There are some sound thoughts here. Kerry does not have the nomination yet--he has not got a majority of the pledged delegates yet and endorse him though Dean, Edwards, and others have, if he turns into a contest before he has a majority, it is still a contest.
Kerry in fact has a number of defects--Morris is correct. Not just that he is a consistent extreme liberal with an indefensible voting record. The intern issue is still hanging over his head--and it is not that he had an affair with her, he did something to her "worse" which in due course will likely out, together with other of Kerry's problems. In many way, if you were running George II's campaign, Kerry is probably the Dem you would prefer to face out of the group.
I am one of those who has consistently predicted that Mrs. Clinton will be the nominee--so if she is not, I am wrong with the rest. My view was predicated on a deadlock; I suppose a deadlock that results from Kerry having a problem before he sews up the nomination is just a version of that possibility.
Mrs. Clinton has a problem with her present position--Bush has looked vunerable; if she does not run and Kerry wins it will be a long time before she gets a shot, if ever.
Under circumstances where even if Kerry runs and loses, she has a senate race in 2006 against Guliani which current polls show her trailing by 10 points. She might well lose.
So Slick Bill and his wife have been chasing the Kerry people to try to get the Vice Presidential nomination. Last week, they quit. Some people I know in DC who are close to the Republican establishment say the reason they have quit is because there is a very strong drift to promote Cheney from Vice President to a "more meaningful public role" and replace him with Guliani.
Guliani puts New York in play, helps in the polls at least in Penn; Ohio; Ill; as well as even in NJ. Does two things for Mrs. Clinton: Relects George II which leaves the White House open in 08; and, gets Rudy out of her senate race if that analysis plays out.
The Kerry not vetted yet is broader that just that he is a super-liberal. The press will help him cover that up. But he just has so many problems that have not yet been discussed, it is difficult to view him as a serious candidate.
For example his proposition that instead of making war on the terrorists, we ought to engage them in a dialogue. The guy who runs airplanes into the buildings at the center of your economic system does not exactly seem like the kind of guy you open discussions with except at the point of a gun. This kind of foreign policy view is liberal, only in the sense that Nelville Chamberlin was a Liberal. It won't sell in a Presidential campaign, not because it is a liberal policy, but because it is foolish.
Kerry has lots of this kind of stuff in his record and he just is not going to overcome it.
Mrs. Clinton's personal liberalism is not her driving political motivation. She is simply after power and she will do whatever it takes to get there. She might well be a good choice for VP (except that the President who takes her in that roll needs to wear a bullet proof vest and keep his food taster close); but if the race looks winable, she and her husband still have an outside shot at the top--and they will make a political calculation about the liklihood that Rudy will replace Cheney on the Republican ticket because if he does, she probably is not interested.
Say what you want about the Clintons, but they are not stupid. Their one and only one goal is to get Hillary into the White House. If it serves their interests to have Kerry go down in flames, so Hillary can try to snag the nomination, it will happen. If they think Bush is unbeatable, they will support Kerry, push him further to the left and let him lose in a huge way. This will make "centrist" Hillary be that much more appealing to the Dems in 2008, much like what happened after Dukakis got whipped as a liberal. Next time was "centrist" Bill to the rescue. Put nothing past the Clintons.