done in this campaign was way back at the beginning when he said we needed regime change at home, got accused of being unpatriotic and shot back just daring them to question his patriotism like they had Max Cleland's. They asked for this fight and, though Kerry wasn't my favorite candidate, there's no one better suited to rub Bush's nose in his own sh*t on this. And I can't wait. Your (or instapundit or whatever) opinion on this is even dumber than the idea that Hillary was using Clark as a stalking horse, but it is getting me excited about the general election. Thanks for that. It'd been a while.
BC=Bush/Cheney nice to see the fresh mountain air hasn't corrupted your hard won reputation for objectivity. the patriotism issue was never raised by the republicans. it's a defense mechanism democrats use to try and innoculate themselves against republican charges of being soft on national security. perhaps if kerry actually had a coherent position on the iraq war or the war on terror he could use that instead of pointless demogaugery.
NRO's take http://nationalreview.com/miller/miller200402120825.asp -- Kerry’s Veep A short list in the making. Choosing a running mate will be the most important decision John Kerry makes between now and November — not only because vice presidents stand a reasonably good chance of becoming presidents, but because they are such a key part of electioneering. Kerry probably won't announce his selection until the summer, but with the Democratic presidential nomination all but clinched, the season of speculation may begin. The traditional rules of veep selection will apply. Most people base their vote on who sits at the top of the ticket, which means that the vice-presidential nominee is not likely to influence the outcome of the race unless it's close. Moreover, potential running mates must meet the "do no harm" principle — there should be nothing in their backgrounds that might make them liabilities in the fall. Kerry himself will have to deal with a few unique conditions. He won't want a running mate from the northeast. He'll probably want someone from outside Washington, D.C., which means he'll choose with a bias against a current member of Congress, especially another senator. His running mate will have to stand on stage next to Dick Cheney and appear credible. Finally, Kerry will face pressure from the Clinton faction of his party not to select a partner who would emerge as a rival to Hillary Clinton in 2008 in the event of a Democratic defeat this year. Herewith, a look at the contenders: EVAN BAYH: This senator from Indiana is a hawk on the Iraq war and a rising star in the Democratic party. He might put his home state in play, but his main appeal would be his youth, energy, and New Democrat credentials. His membership on the Senate Intelligence Committee would be an asset. Feminist groups might try to nix him because he's not an abortion-rights absolutist — or possibly get him to pull a Lieberman and renounce his heresy. WESLEY CLARK: From the standpoint of expectations, no presidential candidate failed so badly in the primaries as this retired general. At least Howard Dean had to rise before he fell; Clark started out near the top and did nothing but tumble. Perhaps more than any other candidate on this list, the unpredictable Clark violates the "do no harm" principle of veep selection. HILLARY CLINTON: The media will go through several rounds of talking about Hillary as veep, if only because talking about Hillary is a favorite pastime for pundits. But neither Kerry nor Clinton will want this match. The last thing Kerry needs is another "liberal senator from the Northeast" on his ticket. Hillary has a strong incentive to stay away as well. Some potential running mates would see their careers enhanced by losing with Kerry this year: It would establish them as statesmen on their side of the aisle. Yet Hillary's reputation would suffer and it would hurt her chances in 2008. Also, she has repeatedly promised to serve out her term as senator from New York. Reneging would make her seem — for lack of a better word — Clintonian. HOWARD DEAN: Forget it. The only rationale for a Kerry-Dean ticket would have been a desperate attempt to unify a torn party. JOHN EDWARDS: Apart from Kerry, no presidential candidate has beaten more expectations this year than the senior senator from North Carolina: Edwards is the only loser who emerges from this year's primaries looking better than he did before getting in. He continues to run a veep-friendly campaign and is already generating some buzz about a Kerry-Edwards ticket. What's more, Kerry will face some pressure to go with a southerner. Yet Edwards hasn't exactly been a Dixie powerhouse — his single triumph in South Carolina didn't translate into victories in Tennessee and Virginia. Another strike is that he's a fellow senator. There's a chance he would make North Carolina competitive for Kerry, but no guarantee. Odds are he'll appear on Kerry's short list until the bitter end — but that he won't make the final cut. HAROLD FORD: Some vice-presidential short lists are compiled for public consumption — certain names are placed on them to flatter and court particular individuals and constituencies. There's no doubt that Kerry will want to be seen as giving serious consideration to a black running mate, even if he isn't really going to pick one. The most likely politician to fill this role is Harold Ford, a young congressman from Tennessee who is believed to have a bright future on Capitol Hill. Talk of a Kerry-Ford ticket will boost both Kerry and Ford, but it won't happen. DICK GEPHARDT: The ultimate safe pick. The St. Louis congressman has been vetted enough times to guarantee that there are no surprises lurking in his closet. Although he may be seen as a Democratic dinosaur, he's experienced and gaffe-proof. He would put Missouri in play and might help out in other union-heavy Midwestern states (though his poor performance in the Iowa caucuses may suggest otherwise). A Kerry-Gephardt ticket would mollify the party's protectionist wing, which is skeptical of Kerry's vote for NAFTA a decade ago. Gephardt's modest upbringing also makes him one of several contenders who would nicely balance Kerry's privileged background. His recent endorsement of Kerry is another plus. BOB GRAHAM: If this Florida senator had been the Democratic veep nominee in 2000, we'd probably be in the midst of a primary battle to pick a GOP challenger to President Gore. Graham's disappointing presidential run hurt his chances in 2004, though he did have the sense to exit before the embarrassment became fatal. Kerry will make a play for Florida this year, but the GOP is better positioned there than it was four years ago. Graham's impact today is probably less than it once would have been. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he does come with foreign-policy credentials. JENNIFER GRANHOLM: Looks great on paper as an attractive female governor of a swing state (Michigan). Too bad for Kerry that she was born in Canada and isn't eligible for the Oval Office. JIM HUNT: The other veep candidate from North Carolina. This retired governor has won plenty of elections in his home state, though a 1984 Senate loss to Jesse Helms prevented him from becoming a national figure. He's no spring chicken — he'll be 67 on Election Day — but he's a Washington outsider who would play about as well in the south as anybody Kerry might pick. GARY LOCKE: If Democrats think they need this governor to carry the state of Washington, then they've got some big problems. Going with Locke would generate very good notice in the press (plus lots of headline puns about "Picking Locke") because Locke, an Asian American, would be the first nonwhite candidate on a presidential ticket. But would black and Hispanic loyalists grumble that they were more deserving of the honor? JANET NAPOLITANO: The governor of Arizona is probably the top female contender for Kerry — she's not from D.C. and she might put her GOP-friendly home state into question. But Kerry should keep in mind that while Geraldine Ferraro was making history in 1984 as Walter Mondale's running mate, Ronald Reagan was winning the women's vote. Perhaps the politics of the gender gap have changed, but then again maybe not as much as Democrats might hope. Furthermore, Napolitano would have a tough time looking like she's as ready as Dick Cheney to become commander in chief. SAM NUNN: Worth considering only because the evil genius James Carville mentioned him as a possibility. As a Georgian, he adds a southerner to the ticket — though it's far from clear that he would provide a significant lift in his home state, which is now solidly Republican. He is viewed as one of his party's elder statesmen on security issues. BILL RICHARDSON: The governor of New Mexico is often mentioned because he's Hispanic. But don't be fooled: The Hispanic influence on the Electoral College is often misunderstood. If no Hispanics had voted four years ago, the election results in only two states would have changed: Florida would have gone for Gore and New Mexico would have gone for Bush. (Bush would have won the popular vote but Gore would be president — all because of Cuban Americans.) It's hard to see how Richardson's addition to the Democratic ticket would give Kerry critical advantages anywhere except New Mexico. Picking Richardson makes more sense for Democrats thinking about long-term demographic alignments than it does for Kerry thinking about November. Despite all this, Richardson is one of the best Democratic pols in the country — a governor with genuine foreign-policy experience as UN ambassador and as a congressman who secured hostage releases around the world. He would probably make Kerry's short list even if his mother hadn't been Mexican. ROBERT RUBIN: Selecting the former treasury secretary would be compared to Bush's choice of Cheney four years ago — a decision that has nothing to do with geography and everything to do with boosting credibility. In Rubin's case, it would signal to Wall Street and the investor class that a Kerry presidency is nothing to fear — and perhaps create fundraising opportunities that otherwise wouldn't exist. It would also seek to remind people of prosperity during the Clinton presidency and give Kerry a very effective surrogate for attacking Bush's economic record. Interesting trivia: A poll for USA Today in 2000 showed a Gore-Rubin ticket outperforming a Gore-Kerry ticket. TOM VILSACK: The governor of Iowa presumably would go a long way toward securing his home state, which the GOP hopes to capture this year. And it certainly doesn't hurt that Vilsack's wife endorsed Kerry before the caucuses last month, during Kerry's surprising surge. (In a piece for NRO on Monday, David Hogberg explained why he doubts Vilsack will end up on the Democratic ticket.) FEARLESS PREDICTION: This wouldn't be punditry if it didn't include some guesswork. Much will ride on the question of how optimistic Democrats are feeling this summer: Will Kerry be forced into a bold and strategic choice or can he be more conservative and tactical? My own sense is that the race will be close to the end, with Democrats believing they have a realistic chance of defeating Bush. Kerry will pick Gephardt — and he'll be glad he did. _ _ _ _
Watching Kerry Tuesday night and hearing him thank Harold Ford by name, it occured to me that Ford's got to be on the short list for a cabinet post. (Ford is just as impressive in person as he is on TV.) VP, though, is a bit much. I'll say again that I think Evan Bayh is going to get a serious look. Jennifer Granholm would have been a top choice of mine if she weren't Canadian-born and if she had more experience. She was a great campaigner in 2002. I was also thinking of Tom Vilsack the other day -- he's a real dark horse. Iowa's an important state, and Vilsack is a sharp politician. He's done some pretty cool things as governor. He was just named head of the DGA, but I'm sure he'd give that up for veep. And I'll confess that, the more I think if it, Dick Gephardt makes some sense ... Here's another take from columnist Craig Crawford (just say no to Mark Warner!): Feb. 12, 2004 Kerry May Surprise With His Choice of Running Mate By Craig Crawford, CQ Columnist Go easy on the Kerry-Edwards bumper stickers. For starters, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and his staff are really serious about rejecting the conventional wisdom that he should be the Democratic running mate with Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. There is no hint of wiggle room when you talk to the Edwards camp about this. Indeed, they get downright surly about the question they get asked dozens of times a day. Edwards is only interested in running for president, they insist. So fine, let's just take the Edwards folks at their word and move on. Two senators on the ticket is probably a bad idea anyway. And if the thinking is that Edwards would deliver the South, why couldn't he beat Kerry on Feb. 10 in the Tennessee and Virginia primaries? If not Edwards, then who? The usual suspects in the veepstakes include Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida and Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana. An Early Pick? Some Kerry aides suggest that an early pick is a strong possibility. They argue for having two voices on the campaign trail during the long haul to the Democratic convention in July. Kerry might need all the help he can get in the face of the Bush camp's coming assault on Kerry's liberal Senate voting record. At a minimum, look for the Kerry team to begin leaking a short list of VP possibilities as soon as it does not look too presumptive. The more cautious among them want to wait until they have reached mathematical certitude in the delegate count for the nomination. But already the Kerry campaign is promising inclusion on their short list in exchange for key endorsements. Two recent Kerry endorsers — Gephardt and Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia — are likely to be on the short list. Kerry-Warner For connecting to the New South, Kerry could hardly find a better running mate than Virginia's Democratic governor. The Harvard-trained, mild-mannered Warner is a Southern-flavored version of Kerry. Sitting down with Warner for a chat just before the Christmas holidays last year at the governor's mansion in Richmond, I saw a different type of Deep South politician. He makes no effort to play the back-slapping Dixie character. He is no Bubba, although he won the rural vote in his hard-fought 2001 campaign — the first time in over 50 years that a Democrat won Virginia's back roads. Warner is more comfortable talking about the role of technology in our economy than telling colorful stories about animals — a staple of traditional Deep South political rhetoric. His background is rooted in the business world. He made millions in the cell phone industry; his net worth in 2001 was estimated at $200 million. But thanks to rural strategists Steve Jarding and Dave "Mudcat" Saunders, the businesslike Warner ran a campaign that cleverly connected to Dixie culture with country music, race cars and unapologetic support for gun owners. If Kerry wants a shot at targeting the hearts of rural voters through their wallets, Warner can teach him how. In 2001, Warner clawed his way past the cultural war that Republicans dominate in the South and persuaded lower-middle-income voters that only a Democrat like him would improve their sorry economic conditions. Warner is now in the midst of a battle in the Virginia legislature that is not unlike what the federal government faces. He is trying to balance a state budget hobbled by years of politically popular tax cuts. How the fight comes out will determine his viability. On the downside, Warner's proposals for tax increases could be a target for the Bush campaign if he is on the national Democratic ticket. But many Virginia Republicans are on Warner's side and if he manages to fix the state's budget mess, he could look like a winner. Kerry-Cleland Of all the supporters who introduce Kerry at campaign rallies, perhaps only Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts excites Democratic crowds more than former Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia (1997-2003). As a Vietnam veteran who lost three limbs in combat, Cleland is a natural for Kerry's aggressive pitch to veterans in this campaign. But the real source of Cleland's appeal to the Democratic base is the martyrdom that comes from his Senate re-election defeat in 2002. Many Democrats believe Cleland was the victim of a scurrilous attack on his patriotism when Republicans beat him two years ago. Sen. Saxby Chambliss ran controversial television ads accusing Cleland of being soft on national defense because he had voted against some versions of homeland security legislation. Kerry repeatedly refers to avenging that loss. Cleland is a more sympathetic martyr than Al Gore for Democrats who believe Republicans stole the 2000 presidential election. He would be an effective running mate for connecting to this powerful sentiment among party faithful. Kerry-Clinton How can we speculate about Democratic politics without mentioning Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York? Sure, she might overshadow Kerry, but he can handle it. She is much hated by many voters, but they probably are not going to vote Democratic anyway. If Kerry is looking for someone to energize the party base while he trolls for swing voters, there is none better than Sen. Clinton. Craig Crawford is a special contributor to Congressional Quarterly and a news analyst for MSNBC, CNBC and "The Early Show" on CBS
I can't see Ford doing anything less than VP, honestly. I think the DNC would prefer to see him stay in Congress since he's an up-and-coming moderate from the South.
Respectfully disagree. One keynote speech doesn't lift you up so much that you can scoff at any cabinet level position save VP. Also not sure how continuing to be a Congressman in the party that's out of power is better than the visibility of a cabinet position. Ford would be much more of a rising star as a cabinet secretary than he ever would be as a Congressman. If he decides to run for Senate, he'd be better off running as a former/current cabinet secretary than as a Congressman. Believe me, if Harold thought the best thing for him was to take a cabinet appointment, he could care less what the DNC said. Besides, I doubt the DNC would stand in the way of a President-elect making their appointments. The President-elect, at that point, is the titular head of the party.
Good points all around...you've convinced me. However, I think Ford would make a wonderful running mate. A young, moderate, African-American Congressman from the South? Unfortunately, he'll only be 34 by November (is there an age limit for VP?).
OK, so it's a stretch, but i've been reading some suggestions that kerry has doubts that edwards can step in as a war time president should something happen to him, and that the campaign intends to pick someone with impeccable foreign policy credentials. what democrat really fits that bill? so here's a provacative suggestion: John McCain!
Yes. They have to meet the same requirements as the President, which if I remember correctly, is 35. However, since they have to meet the requirements before taking office, the deadline is probably inaguration, not election.
OK, so it's a stretch, but i've been reading some suggestions that kerry has doubts that edwards can step in as a war time president should something happen to him, and that the campaign intends to pick someone with impeccable foreign policy credentials. what democrat really fits that bill? so here's a provacative suggestion: John McCain! I would *love* this - it would basically seal up the election right now. I have always thought a McCain/anyone or someone-decent/McCain ticket could win any Presidential race. That would be downright awesome.
Here's what I'm hearing are the srious candidates; 1) Gephardt-will easily carry Missouri, help in surrounding states, and will be very benefitcial on NAFT, free trade, protectionism, etc. 2) Richardson-upiside, will carry New Mexico, Arizona, and surrounding states, and is seen as a comer. Downside, tickets without 'Southerner" have historically failed. 3) Either of the high profile Florida boys, most likely Graham. 27 electoral votes will be hard for Bush to make up. 4) Edwards. Will depend on whether polls show whether or not he can carry NC. Overall image, his positve campaign, and especially his wroking class background are his assets.
