|
to a few reporters that I correspond with:
Kerry's Choice?
Recently, I have been reading quite a few articles discussing John Kerry’s selection of a running mate. The top media pick thus far, Senator John Edwards.
But what has Edwards really accomplished besides being the proud recipient of free and uncritical media attention? "Sweet-talking youth and charismatic charm"? He has been pushed and oversold to the point that many, such as myself, are finding that the interchangeable accent and the memorized Two Americas speech from the son of a (Republican) mill (manager) worker are becoming tiresome. In fact, Edwards is what many are calling a Made-by-TV candidate.
And do we really need two candidates who both voted for the Iraq war, No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act, and against the $87 billion supplemental Iraq package? Will the double echo of the Senators John-John ticket who voted for most of Bush’s policies really gain the Democratic ticket votes? Another important item--A Vice President has to be an attack dog, not a whimpering puppy. Are voters begging for a Democratic Dan Quayle?
Many include Dick Gephardt, the labor friendly Missourian congressman. It’s suggested that Gephardt would bring Missouri into the Democratic win column in November. This boast is truly untested. Gephardt has never run for statewide office and coming in 4th in Iowa wasn’t helpful. It’s quite certain that the labor vote will not hesitate on voting Kerry regardless of who his running mate is. Because of his many (sometimes dismal) years in congress, Dick is the ultimate Washington Insider. It is hard to advertise change with the ultimate insider ticket battling the other insider ticket. Will we be reminded that Dick Gephardt co-wrote the Iraq Resolution that passed in the House. Ah, and the pic with Bush in the Rose Garden and all of those house votes. Alas, the echo of many of Bush’s policies would resonate loudly with Gephardt on the ticket. Too, charisma is not a word often used to describe Dick Gephardt, so I wont mention it
A few opine that Senator Graham would also make a great Vice Presidential candidate. Some say that's the ticket to win Florida. But Graham is in delicate health and is charismatically challenged, the very reason that the media is pushing Edwards. His health alone may not be an issue, but when coupled with John Kerry’s recent bout with Cancer, this match becomes weak. In fact, Graham is the exact opposite of what John Edwards is proclaimed to be, besides both being Democratic Southern Senators who are retiring. The contrast is striking.
Governor Richardson has also been dragged to the line up. He would indeed make a formidable Vice President candidate. He certainly would help in bringing the Hispanic vote right up to the table. He has, however, time after time, pleaded the Hillary defense, i.e., he has promised his constituency that he would complete his term. I believe him to be a good pick, but to think that he is the only one that would offer a winning result is sheer desperation (of pulling a sitting Governor out of office) and lack of insight. Does Gov. Richardson have star power? Is he a dynamic speaker? Well, so-so is the verdict. Plus, I tend to believe that Governor Richardson is a man of honor and will uphold his word.
Senator Evan Bayh has also been frequently named. Evan Bayh who? Ok, he’s attractive (to some) and conservative. But should Democrats lose another Senator in an already leaning Republican senate, which is predicted to become more so after the 2004 election? And do we want the far left running, not walking over to visit Nader’s website? Democrats need a sure thing, not a gamble. Evan Bayh is fresh senatorial meat, and more votes for the RNC to dig up.
The Dark Horse of the Veep pick appears to be General Wes Clark, according to a small faction. Others dismiss this possibility out of hand. They hurriedly explain that Kerry already has the qualifications that Clark offers. Why duplicate the effort and add a patriotic Scout Master with solid National Security and Foreign policy to the ticket? I find that a reinforced “heavy medal” ticket of Kerry/Clark would be far more effective against an incumbent "wartime" President than any other ticket discussed. Of course, according to the RNC, who are busy setting up their convention to take place in New York around 9/11/04, this is the worst match up ever and does not even deserve discussion.
In my mind, there is not doubt that General Wesley K. Clark--an American patriot, who through his 34-year military career received numerous honors and awards, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and who saved hundreds of thousands of people through his brilliant diplomatic skills—is as appealing as Governor Richardson, if not more so. After all, we are only fighting two wars, and have quite a few allies miffed.
The Republican criticisms that Kerry is soft on defense due to some votes against weapon systems (one of the currently whispered future attacks), and the questions about Kerry’s actions immediately following the Vietnam War would be taken right off the table with Clark at Kerry’s side. We won't even mention Kerry's upside down flag book cover thingy. Mr. Gillespie and Karl Rove are saving that until September of 2004.
Further, Clark has the charismatic appeal and is a fresh face on the political scene. He has more than demonstrated his worth by calling out the Bush Administration effectively on many serious issues during his campaign. Want well articulated attacks that voters and the RNC pay attention to? Clark has proven to be excellent at that! He scares the begeezus out of the Republicans, regardless of the fact that commentators rarely discuss it.
It also should be noted that Clark raised some $20 million in just five months, won the Oklahoma primary, and has an active Internet grassroots base. For a political novice, that was more than impressive. One has to wonder, what could have been? What if CNN, ABC, CBS and the rest of the national media would have bothered to mention Clark during the daily campaign recaps, when he was statistically even with Howard Dean during most of the fall (during the media's other love-fest--then with only Howard Dean)?
Beyond that, Clark can still do what Edwards and Graham are lauded for: attract Southern voters. Clark was leading in many of the southern states prior to Iowa, but received no positive media reports for it. Clark is also attractive to Southwestern and Hispanic voters, who will be important this election year. He came in first in Oklahoma, and second in Arizona, New Mexico, and North Dakota (states that he led until the Kerry momentum and free publicity took over). His win, his seconds and even his thirds (New Hampshire, Virginia and Tennessee) cannot be compared to Edwards’ placements. As you may or may not have noticed, Clark did not receive heavy free media coverage.
Clark can also do what Edwards, Bayh and even Richardson cannot--secure those Veterans who are on the fence for Kerry. Add those Republicans who would cross over and vote for a Democrat during the general election to get rid of Bush, unlike Edwards’ Republican voters who crossed over during the primaries out of mischief (confirmed via exit poll data).
In the end analysis, John Kerry has many attractive potential running mates to choose from. The real questions to answer? Will the media truly allow the Democratic nominee to choose his own running mate? They should; and in the meantime, they ought to base their analysis on who encompasses the broadest array of desirable traits, coupled with the greatest strategic strength to win in November.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
