|
Candidates don't like to pick the obvious choice. It destroys the surprise factor, and that surprise factor gets people talking. Also, since Clinton, candidates have done best picking VPs with national appeal. Before, they chose candidates who could strengthen them in a part of the country they were weak in. Clinton picked Gore, instead, because Gore helped to reinforce Clinton in the south, and as a national figure already, Gore didn't need as much selling.
Clinton has a lot of that going for her. She's not the obvious choice (Edward's is). She's not the geographic choice (again, Edwards is). And she has the biggest national name of the three mentioned. Yes, the name will drive Republicans crazy, but since Bill had a 60+ approval rating when he left office, she obviously has or can get a positive reaction from a lot of people.
And, her strengths in the country are New York and Chicago, which shores up the Dem base and allows Kerry to focus in swing states.
Plus, she has the female factor. In any given race, statistics show that, all things being equal-ish, women have a polling edge because a lot of people, men and women, will choose a woman over an equal man just because she's a woman. Often either party will run a woman in a close race against an incumbent just hoping that edge will help them.
There are a lot reasons not to choose her (and I'm sure some will blast a few of them off with quite a bit of enthusiam), but those are reasons to consider her. There are a few more, specific to Kerry. He supposedly doesn't get along with Edwards. He is looking for a clever surprise to give him the edge, and we all know Kerry likes to analyze, too a fault. He's the kind who can talk himself into a tricky option just because the obvious one is so obvious.
I'm not saying it would be the right choice. But I wouldn't be too surprised to see it happen. I'd be less surprised to see Edwards.
|