Graham and Hollings are both "out" as viable VP candidates because neither of them are capable of even winning re-election to the Senate at this point in their respective state's point in history. Times have changed. People have changed. Some have risen, while others have fallen. Graham and Hollings have fallen.Nunn, if healthy, might still be a formidable force in Georgia, but not nearly what Miller commands. Miller would actually have a shot at winning that state against Bush in 2004, even with Miller at the bottom of the Pres/VP ticket.
Frightening thought, really...that Democrats would pick someone nationally with whom they strongly disagree with ideologically in order to be competitive in only one or two additional states.
The Dems would also be able to make quite a pitch that they are "centrists" if they add a Breaux or a Miller to their Pres/VP ticket.
What you've got to remember is that 2004 has a minimum barrier. If the Dems can't show that they can take away in 2004 some of the states that Bush won in 2000, then the Dems have utterly no chance.
So if some smart Dem actually manages to hypnotize McAuliffe, Carville, and the Clintons, then the Dems will select for their VP candidate someone who stands the potential to flip 18 or more electoral votes in 2004 from Bush's year 2000 states.
Basically, that barrier means that the whole 2004 race is initially only about the states that Bush won in 2000. If the Dems can't get past that barrier, then the '04 race is O V E R.
And they probably won't be able to sway their power-structure to select someone like Breaux or Miller (or Nunn if he is healthy and still living) in 2004 to be their VP, so it's not like we have much to worry about.
Still, it's best that we be cautious about their collective level of intellect until after they have sealed their fate with some wild-eyed leftist VP candidate at their Boston Convention this year. One never knows; they might get their lucky brainflash at just the wrong time for us...