Will he or won't he? That is the question batted back and forth in the media at least as aggressively as Venus Williams and Jennifer Capriati competing on the tennis court. Just imagine it... Venus winds up, powerful sinews unloading full force as she connects with the ball, grunt of effort exploding from her lungs. You can almost see the ball flexing as it meets the tennis racket, rebounds, and flies screaming (yes, just like in the cartoons) towards the opposite side of the court.
In flies Capriati, experienced, wiry, agile, running to meet the ball, racket coming up as she prepares to send the ball spinning right back. Sweat beading her brow, and staining the court.
THAT is the kind of intensity you see currently in Washington regarding the debate over whether or not John McCain will accept John Kerry's VP candidate offer.
Would a staunch conservative like John McCain, one whose loyalty to his party is only superceded by his loyalty to his country, REALLY consider such a move? The answer to that question, of course, varies based on the person to whom you are speaking.
This weekend, an article by Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post, who is gung ho on the idea, believes McCain is giving this some thought because it might give him the opportunity to strike a blow for bipartisanship in Washington. Many in the media and in Washington have made note of the growing partisan divide in Washington, as well as across America.
Fewer moderates are making it to Washington and, increasingly, candidates for office are running, and winning, on the promise of following the party line on many major issues. Personally, I think part of it is simply that each side attempts to paint the other as partisan, and, in that sense creates even more of an image of polarization to the average person. Be that as it may, the issue of a Kerry/McCain 2004 ticket still seems to present itself as a possibility, a thought which I find disturbing.
Why do I find this image disturbing? Primarily because, as a ticket, it just might give Kerry the edge he needs in November. There are many conservatives, myself included, who have great affection and respect for John McCain. If you want to talk about a real war hero (not to take away from Kerry's service), then McCain is your guy. He fought in the Viet Nam War, was shot down and taken prisoner. Spent the next few years being tortured and abused as a POW, returned home, later to become one of the most powerful men in America.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Punditz
I was a McCain supporter in 2000. It would be too cruel to be unable to vote for him in 2004 because he'd be running with John Kerry. Your point about the view of history and your reference to Benedict Arnold is well taken also. I keep reading and keep hearing about McCain's refusal of Kerry's overtures to him. (I've read that Kerry won't actually offer McCain the job formally because he doesn't want the embarrassment of an outright rejection). I hope McCain says what he means and means what he says.
2 - Steve Rhodes
I'd say it was the Republican party who was the turncoat, not Jeffords. There were a lot of moderate Republicans and they have been leaving the party at least since John Anderson ran for President.
I don't think McCain will take the VP offer. Why subject himself to all the attacks from Rove and Bush again?
He'll get reelected in the fall and if Kerry wins, he can become Secretary of Defense if he wants to.
3 - Bob A. Booey
McCain said no.
"WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican Sen. John McCain has personally rejected John Kerry's overtures to join the Democratic presidential ticket and forge a bipartisan alliance against President Bush, The Associated Press has learned.
Kerry has asked McCain as recently as late last month to consider becoming his running mate, but the Arizona senator said he's not interested, said a Democratic official who spoke on condition of anonymity because Kerry has insisted that his deliberations be kept private. A second official familiar with the conversations confirmed the account, and said the Arizona senator made it clear he won't change his mind. "
It's too bad because that ticket would have trounced Bush-Cheney. No other VP under consideration really helps Kerry's poll numbers, although I think Edwards shouldn't be underestimated since he's such a great campaigner. He won't get the call, though.
Apparently, Kerry might consider another Republican:
"Among others mentioned as potential Kerry running mates are Sens. Bob Graham of Florida and Evan Bayh of Indiana; former Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska; and Govs. Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Mark Warner of Virginia, Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania.
Democrats say there may be a dark horse under consideration, perhaps a Republican other than McCain. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., has been mentioned as a potential pick. "
I think McCain was Kerry's best chance at getting someone to cross party lines for a two-party ticket due to McCain's personal animosity toward Bush after the 2000 primaries and McCain's maverick spirit. Hagel won't do it. He's too loyal and established within the GOP. My money's on Richardson (might be a good move because he might get New Mexico and help with the key Hispanic vote elsewhere) or Gephardt (labor, labor, labor is key to this election and so is Missouri). I hate to say it, but Gephardt's more likely since Kerry thinks he has the upper hand and will go for a safer bet. Neither will excite anyone the way McCain would have. I'd personally like to see Edwards, but I don't think Kerry has enough respect for Edwards or his populist style (which is very different from Kerry's own).
For all you haters, I think that basically counts as a blog.
That is all.
4 - Bob A. Booey
I changed my mind just now. I think Richardson's more likely than Gephardt, but just slightly. Gephardt's still more likely than Edwards. So is Evan Bayh, who'd be an uninspired and uninspiring choice and will get his share of Dan Quayle comparisons if he's picked (not for his intellect so much as his experience and credentials).
Janet Napolitano is included on that list by Kerry's staff as a token. There's NO WAY she'll get picked. Kerry hears enough talk about another Reagan-Mondale matchup and he doesn't want his own personal Geraldine Ferraro fizzle. Ed Rendell isn't a serious candidate either -- he's not staid or renowned enough to give Kerry any boost.
5 - David Flanagan
I'm betting on Gephardt. What are the Vegas odds?
David
6 - RJ Elliott
"There were a lot of moderate Republicans and they have been leaving the party at least since John Anderson ran for President."
Lots of meoderate Democrats left the Democratic Party since then as well.
In other words, the two main US political parties have become more polarized.
Blame the parties if you like. You may be right. But it works both ways.
7 - RJ Elliott
"I think McCain was Kerry's best chance at getting someone to cross party lines for a two-party ticket due to McCain's personal animosity toward Bush after the 2000 primaries and McCain's maverick spirit. Hagel won't do it. He's too loyal and established within the GOP. My money's on Richardson (might be a good move because he might get New Mexico and help with the key Hispanic vote elsewhere) or Gephardt (labor, labor, labor is key to this election and so is Missouri). I hate to say it, but Gephardt's more likely since Kerry thinks he has the upper hand and will go for a safer bet. Neither will excite anyone the way McCain would have. I'd personally like to see Edwards, but I don't think Kerry has enough respect for Edwards or his populist style (which is very different from Kerry's own)."
Great political observations, BAB. I pretty much agree.
And no, this doesn't count as a blog entry... ;)
8 - Bob A. Booey
More on the VP sweepstakes:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A50708-2004Jun17?language=printer
The article seems to make me think Gephardt's the favorite. I don't actually think Gephardt would mobilize labor unions the way people think he will -- his weak showing in his neighbor state of Iowa during the primaries should give Kerry pause when he thinks about Gephardt's ability to deliver the Midwest and states like Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio. Perhaps he can get Missouri, though.
The Biden suggestion is a revelation to me since I hadn't heard that he'd even be open to considering the spot. I think if he were willing, he'd be Kerry's likely pick for his foreign policy credentials and experience and because he'd be a very good President. The downside would be that they would be very susceptible to the "New England liberal" charges and that he's also a very prim, proper, stately Senator who might not be different enough from Kerry in style. I don't, however, think Biden will make himself available that openly to Kerry.
I'm a bit surprised that Vilsack is such a serious candidate this late in the game -- I can only speculate that Kerry is grateful for his wife's (and his tacit) support in the Iowa primaries and views Iowa as a particularly important swing state.
One interesting change is that this campaign won't be an insider-outsider campaign for the first time in a while. The last few Presidential campaigns in recent history revolved around that theme, sometimes with both candidates vying for the "outsider" mantle (as in 2000). Both Kerry and Bush are now perceived as Washington insiders and Bush won't be running on his 2000 "reformer with results" platform since he's eager to be seen as the steady, experienced hand on national security.
I'm glad to hear Edwards has the most support and buzz within the party, but I don't think Kerry will be easily swayed by the popular choice. That's not his style and the comments in the article about Kerry questioning Edwards's fitness to be President concern me. I don't think he'll pick Edwards, sadly, but I do hope he picks someone who can at least deliver a key swing state. They say Graham has never lost an election in Florida, but I'm not sure he's charismatic enough to help elsewhere or that he'd do as well in debates.
Richardson wasn't mentioned once in that article, which is an error on the writer's part, but which might also mean he'll end up being that dark horse the writer talks about that seems to get chosen every time.
Clark was never a serious candidate. He's proven he's a horrible campaigner -- one of the worst in recent memory who ruined perhaps the best pre-announcement buzz for any non-pol since Eisenhower -- and is now regarded by much of the political establishment as eccentric, unreliable, and unelectable. In theory, a four-star Southern general would be the ideal complement to Kerry to bolster his national security credentials, but not this general.
That is all.
9 - Bob A. Booey
Geniuses....
10 - boomcrashbaby
America seems to have a fascination with bad actors in government positions (Reagan, Schwartzenegger).
Both actors with no political experience pretty much stomped all over their competition in the elections.
So I nominate Vin Diesel for VP. We'll win the NASCAR Dad vote (by replaying fast and furious over and over again), he's proven he's as much an action star as Arnold, but he speaks with more clarity), he can take off his goggles and strike fear in the hearts of terrorists with his penetrating red eyes, he can win over soccer moms (we need to give him all the tank tops his wardrobe will allow), and since Hollywood and the media cannot say anything bad about an actor in Washington, we don't have to worry about press coverage.
Plus, I'd MUCH rather see his mug on CNN all the time, than Cheney's.
11 - Ms. Tek
Actually, I want THE ROCK!!
12 - boomcrashbaby
In one way or another, don't we all.
13 - Bob A. Booey
Here's the latest on the VP selection process for Kerry:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040623/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_24
It appears Edwards is moving up. Drudge reports Terry McAuliffe, the DNC head, favors Edwards and the BIG push is that the unions have told Kerry to pick Edwards by a 90% vote. That number is surprising to me and leads me to believe that Gephardt might not get the call after all since his big strength has always been union support. I think Edwards might even be the front-runner with that news about the AFL-CIO.
I actually think Kerry might have even offered Edwards the job today -- hence the extra cryptic secrecy in that short meeting and in Edwards's comments afterwords (very unusual for as voluble as Edwards is). I'm shocked by this turn of events but I think it's very likely that Edwards might be the guy now. That's my instinct from the secrecy and the closed-door Democratic lunch -- the celebratory tone of the comments and the description lead me to believe he's already told his colleagues of his choice. It's a done deal, I believe, regardless of whether or not it's Edwards. It's very possible that the short meeting was a somber one and that he told Edwards he was going with someone else, but either way, I believe Kerry has made his choice and that the Democrats know who it is. It'll be interesting to see how fast it leaks -- I'd guess a matter of days.
There might be truth in McCain's joke, so I think Edwards is the guy. The fact that the head of the DNC is talking up Edwards this late in the game is a good sign that the overwhelming support for Edwards has convinced Kerry -- Terry McAuliffe would be among the first to know Kerry's decision and there's little chance something like that would leak if deliberations were still ongoing. It'll be interesting to see how far before the convention they'll announce it officially. It could be within a couple of weeks.
If it's between Gephardt and Edwards (and it probably is), I now think Edwards will win out since he has big labor behind him.
I'm surprised to see the list of people Kerry has taken seriously and vetted. I'm surprised Bill Richardson seems to have fallen out of the picture. Mark Warner, as expected, never became a serious candidate.
I'm a little surprised Bob Graham's still taken so seriously, but he does have the electoral history in Florida and a fairly strong record on national security as well from his committee work in the Senate. That could make him the dark horse, but I don't think Graham would be an exciting enough campaigner and Kerry wants an energetic campaign that will shake things up.
Vilsack has to be at the back of the pack unless Kerry knows something I don't about his grip on Iowa and the Midwest. It appears he hasn't been interviewed, though.
I never want to hear any of you complain about my "not blogging" again. This is higher quality analysis than you'll find on any amateur politics blog you read.
That is all.
14 - Bob A. Booey
None of you have any idea who these people even are, but I'll give you one last update on the VP business:
Richardson did get an interview after all, it was reported a few days ago. It was, however, later than the other candidates, which makes me wonder. I think he's clearly the dark horse on the outside of a 2-man race, with the favorites now appearing to be Edwards and Vilsack according to the latest news. Both men have been giving de facto stump speeches in the past week.
Richardson would be different from either of those two candidates and could benefit if Kerry doesn't believe Vilsack or Edwards is qualified or experienced enough. My guess is it will be Edwards (who will win out over Vilsack), but Richardson is also very possible.
Now back to your uninformed lives.
That is all.
15 - RJ Elliott
Edwards has several advantages:
He's likeable
He's attractive
He's articulate
He has an inspiring life story
He's moderate
He could win North Carolina for Kerry
He would help Kerry in other close Southern states, like Arkansas and Virginia
However, he also has some disadvantages:
He has little experience
He isn't the "attack-dog" type, and that is usually the main role of running mates in a campaign
He's a lawyer, and people tend to distrust lawyers
He looks much younger than he is, and the elderly (who are the demographic most likely to vote) might not be so enamored by this apparent youthfullness
Anyway, I think he's the guy. But Bill Richardson would still be a fine pick. And Gephardt and Graham would be relatively poor picks. (Though Senator Nelson of Florida would be a great dark-horse choice, in my opinion.)
16 - Bob A. Booey
Nelson was mentioned early on, but Graham seems to be Kerry's man if he wants the Florida vote. What do you think about Vilsack, RJ? He's a relative stranger to me. Don't underestimate Edwards and his ability to win an argument, particularly in the debates -- the man is renowned as THE greatest, most persuasive trial lawyer in North Carolina history and a legend among litigators throughout the country. No President or Vice Presidnet has ever had his track record in front of a jury. He never lost and that's why I'm excited about the prospect of him debating without worrying about decorum and establishing himself as he did in the Democratic primaries, where he seemed to be holding back. The fact that he's sunny and doesn't seem vicious belies his skill for argument.
I think one motivation for Kerry's likely choice of Edwards is also that he's now down in the polls and Bush seems to be rebounding from the prisoner abuse scandal. I'm not sure what the reasons for this are -- perhaps perception of an upturning economy? Bush won't dump Cheney, but if he did, he could help lock up the election now.
Smart money says Bush wins this election, but it'll really come down to positions, ads, and events in the last 6 weeks.
These goofs say there should be a Bush-McCain ticket:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/203800p-175871c.html
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3099.html
I think that's a non-starter, though, because McCain doesn't like Bush and they differ too much in policy. Bush is threatened by mavericks and perceives everything as disloyal so it's laughable to think that he'd have McCain as his #2 since McCain likes the public spotlight and isn't the self-styled, dark back-room cloak-and-dagger operator Cheney is. Keep in mind too that McCain didn't firmly reject the Kerry VP overtures for weeks -- that should give you your answer for how loyal he is to George W Bush.
Plus, when he officially said no to Kerry, he said no to the idea of a Bush-McCain ticket as well:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/20/mccain.vp/
'Asked whether he might consider replacing Vice President Dick Cheney -- who has a lengthy history of heart disease -- on a GOP ticket, McCain said, "I would not, and I believe that Vice President Cheney has done a fine job."'
17 - Bob A. Booey
Here's the latest bombshell from Drudge, who also claims that the VP selection may be as soon as Tuesday:
http://www.drudgereport.com/kerryhrc.htm XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED JUNE 30, 2004 11:18:25 ET XXXXX VICE PRESIDENT HILLARY; SPECULATION INTENSIFIES IN WASHINGTON
Official Washington and the entire press corps will be rocked when Hillary Rodham Clinton is picked as Kerry's VP and a massive love fest will begin!
So predicts a top D.C. insider, who spoke to the DRUDGE REPORT on condition he not be named.
"All the signs point in her direction," said the insider, one of the most influential and well-placed in the nation's capital. "It is the solution to every Kerry problem."
[...]
The insider continues: "The Democrats feel like health care is the domestic issue. But how to make it the dominant topic of conversation -- break through war and terrorism? Hillary Clinton. She catapults it out front with her commission. She tried to provide health care before and the Republicans in congress attacked her and her husband and used a bunch of scandals dirty tricks to stop it, we know they are scandals and dirty tricks because the former president book says so. So now you have the number two person on the ticket who is a 'health care expert' and what will Republicans do? Attack on health care pointing to her commission saying that it was government medicine. Her response -- it wasn't, and the Republicans are a bunch of dirty tricksters, "Liars and Crooks," as Kerry calls them, and its been too long and Democrats wont let the Republicans do it to them again. By the way, it puts prescription drugs on the back burner, the Republicans health care ace. You will have a fully engaged national debate on health care from now until the election." MORE
[...]
"There are differences of opinion about how this election will be won but one school says its all about the base. Republicans are bumping up against the ceiling with support from their base and Democrats are sitting on the floor. This would change that.
"Official Washington and national media will fall in love with the idea immediately letting Kerry/Clinton dominate the news through July and up to the Republican convention. She will say she is doing it for the good of the country. I am convinced this is going to happen." MORE
"But what Hillary about having to wait to run for president? If Bush wins then she is the nominee for 2008 because it will be all Kerry's fault. If she wins she is the first woman VP of the United States, which would help her become the first woman president of the U.S. It would be historic in its own right and change the nature of politics in this country, and mark her place in the history books for ever-- a different history than her husbands." Developing...
I'm not sure what to make of this story. My initial reaction was hoax or that it was bad info. I don't know if I believe that Hillary wants the VP spot since conventional wisdom was that the Clintons wanted a free shot in 2008. However, I think that Bush's misfortunes and Kerry's staying power in the polls may have convinced them that now is as good time as any to win the White House for the Democrats and play from a position of strength in 2012 (when she would be in her 60s and established as a woman of state). The thinking in the Clinton group months ago was that Bush would win this election handily and that it was better for Hillary to sit out the primary fight since she'd have an easier time against Jeb Bush or Giuliani or whoever the GOP put up in 2008. I think it's very possible that that logic has now been rejected since W is such a polarizing figure. There have been reports that Kerry now consults Clinton on the campaign once a week over the phone, but for the Hillary VP rumors to be true, these two camps would have to be much closer than is usually presumed. One calculation could be the Clintons' admiration (and perhaps fear) of John Edwards as the future of the Democratic Party. I think Bill is legitimately worried that Hillary couldn't beat Edwards through a long primary season, especially with his experience on the stump. Similarly, I think the possibility of a GOP candidate like Giuliani (for all his quirks and lack of polish) also scares the Clintons since he would compete for New York's electoral votes. If this story is true, it would be because of a shift in their thinking about 2008. They would have to view Bush as now eminently beatable and realize that Hillary would be the presumptive nominee in 2012 if Kerry wins and she's the VP; running with him might also boost her primary prospects in 2008 if he loses and get much of the negative backlash against her out of the way now.
A couple of things strike me about this "scoop," though. First, the quotes attributed to the "source" are rather poorly written and don't seem like the syntax a journalist would use. I suppose it could be the words of a Dick Morris, who often takes controversial stands and isn't known for his flowery prose, but I can't really conceive what insider this could be. Secondly, I have a hard time believing that "health care" is the reason Hillary would be chosen. The baggage associated with her on health care is almost entirely negative and she's generally been blamed for one of the biggest legislative flops in recent history -- I don't know if the GOP would mind reviving the talk of "socialized medicine." I DO think health care is important to people and that it's key to blue-collar workers in swing states. I also think it's possible that people have forgotten the failed Clinton health care reform and that their motivation to get insurance for the uninsured will trump their faint memory of the debate in the early 1990s. I don't know that Hillary is the best spokesperson or an icon for health care reform.
If this is true, it's exciting news. While a Kerry-Clinton ticket would revive some talk of Mondale-Ferraro simply for the reason that Hillary is a woman, I think that's mistaken since Hillary would energize the Democratic base and similarly mobilize the anti-Clinton forces on the right. She would give Kerry a boost initially and would dominate the news cycle for weeks.
One reason to take this story seriously would be since this election will be decided on the gender gap more than anything. It's generally assumed that Kerry, like Clinton and Gore, will win the female vote. But what's usually not discussed is the importance of fence-sitting women voters in conservative families in key swing states. There's a lot of talk about NASCAR dads and the suburban male vote and how closely divided Kerry and Bush are in swing states. The election has been characterized as a taffy pull for those male votes on national security, but winning a higher percentage of the female vote (which Hillary would undoubtedly deliver, particularly among minority communities) would make this a somewhat moot issue. One reason some women favor Bush is because they have more acutely perceived the threat of terror post 9/11 and feel safer with him protecting national security. While this silly belief will still remain in the minds of many, identification with Hillary would resonate in the minds of many of these women and boost Kerry's standing. The risk is that this would cost Kerry male votes by "feminizing" the ticket and alienating Southern white males (who are probably a lost cause anyway) and perhaps some of the blue-collar workers and NASCAR Dads in the Midwest.
I think Kerry would be a bit bold to think he had national security locked up since Bush is still ahead in those surveys and that will be Bush's campaign menu: a main course war president/national security, a side of the culture war/gay marriage and playing defense on the economy for dessert. However, I don't think any of the other names frequently mentioned for VP boost his national security credentials either. Kerry needs the black vote, he needs women, he needs the South -- Hillary isn't a Southerner the way Bill was, but she could help Kerry's prospects in states like Arkansas somewhat while greatly helping him among blacks, women, and Nader-leaning independents who were formerly true-blue Clinton backers and grew up under the Clinton administration.
Perhaps more importantly, it would also eliminate any dissonance and distraction between Kerry's campaign and Clinton's book tour, something the Kerry campaign has been conspicuously unworried about. Bill would be freed up to be the "attack dog" and make the persuasive case against Bush on multiple fronts in key states he carried like Oregon, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, Michigan, and New Mexico. That's a role Clinton would relish and the Bush campaign would dread. If Clinton is a de facto stump partner, he more than makes up for his wife's cold stump speeches and basically guarantees the Democratic core.
I think it would be a bold move from both camps of the Democratic Party and I think Kerry should do it. I have my skepticism about the veracity of this report, but this could be historic in several ways and boost our chances in November.
That is all for now.
18 - Bob A. Booey
Well it sure wasn't Dick Morris, who's now based in New York rather than Washington anyway. Morris would have written it up in his NY Post column. I'm thinking it has to be someone like that, though, a former Clinton operative. Not Carville since he's not really in politics anymore, but someone who still works in the Democrat establishment (probably on the Hill).
http://mediamatters.org/items/200406160010
"Matthews's comment echoed recent remarks made by right-wing pundits and came during a June 14 discussion with Hardball guest Terry P. Jeffrey, editor of the conservative weekly magazine Human Events.
From the June 14 edition of Hardball:
MATTHEWS: Well, maybe they [President George W. Bush and Clinton] have a mutual -- maybe they have a mutual interest in a Democrat not winning this November. Am I the... [laughter] cynic?
JEFFREY: Well, that may be true, too.
MATTHEWS: You would agree with that, too, Terry, wouldn't you? You're laughing because you know he would rather keep that seat warm for Hillary than have it filled by that guy from Massachusetts [Kerry].
JEFFREY: Well, I think that's exactly right, Chris. I think that Bill Clinton right now basically is Hillary Clinton's campaign manager for 2008. If John Kerry is elected in November, that's bad news for the Clintons. I do believe they would like to see George Bush reelected.
Also on June 14, radio host Rush Limbaugh made similar comments during his national broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: What's happening today is the build up to the big Bill Clinton book. We're getting ready for Bill Clinton summer, not John Kerry summer. And it's all starting to make sense to me. This isn't about electing Kerry. It never has been. It's about Hillary in 2008.
One day earlier, Dick Morris, the onetime Clinton adviser turned FOX News Channel political analyst -- and author of Rewriting History, "a rebuttal to Hillary's bestselling autobiography [Living History]" -- was a guest on Internet gossip Matt Drudge's radio show and made similar claims. From the June 13 broadcast:
MORRIS: I think if there's one fundamental reality about this election, it's that Bill Clinton does not want John Kerry to win, because he wants Hillary to have a complete shot on goal for the year 2008, should they want an open White House to run on.
And on June 15, David N. Bossie -- the discredited former Republican congressional staffer, longtime Clinton-basher, and author of the forthcoming book The Many Faces of John Kerry: Why this Massachussetts Liberal is Wrong for America -- was a guest on MSNBC's Scarborough Country, where he echoed Matthews and right-wing pundits Limbaugh and Morris:
BOSSIE: He [Bill Clinton] is clearly trying to affect this election. And I don't think it's for John Kerry's interests. As a matter of fact, the only way Bill Clinton gets back into the White House is if his wife is elected. And that's, in my opinion, how they calculate. And the Clintons calculate everything they do.
— K.B., N.C. & A.S.
Posted to the web on Wednesday June 16, 2004 at 5:44 PM EST"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200406210007
From the June 20 edition of NBC's The Chris Matthews Show:
MATTHEWS: Is she [Hillary Clinton] a live contender for 2008? I think so.
[...]
MATTHEWS: Does Hillary Clinton want Kerry to win this year if she wants to be president in 2008?
PAGE: In her heart of hearts, no, she does not want him to win because she wants to run four years from now. However, she is a Democrat and she's got to be very careful -- her, and her husband. They've got to put on a big show whether they want Kerry to win or not."
19 - Bob A. Booey
Here's Hillary ruling out the VP gig yesterday before the Drudge story broke:
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2004/June/29/local/stories/01local.htm
"I think the administration has been both wrongheaded and incompetent and should not be rewarded," Clinton told reporters Monday afternoon at the Panetta Institute of Public Policy at CSU Monterey Bay.
[...]
As for Bush’s likely Democratic opponent in November, U.S. Sen. John Kerry, Clinton said he was running a smart campaign, focusing on so-called battleground states such as Michigan, Ohio and Arizona.
"Senator Kerry is ahead of President Bush in those very important places," she said.
Clinton has at times been the object of speculation about being Kerry’s running mate, but she said she wasn’t interested in the vice president job.
"I am not interested in being considered," she said.
During the evening lecture, Clinton was asked by Panetta, a former congressman who later served as her husband’s chief of staff, whether a woman would be elected president during their lifetimes.
"It depends on how long we live," she said to laughter from the crowd at the Embassy Suites Hotel.
Women shouldn’t be pegged as having distinct political qualities different from men, but are united by issues such as women’s health and child safety, she said.
"There are some common experiences women have that might come into play," Clinton said.
She addressed many issues for which she has become known, particularly health care.
Clinton said health-care problems facing the country haven’t changed since 1993 — when she headed an ill-fated task force on health care — except that there are even more challenges.
As in 1993, health-care costs continue to rise and many Americans lack insurance.
"Ten years later, we still have those problems," Clinton said.
Now, they are compounded by emerging science like the mapping of the human genome — a development that could tailor health care to an individual, but could also mean discrimination for those genetically inclined to certain ailments.
"The bad news is it makes us all uninsurable," Clinton said.
Clinton said she favors a Kerry proposal that would enable the government to act as a re-insurer for catastrophic cases that could wreak havoc on private group-insurance plans, for example.
Also, she said she favors stem-cell research, something the Bush administration opposes. That issue has gained momentum with the recent death of President Ronald Reagan.
The United States is being left behind on that front, she said.
"Europe and Asia are going full steam ahead with stem-cell research," Clinton said.
20 - Bob A. Booey
A poll shows Democrats nationwide favor Edwards over Hillary. This was taken before the latest news and I discount this somewhat because it wasn't considered even a remote prospect when this poll was taken. The question is whether Kerry would view Hillary as more experienced and "Presidential" than Edwards.
www.news-record.com/news/government/dyer_062804.htm
Democratic activists are gaga over the possibility of Kerry choosing the rich 51-year-old former trial lawyer who spent his teen-age years in northern Moore County.
A poll of registered Democrats conducted earlier this month for The Associated Press showed a plurality -- 43 percent -- preferring Edwards.
Following him were Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt at 19 percent; retired Gen. Wesley Clark of Arkansas at 18 percent; and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack at 4 percent. A quarter said they were unsure or offered another name.
Even when New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's name is injected, Edwards comes out on top.
But just because Edwards is popular doesn't mean Kerry will recruit him for service.
He's a rousing speaker who sparked a fire during the campaign with his message about the nation being divided between a privileged elite and regular Americans.
But some of Kerry's comments indicate that he wants a seasoned leader a heartbeat away from the presidency. Edwards' newness to public service could overshadow his sparkle on the stump.
Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill told a newspaper last month that developments in Iraq highlight the need for a running mate who has "the stature to step into leadership should that necessity arise."
Putting experience issues to the side, Kerry might not cherish having someone such as Edwards on the ticket whose electrifying style could reflect poorly on the New Englander. The Economist magazine has called him the "dull-as-ditchwater senator."
21 - Bob A. Booey
Breaking news:
The New York Post has just reported that Gephardt will be Kerry's pick. I'm not sure about the quality of the Post's reporting, but if it's true, I think it's a very safe but uninspired pick. Gephardt has shown that he's lost his touch somewhat with labor unions throughout the primaries and Edwards received the vast majority of union support during the vetting for VP candidates. As I've written before, Kerry does trust Gephardt and thinks he could be President if necessary, but I don't know that this will energize the electorate or get Kerry what he wants in the South and rural areas of the Midwest. There was a recent article that discussed Gephardt's increasing irrelevance in his home state of Missouri as well. People interviewed said that Gephardt had virtually no reach outside the St. Louis metro area since he never visited the Kansas City area or rural areas except during his two failed presidential bids. This doesn't bode well for Gephardt delivering Kerry for Bush. Political scientists and pollsters say we vastly overrate the value of VP picks and that they really only make for interesting gossip fodder rather than a real effect on poll numbers, but I think Edwards could have been a compelling campaigner who might have made the critical difference in a close election. Even Vilsack would have been more likely to deliver Iowa than Gephardt is to deliver Missouri.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aAl9cDek19wg&refer=top_world_news
"July 6 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry will name Richard Gephardt, a congressman for Missouri, as his vice presidential running mate, the New York Post reported on its Web site, without saying how it obtained the information.
Gephardt, 63, has been a member of the House of Representatives for 28 years, the newspaper said, adding that he may be named as Kerry's vice-presidential candidate today."
The Kerry campaign will hold a rally in Pittsburgh at 9 am to announce the decision. Drudge reports that 3 placards have been printed: Kerry-Edwards, Kerry-Gephardt, and Kerry-Vilsack.
There was speculation that it would be Edwards due to a last-minute secret meeting with Edwards on Thursday night.
Kerry spent the 4th of July with Vilsack, which led to some thinking it'd be him.
Bill Richardson of New Mexico withdrew his candidacy last week, but I believe he would have made the final cut if he were serious about being VP:
http://www.tribnet.com/24hour/politics/story/1472679p-8890028c.html
CNN reports that Joe Biden and Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois also ruled themselves out during the process:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/05/kerry.vp/index.html
I think the Kerry campaign is in trouble and I have thought as much for the last couple of weeks. Bush has shown remarkable resiliency and bounced back in the polls and Kerry's advertising and stump speeches haven't seemed to deliver a message that connects with voters. I think Bush will win this election, sadly. Not because of this VP pick, but I think that Kerry's "safe" choice demonstrates that he'll run a conservative campaign that will fail to shake up people enough to unseat Bush. I think Kerry's taking too many things for granted and thinks he's in better position than he really is.
22 - Bob A. Booey
New York Post reports Gephardt will be Kerry's VP pick ....
Sorry, that sentence should have read "doesn't bode well for Gephardt delivering Missouri for Kerry."
I have Bush on the mind. Oh, and the President too.
23 - Bob A. Booey
The NY Post article on Kerry picking Gephardt from an hour ago:
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/26839.htm
"July 6, 2004 -- EXCLUSIVE
John Kerry has chosen Rep. Richard Gephardt, the veteran congressman from Missouri, to be his running mate, The Post has learned.
[...]
He's has an extensive political résumé, but he may be too experienced. Gephardt could be viewed by voters as too much of a Washington insider.
There was early speculation that Kerry was going to make a bold choice by crossing party lines and asking Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) to join the ticket. But McCain embarrassed Kerry by publicly declining.
Then many thought Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) would be the one, when it was learned he had cut short a family vacation at Florida's Walt Disney World last week so he could rush to see Kerry in Washington.
They met Thursday, according to sources close to the Kerry campaign.
But the sources also noted that Kerry held positive meetings with Gephardt and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack.
Many Democrats had urged Kerry to turn to his former opponent Edwards, 51, whose youthful appearance and sunny campaign style during the primary made him a favorite among party activists.
Edwards also could have been competitive in the south, and the choice of Gephardt could be a sign that Kerry is "writing off" that region.
Edwards also lacked experience. He is a one-term senator whose lack of seasoning in foreign affairs could have made voters nervous about his ability to assume the presidency during a war or an international crisis.
It was thought that Kerry felt more comfortable with Gephardt than any of the other candidates. He even said he would have supported Gephardt if he were not running himself. Vilsack, 53, was the least known of the top contenders.
The Iowa governor was believed to be personally liked by Kerry and also hailed from the Midwest — but he was virtually unknown to voters."
Gephardt, 63, a 28-year veteran of the House of Representatives, could be named by the presumptive Democratic nominee as the party's vice-presidential candidate as soon as today.
The Massachusetts senator was set to announce the winner of the veep-stakes at a rally this morning in Pittsburgh, according to several reports last night. "
24 - Bob A. Booey
More on Gephardt as Kerry's VP:
Here's that article I referenced earlier about Missouri's pols preferring Edwards to their native son Gephardt:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GEPHARDT_AS_VEEP?SITE=MOSTP&SECTION=HOME
MSNBC's excellent First Read said a couple of weeks ago that the real insiders have been predicting Gephardt all along and that only amateurs thought it might be Edwards. The revelation about Bill Cohen as a possiblity was new to me and he might be the last potential dark horse if Kerry's run a bootleg play on us all today.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3626796/
"MSNBC's Becky Diamond says of Kerry's looming decision that for Kerry, the pick is critical as the latest polls show many Americans not having an opinion about him, and this will be a big chance to showcase his platform and image and introduce himself to the American people. As one pollster said to her, "the public is going to learn so much about John Kerry from this choice."
On the timing of the announcement, one source tells Diamond that Kerry has solicited responses from his finance team. This source says "the campaign is asking everyone -- to get everyone's sense." Yet another Democratic source who knows Kerry well told Diamond that Kerry "labors over big decisions," adding that he "hasn't made an important decision in his life until the last possible moment."
Several sources framed the choice for Diamond in this way: Does Kerry go for a short-term boost and pick an Edwards, or does he go for a long-term strategy that is less sexy, like Biden, Gephardt, Graham or Bill Cohen? Diamond says Cohen's name came up in several conversations with Democratic sources, who pointed out that independents would love him, he has an African-American wife, and he's someone who was close to Teresa Heinz Kerry when she was married to her first husband.
One Democratic source tells Diamond there are two circles of Democrat: the "smarter" circle saying that Kerry will select Gephardt, and the less informed circle saying it will be Edwards. This source warns the press to brace themselves for new names that will be leaked or floated in the coming days and weeks, pointing to Senators Nelson and Graham of Florida, Cohen, and Virginia Gov. Mark Warner.
A Democratic source who knows Kerry well tells Diamond he is most likely to pick someone with whom he is comfortable, and bets on Gephardt, who probably won't run for president again so has no other aspirations than to serve with Kerry. He also can step in and become president at any point. He plays mistake-free ball, stays on message, will do the dirty work, could make labor happy, and most importantly, is liked and trusted by Kerry. Diamond notes that in December when she asked Kerry who he would have voted for in the primaries had he not sought the nomination, he paused, then said, "Dick Gephardt."
A Democrat who knows Kerry well tells Diamond it's hard to imagine Kerry picking Edwards or Vilsack because Kerry "won't want to be looking over his shoulder at complications -- like other aspirations." This source says Edwards' campaigning for the running-mate slot is "a terribly bad decision." Diamond notes Kerry was overheard in February complaining about Edwards to his staff, saying "what makes this guy think he can be president," and pointing out that he had only served one Senate term."
25 - Shark
Lakers in six!