It's going to be Gephardt. I came to that conclusion on Super Tuesday, and I'm sticking to it.
Kerry is risk-averse. Gephardt is a safe choice. He won't outshine Kerry; he might help win Missouri (which would give Kerry the election, if everything else was a re-run of 2000), and he has bona fides with organizaed labor and national security.
Graham will not be the pick, simply because that would mean (in the event of a Kerry victory) that the Dems would lose two Senate seats instead of just one. Likewise, rule out any Senator from a state with a GOP governor, for the same reason.
Gephardt is not really a strong choice; he has a lot of weaknesses, not least of which is that he is almost as boring as Kerry, and also that he is very old news -- he first ran for president in 1988. But what Orin's list really shows us is that the Dems do not have a very deep bench.
Another contender that Lurch has to pass up is Gore. If elected, their entire administration would be spent in fear that anytime these two sticks of wood were in the same room, someone might light a match!!
The real question is whether Kerry can put *anyone* on the ticket who won't make everyone think the roles of the two should have been reversed...
The reasons he cites for Edwards being a bad choice are in fact pretty weak. I'm putting my money on him picking Edwards.
Qwinn
Here's what an Iowa political writer says about "Viltax":
Woolson: Vilsack Used Wilson as Political Pawn
4/19/2004
By Eric Woolson
If Jonathan Wilson's nomination and subsequent Senate rejection for a position on the Iowa Board of Education demonstrate anything, it is that it is better to be one of Gov. Tom Vilsack's enemies than it is to be a "friend."
An enemy knows – or at least should know – that than adversary will take advantage of you for his or her own gain. A friend expects – and deserves – better.
Wilson, who Vilsack nominated precisely because he is openly gay, knew that some Senate Republicans opposed him. He had to know that Vilsack was setting him up so the Senate could knock him down. If Wilson should be angry with anyone, it should be with his "friend," the two-term Democratic governor. Vilsack used his "friend" to advance his own political aspirations.
For Vilsack, it's a zero-sum game. Wilson's loss is his own victory. That's because Vilsack is focused on his own nomination – that as presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's running mate. Sacrificing Wilson at that altar was just another sorry attempt to elevate himself by walking all over other people.
Vilsack, who is in the full throes of vice presidential fever, never intended for Wilson to be confirmed. To him, Wilson was nothing more that a prop in a theatrical performance designed to be an audience for a larger stage.
One only hopes that Wilson is politically savvy enough to know that he was being used – and that he didn't mind. If that's the case, he's a better friend than an opportunist like Vilsack deserves. Or, perhaps he felt the advancement of a larger cause – a broader public discourse of gay rights – was worth it. None of that changes the fact that Vilsack used him.
Whatever Wilson's motives, what transpired in the Iowa Senate will bear no semblance to the truth by the time Vilsack is finished spinning his "Profiles in Courage" tale of how he stood up to the Iowans he accuses of "bigotry."
Vilsack, a master at revisionist history, will claim that he was bold and courageous to nominate Wilson in the face of such critics. He'll claim that he is a champion of justice and equality for all Iowans because he fought like hell to win in the face of such long odds. He'll claim Wilson was rejected solely on the basis of sexual orientation. That will sound great at fund-raising receptions in San Francisco or a high-dollar brunches in New York City but, as is so often the case with Tom Vilsack, he'll be wrong on all counts.
Perhaps a few no votes were cast solely on the basis of Wilson's sexual orientation. I don't know what's in the hearts of Republican legislators and neither does Tom Vilsack. But it is clear that the overwhelming cause of Wilson's defeat was his political philosophy and the fact that voters in the Des Moines School District resoundingly rejected him because they didn't like the direction of the school district under his leadership.
If the man's policies are unacceptable in Des Moines, it's a sure bet that voters in Sioux Center, Pella, Plainfield and Iowa's other communities do not want him exerting influence over the state's educational direction and their own school districts. In other words, senators who voted no did so as representatives of their districts. To call those senators "bigots" is to smear their constituents with the same tar.
Secondly, Vilsack didn't truly fight for Wilson's nomination. All he did was put the man's name in play and then attack his critics. It's the standard Vilsack method of operation. Throw a hand grenade into a crowd, then walk away and disavow responsibility. He doesn't work with legislators. He bullies them. He talks down to them. He insults them. He is as closed minded and dogmatic as the people he criticizes as rigid religious conservatives.
He used to work that way simply because he thought he was superior to everyone else. Now he does it to advance his political career. It's difficult to know which one is worse, but neither serves the interests of our state.
http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=14915John Edwards might be a good choice if Kerry decides to compete in the South. There are rumors and theories that he might just write off the whole region (except maybe Florida). If so, then Edwards would do no good. Gephart seems to be the best choice. Hillary would overshadow him, Richardson and Rendell may not be liberal enough and McCain sits in the other team's dugout. Gephart is well known, supported the Iraq war resolution, comes from a competetive area, and has strong tie to the traditional democratic base.
