Soccer Moms and Nascar Dads, Joe Sixpack and "Sex & the City" Susie are not inconsequential considerations when it comes to the VP choice.
The day after Iowa, I opined that a Kerry/Edwards ticket would be invincible. I have listened to all the pundits and seen all the various combinations for the Democratic ticket dissected. I stand by my statement.
Let me attempt to speak for the lowest common denominator -- they're not all that far from me, at least when it comes to reality television addiction:
Though not so much lately, a while back I watched a bizarre contingent of myopic Democrats and sly Republicans campaign for
Hillary Clinton as the VP.
Talk about a dumb idea -- never mind the polarizing effect, there is something really distasteful about the possibility of a politician swearing she will not abandon her Senate term, then finding some tepid rationalization to do just that.
Dick Gephardt -- no way.
Let me give you the short answer to "Why not Gephardt?" He has no eyebrows. I know, I know -- what kind of a reason is that? It's the reason I have always known Dick Gephardt would never be elected President. It's the reason we haven't had a bald President since Eisenhower. It's the reason Bill Bradley and his jowly neck fat never stood a chance. If Dennis Kucinich looked like John Edwards, he would not have been a national joke, he would have been listened to and probably would have been a contender. As it was, he looked and sounded like a crazed sock puppet and so, along with his "radical" ideas, was marginalized.
Sorry, but the election will be televised. Americans are nothing if not predictable in their disdain for the physically unattractive. Dick Gephardt has no eyebrows. Sorry, Dick. Also -- Dick Cheney v. Dick Gephardt? Two Dicks on one debate stage? Ugh.
Howard Dean?
Nope. Why? The problems that pushed Dean out of contention in the primaries would rise again were he the VP candidate.
Wesley Clark, while an honourable and admirable man, is too much the statesman General and not enough the politician.
Bob Graham is too old.
Bill Richardson has sworn too many times he wants to remain Governor. Also, not as many middle Americans know who he is as the pundits seem to think.
Ann Richards is too old and too female. (I, too, would be VERY surprised if the DNC and Kerry decided THIS is the time to push the envelope with a minority or female VP candidate. Sad, but true -- there will be no Liebermanesque VP this time around. We missed our chance in 2000.)
Tom Vilsack -- I can't opine about him, I know virtually nothing about him -- and neither does the rest of America.
Same for LA's Mary Landrieu -- though she falls into the female category and thus is automatically disqualified in this hypothetical.
John McCain has stated unequivocally that he will NEVER consider it. To do an about-face would render him worthless.
Joe Lieberman -- Putative reason/popular theory:
never put a one-time VP loser up to get knocked down again.
Actual reason:
If we really want a Republican on the ticket, we'll strong arm McCain.
Bob Kerrey -- Kerry/Kerrey? Uh uh. Irrespective of his merits or flaws, Bob Kerrey is precluded from consideration solely because of his name. Bad timing.
Joe Biden -- has the name recognition, but geography works against him, as does his Senator status and lack of "glamour." (Sorry. I'm the LCD, remember.)
As far as I can tell from polls and pundits, most people have their minds made up from the start -- they will vote either for Kerry or for Bush, regardless of the VP on the ticket. So what we're really talking about is the so-called "swing voter." What the hell kind of person is a swing voter, anyway? Someone who DOESN'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KERRY AND BUSH???
OKAY, then we're basically dealing with IDIOTS, here, right? The kind of people who decide who they will vote for based on, oh, I dunno, the colour of the candidate's tie -- or the visual appeal of the VP? I know I'm oversimplifying in a pallid attempt to get inside the "mind" of the undecided voter (sorry, I just cannot bring myself to respect someone who doesn't know the difference between the two candidates at this point. In fact, if I had more time and more space and I didn't think you were already really bored reading this, I might go off on a tangent about the myth of the swing voter in 2004 -- but never mind that now).
So -- which VP candidate will bring in these so-called undecideds and swing voters?
Say it with me, people. John Edwards is the best VP choice. Major name recognition. Good looks. Youthful but not too youthful. Excellent speaker. Passionate.
Picture the debate before you imagine the content. The old, balding, evil-looking warmonger from Halliburton... and the young, passionate, articulate, moral "lawyer for the people" (never mind the "trial lawyer" spin -- most people don't know what the fuck a "trial lawyer" is).
In superficial terms, Edwards kicks Cheney's ass before wither one of them says a word in a debate. And when it comes to the actual debate, I think we can depend on Edwards to prepare more for his national VP debate with the incumbent than he EVER prepared for a multimillion dollar trial.
Edwards wins every criteria standard there is when you leave it up to the LCD.
That said, I will, of course, get behind any choice. But after several weeks of intense participation in this process and after the best possible attempt at opening my mind to other possibilities, I have come to believe what I believed the day after Iowa: John Edwards is the best choice for VP .
