A little political news here as it regards John Kerry. Washington Whispers, sort of the political gossip page of the U.S. News and Daily -- what is the name of that stupid -- U.S. News & World Report. I'm getting it confused with the Weekly World News. U.S. News & World Report at Washington Whispers is like their gossip page, and I got it here in the stack somewhere, and the American Spectator picked up on this. I read it yesterday and it says don't believe all this talk about the VP option still being open, that it's pretty much settled. It's Gephardt, that big labor has told John Kerry that's who it's going to be. The AFL-CIO has pretty much put their foot down and said it's going to be Gephardt. And the American Spectator has this quote from an AFL-CIO lobbyist. "Gephardt better darn well be the pick. We've done too much for Kerry to get screwed this way. A governor from Iowa ain't going to cut it for our membership. It's been tough enough selling Kerry to some of our people."

You know, the quotes that the American Spectator comes up with every day from inside the Kerry campaign are just juicy. They're just fabulous. So here's a union thug, "This better darn well be Gephardt. It ain't going to cut it if some governor from Iowa shows up." He's talking about Tom Vilsack. "I mean, it's tough enough for us to get half our membership ginned up about Kerry anyway. He better not screw us this way." So they've laid the law down. Get ready for Dick Gephardt, folks. Missouri, a swing state.


There is a bit of variance here between the U.S. News & World Report and American Spectator piece on the subject of Gephardt being Kerry's VP. Here's the American Spectator -- well, before I give you the American Spectator, the U.S. News & World Report story says basically it is Gephardt, that the decision has been made, and Kerry has been told that's the way it's going to be. The Spectator has that version, but says the reason the AFL-CIO is mad all of a sudden is because Kerry has done a 180 and changed his mind and may be set to double-cross the AFL-CIO and so that's why this union thug here is sounding sort of threatening to Kerry. I love the Spectator. I don't know where they find this stuff. They get it from inside the Kerry campaign. There are people inside that campaign that are talking. And get this story. "Al Gore devised the logo for his 2000 presidential campaign bumper sticker on a cocktail napkin, so it's no surprise that Kerry has one-upped him. Kerry personally redesigned the retooled exterior art on his presidential campaign airplane, drawing pictures of how he wanted large American flags placed on the fuselage of his jet. One of his staffers said, "He wanted flags that appeared to be waving in the wind. He wanted the plane to be more patriotic and upbeat. This was Senator Kerry's idea all the way."


So apparently in the midst of his presidential campaign, he's got time to sit around and design the paint scheme of his jet, and that's the Spectator's take on this. He's designing logos, and he wants the logo to appear upbeat and patriotic. Apparently he doesn't have enough to focus on, or perhaps he's looking to escape the really tough decisions like his vice presidential nominee selection. "Kerry is to meet with senior AFL-CIO leaders in Atlantic City today, and that happened this morning, where he will speak to the national conference of the union, but also get an earful from the leadership over his veep selection. As The Prowler reported six weeks ago, the AFL-CIO has been telling supporters that Gephardt was basically a lock as the veep, increasingly union bosses have been hearing that Gephardt is no longer in the running, and that's when the AFL-CIO lobbyist comes in and says, "Gephardt better darn well be the pick. We've done too much for Kerry to get screwed this way. A governor from Iowa, that ain't going to cut it for our membership. It's been tough enough selling Kerry to some of our people." So it appears that there's trouble in paradise out there in the Kerry campaign.

In short, labor unions do not want anyone other then Gephart.

Gephardt would kill the ticket.  I hope he gets the nomination.  :P

Gephardt would kill the ticket.  I hope he gets the nomination.  :P


Yes I somewhat agree, I think Gephart wouldn't help near as much as possibly Edwards, but he does have the labor unions backing him (Gephart.)

If only Kerry could have gotten McCain...oh, well. That's neither here nor there. I think that Gephart, my personal dislike for him aside, will be fine on the ticket, though clearly not as strong as an Edwards or even a Wes Clark. Then again, I think that Kerry will handily defeat Bush once he getrs his campaign in gear (and there is still plenty of time, naysayers  :P) no matter who his veep is.

If only Kerry could have gotten McCain...oh, well. That's neither here nor there. I think that Gephart, my personal dislike for him aside, will be fine on the ticket, though clearly not as strong as an Edwards or even a Wes Clark. Then again, I think that Kerry will handily defeat Bush once he getrs his campaign in gear (and there is still plenty of time, naysayers  :P) no matter who his veep is.


Here again is what some labor union thug said: ''Gephardt better darn well be the pick. We've done too much for Kerry to get screwed this way. A governor from Iowa ain't going to cut it for our membership. It's been tough enough selling Kerry to some of our people."  Gephart is in no way certain, but the huge labor unions with hundreds of thousands of people whom are currently backing Kerry will withdraw their endorsement and give it to Bush unless Kerry picks Gephart.  And these labor unions are in key battle states.  If Kerry doesn't pick Gephart, he'll be certain to lose, and the labor unions will make sure of it.

I think it is a bad idea.  I still think he should pick Edwards...then again, I thought Edwards should have been the nominee.

Funny, our local paper just printed a story the other day on how it was going to be Edwards...Of course, I don't have it and can't find it on their website, but I distinctly remember reading it.

I'm with you Dag, I wish Edwards had one, that way I'd at least have someone to vote for that I actaully liked, rather than picking "the lesser of 2 evils".


I remember reading a few months back that Kerry had approached Edwards about being his running mate, but Edwards turned him down.  The story didn't really elaborate on why.

I'm with you and Dag, I wish it came down to a candidate I actually like, rather than voting for one just to get the other out of office.

It's not gonna make me change my vote one bit.  ;)

I remember reading a few months back that Kerry had approached Edwards about being his running mate, but Edwards turned him down.  The story didn't really elaborate on why.

I'm with you and Dag, I wish it came down to a candidate I actually like, rather than voting for one just to get the other out of office.


I heard that Edwards and Kerry can't stand each other. Add me to the list of people who wish that Edwards had won. Or Dean.  :-[

Several points:

First, The American Spectator is a right wing rag that often lies through its teeth.  Anything it prints should be taken with an enormous grain of salt.  (see David Brock's Blinded by the Right.

Second, why is it that labor lobbyist are "union thugs"?  Don't unions have just as much right to advocate for their candidates/issues/positions as any other group? 

Third, while I supported Dean and was impressed with Edwards I don't see Kerry as such a bad guy either.  He is more honest, more open, and certainly more progressive than lil' Georgie.

Forth, I hope Kerry picks Edwards for lots of reasons, but Gepheart is also progressive and is a long time labor advocate.

Here again is what some labor union thug said: ''Gephardt better darn well be the pick. We've done too much for Kerry to get screwed this way. A governor from Iowa ain't going to cut it for our membership. It's been tough enough selling Kerry to some of our people."  Gephart is in no way certain, but the huge labor unions with hundreds of thousands of people whom are currently backing Kerry will withdraw their endorsement and give it to Bush unless Kerry picks Gephart.  And these labor unions are in key battle states.  If Kerry doesn't pick Gephart, he'll be certain to lose, and the labor unions will make sure of it.


Why waste a nonination on Gephardt?  Does anyone really think that the labor unions are gonna immediately do an about-face and endorse Bush?  EXTREMELY unlikely after all the rhetoric that's been put out there.

Besides, the endorsement "power" of labor is close to meaningless anymore.  Gephardt pandered to Unions like there was no tomorrow, and they brought in all sorts of people to promote Gephardt in the primaries, and he was OBLITERATED by Kerry and Edwards.

Nominate Gephardt and what you have is perceived as a hopelessly-entrenched "Same old stuff" Democratic ticket.  However, throw Edwards in there and you'll get quite a few votes from southerners who usually have a soft spot in their heart for Republicans.

Another CREDIBLE possibility is Evan Bayh from Indiana.  Known as a bipartisan politician who keeps out of the dirt.  And he did a fair job as Indiana Governor.  He'd also bring in a few Repub votes, IMHO

One more note:

In the end, for all practical purposes after the election, it does not really matter one whole heck of alot WHO is the Vice President.

Other than the current VP Cheney, what VP's can you remember who did much more than play tiddly-winks while in office?  Even with Cheney, his activity has been more along the lines of military planning, with not alot of involvement in sponsoring legislation.

If Gephardt could not get things done for Unions as a Majority Leader in Congress, how does anyont think he could get MORE done in the lame-duck VP slot?

That's who I would pick if I were in Kerry's shoes. The trouble is that Dan Quayle has already stain the reputation of Indiana politicians that America won't accept them. Plus, he's too conservative for a Democrat, and that wouldn't sit too well with the black, minority or gay voters.

Another CREDIBLE possibility is Evan Bayh from Indiana.  Known as a bipartisan politician who keeps out of the dirt.  And he did a fair job as Indiana Governor.  He'd also bring in a few Repub votes, IMHO

One more note:

In the end, for all practical purposes after the election, it does not really matter one whole heck of alot WHO is the Vice President.

Other than the current VP Cheney, what VP's can you remember who did much more than play tiddly-winks while in office?  Even with Cheney, his activity has been more along the lines of military planning, with not alot of involvement in sponsoring legislation.

If Gephardt could not get things done for Unions as a Majority Leader in Congress, how does anyont think he could get MORE done in the lame-duck VP slot?


Gore did a lot while he was the VP. He did a lot of important environmental work, which has obviously been negated by W.

Don't know if Edwards would be MY choice or not but I deffinately think Edwards would be the SMART choice for Kerry. Don't get me wrong, I like Edwards. He seems honest (as honest as a polititian can get) and he is a cutie (but not a reason for voting/not voting for him). I think it will balance the ticket (north/south), and I know a lot of people will be more inclined to vote the ticket if Edwards is on it.




Cat

Don't know if Edwards would be MY choice or not but I deffinately think Edwards would be the SMART choice for Kerry. Don't get me wrong, I like Edwards. He seems honest (as honest as a polititian can get) and he is a cutie (but not a reason for voting/not voting for him). I think it will balance the ticket (north/south), and I know a lot of people will be more inclined to vote the ticket if Edwards is on it.




Cat


I agree on all points (even though I don't have to).  Right on Cat.  ;D

Don't know if Edwards would be MY choice or not but I deffinately think Edwards would be the SMART choice for Kerry. Don't get me wrong, I like Edwards. He seems honest (as honest as a polititian can get) and he is a cutie (but not a reason for voting/not voting for him). I think it will balance the ticket (north/south), and I know a lot of people will be more inclined to vote the ticket if Edwards is on it.




Cat

Edward is a "cutie"?  I guess I can see that.  Did you know the Republicans picked Dan Quayle as Daddy Bush's VP for the JFK-type sex appeal he supposedly had?  Right-wing talk show host Laura Ingraham refers to Donald Rumsfeld as "cutie-pie," there's no accounting for taste!

I like Edwards.  He got gave a pretty hard-hitting speech the other night.  He supports labor rights and talked of outlawing the practice of replacing strikers with permanent scabs. 
I know why the Rightie pundits keep saying Edwards is a bad choice for Kerry, 'coz they're AFRAID of him!

I like Edwards.  He got gave a pretty hard-hitting speech the other night.  He supports labor rights and talked of outlawing the practice of replacing strikers with permanent scabs. 
I know why the Rightie pundits keep saying Edwards is a bad choice for Kerry, 'coz they're AFRAID of him!


Personally I don't care who he picks.  Gephart may help him.

Anyone else here that they is some whispers among top GOP people that Cheney may not be Bush's vice president in 2004 (he has until September to pick a new one.)  I heard this on Fox & Friends a few days ago.  Bush wants someone who will run through his endorsement in 2008 if he wins this election.  Cheney will not do that.  There is some talk that the VP will be Rudolph Guliani (or however you spell his name) the former mayor of New York city.

Personally I believe Bush will dump Cheney, but Bush picking Guliani is as absurd to me as Kerry picking McCain.

First, to GWN2004, you haven't answered by question regarding your "union thug" remark, how come?

SEcond, I doubt that Bush will dump Chaney.  His Corporate handlers will not allow it.

First, to GWN2004, you haven't answered by question regarding your "union thug" remark, how come?

SEcond, I doubt that Bush will dump Chaney.  His Corporate handlers will not allow it.
____________________________________________________________________________
First, The American Spectator is a right wing rag that often lies through its teeth.  Anything it prints should be taken with an enormous grain of salt.  (see David Brock's Blinded by the Right.

Second, why is it that labor lobbyist are "union thugs"?  Don't unions have just as much right to advocate for their candidates/issues/positions as any other group? 

Anything the American Spectator says shouldn't be taken at all.  It should be flushed. 
The days of the elder Hoffa are over.  Unions have some political influence, but nothing approaching the power of corporate lobbysts.  Still, corporate interests are compelled to stamp out union influence as best the can.  A good starting point is demonization.  Overstate the power of the union, and talk incessently about union dues going to political campaigns.  That's what that #$%#@^ of a former Labor Secretary, Linda Chavez is doing now.

I'd like to do some research on the campaign contributions issue.  I think there's a lot of bogus information going around regarding the use of union dues, but I don't have the answer at my fingertips.

Anything the American Spectator says shouldn't be taken at all.  It should be flushed. 
The days of the elder Hoffa are over.  Unions have some political influence, but nothing approaching the power of corporate lobbysts.  Still, corporate interests are compelled to stamp out union influence as best the can.  A good starting point is demonization.  Overstate the power of the union, and talk incessently about union dues going to political campaigns.  That's what that #$%#@^ of a former Labor Secretary, Linda Chavez is doing now.

I'd like to do some research on the campaign contributions issue.  I think there's a lot of bogus information going around regarding the use of union dues, but I don't have the answer at my fingertips.


Just for yucks, Maxwell, take a look at the home page of a few large unions...

http://www.afscme.org

http://www.uswa.org

http://www.afl-cio.org

When you see the FRONT PAGE of their websites devoted to political campaigns, it is quite clear that the Unions want to use their resources to influence elections.  As I recall (+ or - 10% or so) 90% of union PAC contributions go to Democrats.  I know I am a bit naive, but I suspect that 90% of union members do not belong to the Democratic party nor vote straight DEM (or straight REP) tickets.

I forget what law it is, but the law requires a Union to disclose how much $$ it spends on political efforts, and must allow its members to deduct this amount from their dues if they so choose.

Now I agree that Union power is diminishing... greatly... as a growing number of workers reject organizing drives and see lesss and less value generated by their unions.  But it is the Union Managers themselves who boast of their "political power".

But as long as Union figures attempt to "demonize" or "beatify" politicians or lobbyists (corporate or otherwise), they can expect the same in return.  Law of the political jungle.  And, in the end, the Union leaders are mainly concerned with keeping THEIR elected positions anyway.

Interestingly, the Union Establishment is heavily lobbying for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act which amongst other things, would eliminate the long tradition of voting for/against a Union Representation by secret ballot.  Instead, the Union Management would like to be able to certify a Union by the "card check" in which workers are approached (and sometimes intimidated) by union organizers.  Why are the Unions afraid of a secret ballot?  Because under the secret ballot, they are, in the net, losing members.

WELL THIS IS IT!  There is a VERY good/high chance that Kerry will pick his vice president this weekend either on June 19th or June 20th.  I heard this on Rush Limbaugh's program, and before you try to discredit that he was reading from some newspaper, besides why would there be a reason to lie about this?  Anyway its down to only 3 choices: John Edwards for southern vote and appeal, Dick Gephart for labor unions, and Wesley Clark for military.  John Kerry has told those 3 to clear thier schedules for this weekend and he admits that he is close.  So its going to be Edwards, Gephart, or Clark.

WELL THIS IS IT!  There is a VERY good/high chance that Kerry will pick his vice president this weekend either on June 19th or June 20th.  I heard this on Rush Limbaugh's program, and before you try to discredit that he was reading from some newspaper, besides why would there be a reason to lie about this?  Anyway its down to only 3 choices: John Edwards for southern vote and appeal, Dick Gephart for labor unions, and Wesley Clark for military.  John Kerry has told those 3 to clear thier schedules for this weekend and he admits that he is close.  So its going to be Edwards, Gephart, or Clark.


Clark would be a bad choice for Kerry.  For starters, Clark is an insufferable self-promoter and if they both ended up in office, Clark would be trying to backdoor Kerry every chance he got.  Plus, Clark is volatile enough that I would not put it past him to pull out of the race after the official nomination.

Of the three, Edwards would be the man for the job.  Charismatic without the massive baggage of Gephardt.  And a southerner, which is a demographic plus.

Of the three, Edwards would be the man for the job.  Charismatic without the massive baggage of Gephardt.  And a southerner, which is a demographic plus.


There is no way in hell Kerry is going to win any of the 161 southern electoral votes.  Even if he picks Edwards, no one votes for the vice president except those labor unions that are demanding Gephart.

Clark would be a bad choice for Kerry.  For starters, Clark is an insufferable self-promoter and if they both ended up in office, Clark would be trying to backdoor Kerry every chance he got.  Plus, Clark is volatile enough that I would not put it past him to pull out of the race after the official nomination.

Of the three, Edwards would be the man for the job.  Charismatic without the massive baggage of Gephardt.  And a southerner, which is a demographic plus.



I agree on all points.



Cat

Neither will save his failing campaign.  Today according to pew Bush's job approval rating is back at 50%.  And according to their analysis (back when his rating was 42%) that if his numbers fall below 40% it would be hard for him to win, and if his numbers were at 50% or higher it would be hard for him to lose.  BYE-BYE KERRY!  Edwards, Gephart, Clark, whoever Kerry is going down!

The anti-union sentiment on this thread is just unbelievable.  I freely admit that some unoins, like all organizations (including our 2 major political parties) have succumed to corruption.  My own union, of which I have been an unpaid, voluteer officer, is run by the membership in a democratic fashion.  But to talk about union power in the same breath as corporate power is absurd.  While the AFL-CIO might have some deep pockets, it certainly comes no where close to the deep pockets of the corporate world, that contributes mightily to the GOP coffers, in massive amounts well beyond what they contribute to the Democrates.  Naturally, the coprorate giants would like to further reduce the influence of organized labor (and Geogie is certainly complying), and better still, be rid of organized labor all together.

Defending democracy takes place at all levels, so unionized woirkers need to make sure their organizations are democratic, just as we all need to protect democracy against those who would curtail it.

The anti-union sentiment on this thread is just unbelievable.  I freely admit that some unoins, like all organizations (including our 2 major political parties) have succumed to corruption.  My own union, of which I have been an unpaid, voluteer officer, is run by the membership in a democratic fashion.  But to talk about union power in the same breath as corporate power is absurd.  While the AFL-CIO might have some deep pockets, it certainly comes no where close to the deep pockets of the corporate world, that contributes mightily to the GOP coffers, in massive amounts well beyond what they contribute to the Democrates.  Naturally, the coprorate giants would like to further reduce the influence of organized labor (and Geogie is certainly complying), and better still, be rid of organized labor all together.

Defending democracy takes place at all levels, so unionized woirkers need to make sure their organizations are democratic, just as we all need to protect democracy against those who would curtail it.

No surprise.  Labor Unions are among the most demonized institutions in contemporary America.  Like I say, right-wingers feel entitled to pound any Left-leaning cause without mercy (and with scant attention to reality), but criticize billionaire CEOS and their corporations, and the same right-wingers act like you're talking about their own virgin daughters.
This is the result of corporate propaganda day in, day out, year in, year out on television.  Television and commercial radio owe their entire existence to corporate advertising dollars.  Think the labor movement's gonna get a fair shake on television?  You're nuts!  (not you in particular, DC, the general "you")

"Unionized woirkers"?  Is that your imitation of a longshoreman delegate?

LyricBoy wrote When you see the FRONT PAGE of their websites devoted to political campaigns, it is quite clear that the Unions want to use their resources to influence elections.  As I recall (+ or - 10% or so) 90% of union PAC contributions go to Democrats.  I know I am a bit naive, but I suspect that 90% of union members do not belong to the Democratic party nor vote straight DEM (or straight REP) tickets.
Well, what do you think they're gonna do? Vote Republican ?
;D ;D ;D
Geeet outtta heere!  Sure, a lot of blue collar worker vote for the GOP, but the NRA lobby insures they will have many guns to shoot themselves in the foot with!  You directed me to the front pages of union sites, but I can't help but think you get your news from FRONTPAGE.COM!

Maxwell just wondering who do you want Kerry to pick?  Edwards, Gephart, or Clark, or is any good for you?

Maxwell just wondering who do you want Kerry to pick?  Edwards, Gephart, or Clark, or is any good for you?

Edwards is the best choice.  Even with Edwards, however, Kerry won't win South Carolina.

Todays buzz is the name Hillary Clinton....

NYers will love it because they will lose her as senator and the dems/liberals may go for it to rub it in the Reps. faces...

Can you imagine?

But she did say she wouldn't dessert her position if I recall...

  Surprised no one else thought of her as his choice I only read page 1 and 3 of the postings-most said Edwards)

Todays buzz is the name Hillary Clinton....

NYers will love it because they will lose her as senator and the dems/liberals may go for it to rub it in the Reps. faces...

Can you imagine?

But she did say she wouldn't dessert her position if I recall...

  Surprised no one else thought of her as his choice I only read page 1 and 3 of the postings-most said Edwards)


Yes democrats seem to have this fetish with Edwards that I have never seen in any election.  They probably feel sorry for him losing the primary or something, he wouldn't help Kerry win in any way.  Like Richardson on ''Hannity and Colmes'' said, Clark would probably be the best choice.  Kerry is running against Bush, a war time president...so doesn't someone from the military make sense?  Its such a tough choice, Edwards, Gephardt, or Clinton would be my guess for vice president.  If Kerry picks Clinton, Bush must switch out Cheney to keep up with Kerry.

Yes democrats seem to have this fetish with Edwards that I have never seen in any election.  They probably feel sorry for him losing the primary or something, he wouldn't help Kerry win in any way.  Like Richardson on ''Hannity and Colmes'' said, Clark would probably be the best choice.  Kerry is running against Bush, a war time president...so doesn't someone from the military make sense?  Its such a tough choice, Edwards, Gephardt, or Clinton would be my guess for vice president.  If Kerry picks Clinton, Bush must switch out Cheney to keep up with Kerry.

What about Colin Powell instead of D-i-c-k Cheney?

What about Colin Powell instead of D-i-c-k Cheney?


Colin Powell would be a great choice.  Would takt 50% of the black vote and screw Kerry 10 times over.  Or Rudolph Guliani, but I don't think Bush will carry New York.

oh, that just begs for a comment, but I'm afraid the auto-censors (or Hairspray) would modify it and it would lose all humor ;D

Yeah, that's why I had to spell it D-i-c-k.  I could just say "Cheney," but I like to point out how ridiculous the auto-censoring is!
;D

Colin Powell would be a great choice.  Would takt 50% of the black vote and screw Kerry 10 times over.  Or Rudolph Guliani, but I don't think Bush will carry New York.

Oh please, God No!  Not Giuliani, the Mussolini of Manhattan! Ack!
They say Powell would take a lot of the black vote away from Kerry, and he probably would.  I don't think he'd take the offer, though.  The Administration has treated him with scorn.

oh, that just begs for a comment, but I'm afraid the auto-censors (or Hairspray) would modify it and it would lose all humor ;D


LOL! ;D

"Clark would probably be the best choice.  Kerry is running against Bush, a war time president...so doesn't someone from the military make sense?" 

Yes, I have now become convinced that the arguments in behalf of Wes Clark for Vice President are overwhelming. No other candidate comes close.

Republican Ticket

Cheney's main problem is his health.  On the basis of his health he is not a really good VP candidate.  On the other hand, as a VP he has exercised more "power" than any in my memory, and I go all the way back to Ike.  With a "green" VP in that slot I'm not sure what Bush would have done over the past 3 years.

Colon Powell would not accept the VP slot in my opinion.  If he did, you would see the Repubs peel off maybe 25% of the black vote, not a bad pickup.  Unfortunately you would also have a high likelihood of some nut-job trying to assassinate him too.  :-\\

John McCain would be a good VP, but there is too much bad blood between him and Bush, so no possibility of him on that ticket.


Democratic Ticket

The "rust belt" unions are still pushing for Gephardt.  The "sun belt" unions are pushing for Edwards.  If Kerry picks Gephardt he should be taken out and have his head examined.  Gephardt is out of gas and has no new ideas nor any charisma.  On the other hand, I suspect Kerry is afraid that if he picks Edwards, Edwards' charisma will so out-shine him that he'll look like a loser.

Hillary Clinton, while I can not stand her, would probably be a big vote-getter for a Democratic ticket.  But again, would Kerry take well to a running mate whose star power is far brighter than his?  I say no, so don;t expect her on the ticket.  But stranger things have happened.

Democratic Ticket

The "rust belt" unions are still pushing for Gephardt.  The "sun belt" unions are pushing for Edwards.  If Kerry picks Gephardt he should be taken out and have his head examined.  Gephardt is out of gas and has no new ideas nor any charisma.  On the other hand, I suspect Kerry is afraid that if he picks Edwards, Edwards' charisma will so out-shine him that he'll look like a loser.

Hillary Clinton, while I can not stand her, would probably be a big vote-getter for a Democratic ticket.  But again, would Kerry take well to a running mate whose star power is far brighter than his?  I say no, so don;t expect her on the ticket.  But stranger things have happened.


I've had similar thoughts and am glad to see you express them so well. Now I don't have to. ;)