Kerry's VP process near completion, Edwards stock UP, Clark DOWN (sludge)

[Doosh]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A50708-2004Jun17?language=printer

John F. Kerry has been phoning friends at all hours and reviewing vice presidential choices dating to 1932 as the Democratic candidate nears what many consider the biggest -- and most telling -- decision of his general-election campaign, according to Democrats inside and outside the campaign

---

Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) has emerged as the favorite of many Democratic senators and Kerry friends and advisers. Edwards's stock has shot up in recent weeks as private polling shows the freshman senator providing a boost to the ticket in key states because of his southern appeal and perceived likeability, two sources close to the campaign said. "The delay in announcing someone has helped Edwards," a Democrat close to Kerry said.

---

Two Democrats close to Kerry said retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark's stock plummeted after the former Democratic presidential candidate received lackluster reviews from some former colleagues.

Women and minorities are rarely cited by Kerry's allies as top contenders. But history shows the eventual vice presidential pick is often someone the campaign and media have not mentioned. Think Richard B. Cheney in 2000.

[WI_DEM]

1. In a stunning surprise which catches everyone off guard

Kerry picks Howard Dean!! :)

Ah, wishful thinking.

[Doosh]

2. Dean as VP, I can go for that

Edwards is my #1, but Dean would be a formidable attack dog VP, he's also quite the fundraising machine.

[upperleftedge]

5. Dean is a wonderful choice, but...

I think he can do more good doing what he is doing. He is doing the work that the DLC and DNC should be doing. He is empowering the base! He is getting people involved in city, county, and state campaigns. By the time the midterms come around Dean will deliver the House and the Senate to John Kerry, and several State Houses. Like Jesse Jackson said; when Kerry is sworn in Howard Dean's halo will be floating over his head.
Edwards is a good guy that does well with the base. Kerry should pick him and let Dean do what he does the best, get people fired up about taking their country back.

[JI7]

3. Doosh, i like Edwards, but

Edwards is my favorite choice for vp , but don't get too excited by these reports. much of it is just rumors and there is a history of potential vp's which are most talked about not getting it.

in fact kerry was in 2000 what edwards is today. the one most talked about but ended up not getting it.

[Doosh]

4. I understand

just in the home stretch, it doesn't hurt to have your stock rising.

imho, it's down to Gephardt and Edwards, and I bet there's a dark horse pick who they're not telling us about.

[JI7]

7. both are good news for edwards

since gephardt is unlikely to run for president even if he is vp. of course being vp would give edwards an advantage when he runs for president, but as long as kerry doesn't put someone like evan bayh, mark warner, or some other who is young enough to most likely run for president later, edwards is in a good position to end up being the nominee himself. as someone else said in another post if edwards isn't vp he should try to get an ambassador type job from kerry to build up his resume on foreign policy. this would make him a stronger candidate when he does run.

[AP]

6. Kerry should have been the one running in 2000.

[Doosh]

8. either Kerry or Gephardt would've been great in 2000

[JI7]

9. he actually did consider it

but gore was the vice president and they almost always have the advantage in winning the nomination. especially since clinton's presidency was mostly seen as positive. so kerry didn't think it was worth trying to challenge gore and instead endorsed gore and worked for him. it's interesting to see some of the criticisms thrown at edwards on his "campaigning" to be vp because kerry did just about the same thing then for al gore.

[chimpymustgo]

10. I remember being so excited about either Kerry or Edwards being Gore's VP.

And then, the big letdown.

I hope Kerry won't do that to us!

[Dookus]

11. Was Edwards even on the radar in 2000?

He'd served a year, year and a half in the Senate when the campaign began.

[Doosh]

12. he was

not sure if he ended up on the shortlist though, I think Edwards in 2000 was where Vilsack was this year.

[Padraig18]

13. Yes, he was.

Those 'in the know' (campaign staff) said that edwards and Lieberman were the two finalists on Gore's list.

[chimpymustgo]

14. It was down to Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman.

JRE was a rookie, but already considered a star.

[Scoopie]

15. More press bullshit

This is from Cohen and Shelton and the WaPo knows it.
Kerry won't pay attention to that.
All of Wes's other former colleagues adore him.
I wouldn't read too much into it.

[DaveSZ]

16. Gephardt would turn off all the activists

Even Dean would be better (despite the regional balance problem), but I'd pick Edwrads or Clark over the first two.

[chimpymustgo]

17. Please read this:

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=7885

-snip-
The choice of Gephardt would reinforce every negative stereotype about Kerry in current circulation while muddying the picture of what he actually stands for. Put Gephardt on the ticket and suddenly, instead of an experienced moderate leader with a progressive bent, you have a pair that can be caricatured as two aging, pro-tax creatures of Washington, both of whom backed the president's war in Iraq for purely opportunistic reasons and both of whom want to transform the American healthcare system with a massive government give-away instead of balancing the budget. Or so some will say, and be able to argue with newfound plausibility.
-snip-

**********
I posted the article separately. It's really a must-read.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. Worse than turning off the activists

Some activists would get turned off, yes, but even more dangerous, it weakens Kerry with swing voters and with young voters. A Kerry/Gephardt ticket would soon be morphed into "This IS your father's Oldsmobile"; two old Democratic war horses from the 90's repackaged and recycled for the 21st century. The Republicans would have a field day with that ticket. Same old Liberal thinking, tired tax and spend ideas, big government and big Unions. The characterization obviously would not be fair to either Kerry or Gephardt, but that is the imagery the Republicans will try to implant in the publics mind and mood. Gephardt would weaken Kerry by re solidifying the loyalty of the soft underbelly of Republican voters who have recently begun to lean away from W.

This primary season Kerry just barely escaped the negative gravitational pull of being thought of as a political hack by many Democrats and some independents. There was a damn good reason Howard Dean caught fire. Our Congressional Democratic leadership was frequently missing in action standing up to George W. Bush, AND IT WASN'T ONLY ABOUT IRAQ. Kerry came dangerously close to being rejected by the heart of the Party in favor of a Dean insurgency. To his credit Kerry battled back, but the reasons why so many were luke warm to his candidacy at first still linger near the surface. We may be united now complaining about the Bush Administration's failed leadership, but many of us recall all too well the Democratic Party's failed leadership in the run up to the mid term elections and the war in Iraq. Just when John Kerry is finally getting to move beyond those sour memories and associations, Gephardt as his running mate would resurrect them.

So a Kerry/Gephardt ticket plays poorly with moderate Republicans looking for an excuse to bail ship, it plays poorly with Independents who rejected the "old" Democratic Party and it's constituent special interest groups, and it plays poorly with a newly emerging Democratic Party activist base. It may play well in one or two key states, but there are sound reasons why Gephardt did the worst of all of the major candidates running for President this year. Gephardt couldn't even excite his own traditional base, he couldn't turn out his voters, he couldn't hold onto their loyalty, and he couldn't raise money.

Gephardt would be the "safe bet" for VP if this race was clearly John Kerry's to lose. If John Kerry were winning in the swing states, if Bush was in serious trouble in some southern states, Gep would be your game slow down ball handling defense, employed to sit on a lead and not make any big mistakes. Gep being from Missouri would give Bush an added State to worry about while he was trying to play catch up elsewhere. Unfortunately though, I don't think this election is John Kerry's to lose. Kerry has too many perceived negatives, and too many people are invested in believing that George W. Bush is a strong leader with a clear vision. This will probably be a close election. I think picking Gephardt as his running mate would simply reinforce the negative stereotypes the Republican Party is trying to hang on Kerry, giving Kerry little solid in return.

[Doosh]

18. this article was written by Jim VandeHei and Lois Romano

where do you get Shelton from?

sounds like another conspiracy theory.

[Bread and Circus]

20. Looks like a last RW effort to keep Clark off the ticket!

Just like they did in the primaries.

[mgarretson]

21. Exactly...

I was amazed when I saw that Washington Post article because it merely restated old character assassination, without adding any context:

"Two Democrats close to Kerry said retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark's stock plummeted after the former Democratic presidential candidate received lackluster reviews from some former colleagues. "

Anyone in the know would realize that they're referring to Hugh Shelton's character assassination on Clark just as entered the Democratic primary race last year. It fails to talk about the support shown by many soldiers he led and I believe, some of his superiors.

The author of the article either accidentally left out additional context or had an ax to grind with General Clark. While I don't believe in "conspiracy theories" as a rule, it has to make you wonder when refuted character assassinations's like the "intern comment" and Shelton's "character problems" still find their way into articles months later.

[surfermaw]

22. If Gore had chosen the right man, he would be president now

yes he would be,he would have gotten so many votes , Bush couldn't have stolen the show,it should have been Edwards.

[Dinger]

23. I Hope Kerry Pays Atterntion To This

RW effort, which has been successful so far. With Clark as VP candidate, attacks won't work (They didn't in the primaries) , and their "ace in the hole," (Operation Ignore) , will not work again. I have a feeling Kerry IS paying attention to this effort on the part of the RW against Clark, and he knows it is because they are scared $hitless of Clark. I liked Edwards, but supported Clark once he entered the race. I still liked Edwards, but once he got Shelton involved in his campaign, and did NOTHING about Shelton's low-life attack on Clark, well, he lost me for good. He (Edwards) STILL hasn't said that Shelton was wrong to say what he did about Clark.