I Think It's Down to Edwards and Gephardt

[liberalpragmatist]

The only thing going against that is that KOS is saying so too - and Kos as a political prognosticator has a notoriously bad track record.

That said, numerous sources and all the insider accounts point to the same thing. Check out this excellent Washington Post article:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50708-2004Jun17.html

It makes a number of excellent points. It notes that Vilsack and Bob Graham remain very much in the running, though clearly behind Edwards and Gephardt at this point. Some aides are encouraging him to pick Evan Bayh although it doesn't appear that his name has caught fire with Kerry. Discouragingly for Clark fans, Kerry's aides and friends say he was seriously being considered but that his standing his plummeted after he "received lackluster reviews from some former colleagues." The McCain talk was real - Kerry was intrigued by the idea of a grand "national unity" ticket, but he dropped the idea after McCain made clear he wasn't interested.

The article offers excellent insight into Kerry's process.

Why Gephardt?
By most accounts, Kerry has a very close relationship with Gephardt and trusts him completely. Aides say Kerry would have endorsed Gephardt if he had not won the nomination. For Kerry, death could be very much weighing on his mind, possibly due to his longtime admiration and interest with JFK and RFK (and his close relationship with Ted). For Kerry, more than with most candidates, he truly wants to pick someone who he feels would be ready to be President were something to happen to him.

And while he has many disagreements with Gephardt, he feels Gephardt fits this bill and is someone he personally gets along very well with. Also, he would prefer a VP who may not run for President in '12 assuming a two-term Kerry presidency, b/c he believes that when a Veep runs for President, often tensions are created in the administration and fault lines emerge (ala Clinton and Gore).

Also Kerry talks of a "Mississippi Strategy" whereby (aside from Florida) the South would remain uncontested exc. for the Southern and border states along the Mississippi - Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, possibly Tennessee. Gephardt could help (at least in theory).

Why Edwards?
Kerry is not ignoring the huge cries by much of the Democratic base, Democratic fundraisers, the Clintons, Dems in Congress, and the Establishment to pick Edwards. Edwards is CLEARLY in the running and he approvingly notes his perceived "centrism" which Kerry wants to project to swing voters.

But while Kerry sees the many advantages, he is not sure Edwards would have much electoral impact, having surveyed many historical examples. He would rather go with someone he feels is experienced, and he worries that Edwards isn't ready to be President. That seems the primary concern. Rumors that Kerry doesn't like Edwards, according to the article are unfounded. The two get along fine despite some pique during the primaries, but that's over. Still, he doesn't get along quite as well with Kerry as with Gephardt.

Of course, it should be noted that EVERYTHING here comes from an article that is entirely supplied by "inside sources" which have often proved wrong. Don't be surprised if the choice comes out of the Left Field, with someone like, oh, I dunno, Joe Biden or Richard Holbrooke or Bob Kerrey or Mary Landrieu - please note, all MY speculation.

ON EDIT: Should have added one more crucial point the article mentioned. Kerry wants a strong, loyal VP who is competent but doesn't upstage him. He sees Cheney as Co-President or Prime Minister (or President) and does not want that. Either one could fit the bill, although I think he may worry Edwards is too flashy and charismatic (though I hope not - that's just my speculation). Gephardt to him may seem more low-key and loyal.

[JI7]

1. he likes Edwards because he really will be a vice president unlike Cheney

and with Gephardt much has to do with his personal friendship .

[wtmusic]

4. They should let bygones be bygones

When Kerry-Edwards wins in Nov., they should settle the score with Bush-Cheney in an Ultimate Fighting showdown at Caesar's in Vegas.

Imo be there. :D

[JI7]

2. i wish he would not worry about death too much

but as a guy who served in vietnam and saw people die i'm sure it leaves a lasting mark. i wonder if his opposition to the death penalty has a lot to do with these things.

[incapsulated]

3. I think you are wrong

For one simple reason.

They are the media's choice for VP.

The pundit's choice for VP.

When was the last time the guy(s) these "experts" trumpeted as the sure thing were actually chosen?

Cheney?
Lieberman?
Gore?
Quale?

The media/pundits always get it wrong. Guaranteed.

:hi:

(I have no dog in this fight, btw.)

[liberalpragmatist]

5. Right, and I pointed that out

It could very well come out of left field.

Although Gore did pick one of his four leaked finalists - Lieberman. It was known that he, along with Kerry, Edwards, and Bayh were finalists. Most thought he'd pick Kerry or maybe Bayh though. Lieberman wasn't really considered a big likelihood, but he was on the final list that was reported. Check for yourself old newspapers and magazines. He's on there, just inconspicuous.

[incapsulated]

10. Not necessarily out of left field

The eventual pick can be on the list, just historically not the first or second choice. A dark horse, someone not too closely looked at.

Now, everything can change this time around of course. But if I were placing real money on this, I would go with one of the dark horses or someone down lower on the list.

Since I'm not overly concerned with who gets the pick, other than that they be an actual Democrat, and because all of the contenders have real strengths and real weaknesses, I would just go with precedent.

[JI7]

6. yup, the more it looks like it will be someone the less likely it will be

that person who ends up being picked.

[wjsander]

17. Not ALWAYS

Jack Kemp, anyone? ;-)

[Darkamber]

7. Excellent post...I have one main concern about Gephardt...

and that is his appeal to the younger voters. More specifically the Dean group. I think it would be a HUGE mistake to alienate this core group.

When I was the figure on how few college students are registered to vote, I could hardly believe it. It is their future and they feel powerless.

I feel that picking Gephardt would be a safe and secure choice for Kerry to make, but I'm worried at what cost in the younger votes.

[JI7]

9. kerry won that group in iowa

and did well in other places. kerry's kids went around many colleges and other places to get out the votes of younger people. and it was very effective. and kerry is getting huge turnouts at colleges.

[liberalpragmatist]

11. I agree

Kerry is reasonably popular with younger voters (though in no way electrifying them) and Edwards proved to have strong appeal with younger voters too. I am a younger voter - 18 years old, will be casting my first vote for Kerry! I can attest to the idea that to me, Gephardt is a very nice man, a Patriot, who has done great things and been a great service to the country. I have incredible respect for him and if he is picked, I will accept him - he would make a good VP. But he doesn't excite me, and to me he's the past, not the future. Edwards is the future, and a great way forward for the Democratic Party. Gephardt is an old Washington figure who has great intentions, but to me I feel he doesn't have great leadership skills - the House Dems were rather rudderless under him and he failed to demonstrate his supposed wide electoral appeal both times he ran for Pres. And his positions on the issues are very old-school Democrat, not in the direction the Democratic Party is moving. The Democratic Party is moving towards a direction which is fiscally centrist, and based on progressive taxation, libertarian social policy, fair trade but not protectionism, and effective govt for social justice without creating large bureaucracies or huge mandates. Gephardt does not represent any of that with the exc. of trade.

[jean]

12. Gephardt speaking = instant doze - put him somewhere else in the cabinet

[spooky3]

16. What are Gephardt's numbers with women voters?

[Skwmom]

8. The Clintons backing Edwards.

I guess Bill wants to make sure Hilary has a clear shot in 2008 (because once they're done with Edwards he won't have a chance in 2008).

[wjsander]

18. Thanks, Rush

[venus]

20. First I heard that the Clintons are backing Edwards. n/t

[Leilani]

13. Every report I have read

says that Kerry really, really prefers Gephardt.

It will be interesting.

[JI7]

14. because

i think much of it has to do with their friendship. they are good friends. kerry likes gep's family also. for those who paid attention to the iowa campaign kerry and gep did get in a lot of arguments, but it was always on the issues and never became personal.

[Awsi Dooger]

15. A double dose of strategic and safe would be sickening

Not fatal, a VP choice is never fatal.

But we are trying to UNSEAT AN INCUMBENT, for god's sakes. That is never emphasized enough on DU. In my lifetime, only two have succeeded in that role -- Reagan and Clinton. That is why I championed Edwards from the outset, the certainty he was closest to that duo in likability, optimism, populist message and speaking ability. I will always believe it was the proper handicap.

We identified John Kerry, the ultra safe chess board pick supposedly with national security advantages. Disregard the charisma concerns, just like we did in 2000.

And now we're tempted to team him with Dick Gephardt, about as exciting a a four-hour wait to see the dentist? Perception becomes reality. Jay Leno will pan that ticket with so many dull and duller jokes the number will rival the national debt.

If that Emerging Democratic Majority hoopla is legit and not fluff bookshelf nonsense, this VP slot should absolutely be fixated on 2012 regardless if Kerry worries about discomfort in his lame duck months. The last three two-termers have been followed in their party's nomination by the VP -- Nixon in '60, Bush Sr. in '88 and Gore in '00. It is beyond debate that John Edwards is better suited to win terms of his own in 2012 and 2016 than Iowa-reject Richard Gephardt, or any other Dem now in VP contention, IMO.

[wjsander]

19. Oh God, Jay Leno...

You're so right... Jeez, why do people watch him?