This TNR Diarist article by Martin Peretz is interesting on a number of levels. The main thrust is to make a strong case for Eliot Spitzer for Kerry's VP, and I have to say, it's the strongest argument I've heard for any one person--not to say that I'm ready yet to go along with it.
Before we get into the reflexive TNR bashing, here's an interesting tidbit Peretz discloses: he was an Edwards guy during the primaries and threw him some dosh. Sure enough, here's the evidence: $2000 to the Breck Girl. But even more interesting, Peretz's old lady (I'm assuming, if not his daughter) gave the same to, could it really be?, Howard Dean. Very interesting, to say the least, and at odds with many a rant here at dKos.
In any case, I think Peretz gives a really useful, condensed synopsis of the state of play at the moment, making the case for why he rejects the current most-mentioned ones:
...the likely candidates aren't an impressive bunch. Retired General Wesley Clark is a touch goofy, as his performance in the primary attests. And, if Clark's dalliances with Michael Moore-style extremism were too stirring, Senator Bob Graham's candidacy wasn't stirring enough. Indeed, he seems congenitally incapable of rousing excitement in anyone, and aloof dullness is hardly what the Kerry campaign needs more of. Before he became governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson spent part of a day in 1997 in Washington to interview Monica Lewinsky about a job at the U.S. mission at the United Nations. Why would anyone want to open up that can of worms again (except, of course, the Bush campaign)? Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa would be seen as political payback for the senator's victory in the caucuses. I can hear the slogan: "Vilsack, payback." Richard Gephardt speaks to the Democratic core, but the Democratic core does not win general elections. (It didn't even place him in the top three in Iowa.) I have nothing to say about Evan Bayh, either for or against, and, I suspect, neither does almost anyone else. I respect John Edwards and supported him financially in the late primaries. He'd certainly satisfy me. But Kerry won't refract well off his graces, and so I suspect he simply won't go there.
If Peretz is right, Spitzer could approximate some of McCain's vibe by channelling McCain's idol, Teddy Roosevelt...
Call me hyperbolic, but Spitzer reminds me of Theodore Roosevelt--not the TR of bluster, but the TR of remedy and of vision. "Our basic problem in the twentieth century," Roosevelt argued, "is to see that the marvelously augmented powers of production bequeathed to us by the nineteenth century be made to administer to the needs of the many rather than be exploited for the profit of the few." Roosevelt was a trustbuster, and, through trust-busting, he aimed to mute the natural avarice of capitalism...Spitzer has set himself the task of restoring the trust that has been palpably betrayed by several mutual-fund conglomerates, by many of our biggest investment banks, by scores of megacorporations, and by the big accounting firms.
...while simultaneously embodying Edwards' "two Americas" appeal:
...if anybody has labored to protect the invested savings of the citizenry, it is Spitzer who could give the Democrats a much-needed issue advantage. There is no exotic calculus about it: Spitzer is a popular hero because he is the one politician to have done something concrete for all the people. He has led the corps of state attorneys general in specific and winnable legal battles against corporate criminality.
Peretz caps his case with the argument that Spitzer will also balance Kerry out temperamentally:
...He would assure undecided voters precisely on the issues that give them discomfort with Kerry's own undecidedness, which is almost psychological, rather than merely political. With Spitzer, you really know where you and he stand. Yes, he lacks foreign policy experience. But that is Kerry's chief credential, for better or for worse, and he doesn't need to have it augmented. And, yes, he would break the old rule against nominating running mates from adjoining states. But Bill Clinton and Al Gore broke that taboo twelve years ago. New York may not be a swing state, but it is telling that, in that harshest of environments, Spitzer may now be the most popular politician there. I suspect he'd be pretty popular in Ohio and Missouri and Florida as well.
Like I said, I'm not sure I'm sold, but I'm sure going to do some more reading up on Spitzer based on this argument. I suspect, though, that it's pretty late in the game and I don't recall hearing Spitzer mentioned as someone being vetted. But it's quite likely, in any case, that a lot of what's been leaked has been a big misdirect in the interest of pulling off a grand surprise. We can only hope...