Burnt Orange Report

It really is a no-brainer isn't it? In fact, Edwards has been such a prolific fundraiser for Kerry since the end of the primaries and has been his surrogate to many Kerry events. Sounds like he has it to me.

No hurry to announce though. Keep everyone guessing, which drives the attention level up and earns free media.

By the way, Edwards will speak at the Texas State Convention this week in Houston. Come to Houston and see him!

In the end, Kerry will make his decision based on a single factor: who will help him win the presidency. Therej's every expectation that this will be a very close, hard-fought race. He can't afford to consider the wishes of senate dems at all.

That said, he doesn't have many good choices. Isn't it about damn time we had a female vice president? A good female VP pick would give Kerry a huge boost. (And might even force Bush into dumping Cheney for Rice or Hutchison). Trouble is, the dems don't have a good one to choose from.
The only nationally-known female dems are far-left polarizing figures.

So Kerry is left with cynical choices like Gephardt (a sure loser for Kerry, even if he carries Ohio), Graham/Nelson (ditto, even with Florida), and McCain (whoever floated this balloon should be fired).

Edwards is a one-note populist who happens to be a rich trial lawyer who has tried some shady cases in the past. But he's real pretty and a good bullsh*tter. Not a bad choice, though Kerry seems to dislike him.

So I'd say either Edwards or an unknown like Vilsack. No home runs here.

Okay, first point- Hutchison couldn't be Bush's running mate. The constitution states that the pres and VP have to be from different states. Secondly, if we win Ohio or Florida we win the election, period. we would have to lose 4-5 of our states from 2000 to make up for that boost and if we are able to gain ground there I don't see us eroding that much elsewhere. Finally, Vilsack is an unknown but that is a good thing. The VP gets you support because of the "VP Bounce" when the media gives you a week or two of solid positive coverage just explaining who your guy is. If you pick someone everyone already knows (Edwards) they don't cover it as much, your bounce isn't as big and you start out underperforming. If you pick someone who is unknown but has an awesome bio (like Vilsack) you could get a huge bounce. I think that Vilsack is the best choice for VP.

Andrew.. I disagree with your knowns vs. unknowns point. If you look at VP's over the last 20 years or so that have helped the ticket, versus those that have not helped. The ones that have helped were generally better known before they were picked than those who didn't help the ticket.

1980 - Reagan picks cheif primary rival George Bush. He's well known and respected and he help the ticket.

1984 - Geraldine Ferraro was an unknown and as the first woman VP nominee, she generates tons of buzz initially, but she does not help the ticket.

1988 - Bush picks an unknown, Dan Qualye for VP. Bush wins, but Qualye is an embarrassment.

1992 - Clinton picks Sen. Al Gore who had previously ran for president in 1988, and is the son of a prominent former Senator.

1996 - Kemp didn't help or hurt Dole. Dole never had a chance no matter who he picked.

2000 - Neither Lieberman or Cheney were unknowns, but neither were extremely well known. I don't think that either had a major effect on the 2000 race.

By and large though, the last several election cycles show that picking an unknown - as Andrew suggests - does NOT help the ticket. Rather, picking someone that voters know and can identify with give the ticket buzz and a boost.

Whatever happened to the Clark rumors? I still think Clark has more Southern appeal than Edwards any day...a general or a trial lawyer? It seems obvious.

I suppose people are still tenuous about his Democrat credentials? Why is no one talking about him as a VP anymore?

i'm going to have to agree with Nobody - why not clark? if we're looking for southern appeal, why not pick someone who can't be painted as a "sleazy trial lawyer"? why pick someone like edwards who will immediately alienate many in the medical community (ask any doctor how they feel about edwards).

you know, clark is going to have a LOT more appeal to southern moderates than edwards. i've heard that from MANY MANY potential GOP defectors. plus clark has security cred, which like it or not will be important to many southern moderates and conservatives.

let me put it this way. my doctor voted for bush in 2000 but is thinking of not voting this time. he told me that if kerry picks clark, he might vote democrat. my lawyer - a god fearing reagan loving republican - hates edwards and loves clark. he also voted for bush in 2K but is looking elsewhere. my father in law (military contractor) hates edwards, loves clark. basically every "professional" person i have spoken with in the past six months hates edwards and loves clark.

yea i know, it's only anecdotal evidence. but i really really do not want kerry to pick edwards....

oh and one more thing for andrew:
Okay, first point- Hutchison couldn't be Bush's running mate. The constitution states that the pres and VP have to be from different states.

yea. remember election 2000, right? cheney registered in wyoming even though he lived in texas... so if he picked hutchison i'm sure she'd just go register in louisiana or something. damned GOP - always barely legal.

RE: Ohio

Actually, a not-so-unlikely scenario would have Kerry winning OH, but losing NM and OR. Result is Bush 270, Kerry 268. Red states now lead 278-260 due to reapportionment.

Florida is looking redder than ever, but assuming Kerry picked one of the FL senators and somehow pulled it out, he could lose by losing PA alone.
Losing MN/WI would also result in a Bush win. Or OR/NM/IA. All of these states are tossups.

Of course these numbers games are meaningless if the mood of the country shifts off the current balancing point. I think Kerry would be a lot smarter to focus on national appeal than trying to play geography with the vp pick.

Florida redder than ever? Go back to the 1988 election returns and you'll see that Florida has become much bluer over the years. And i think there is a point to be made that if Kerry can win Florida there is a good chance he will win other battleground states.

All these candidates have pluses and minuses, Kerry will have to pick one and go. I'm hoping Kerry is floating these names so that the unknown pick will be an even bigger surprise. Maybe Blanche Lincoln, a southern no nonsense talking mother who knows are shit, someone who would pick up more southern votes than either Clark or Edwards, and maybe actually win her state unlike Edwards.

You all underestimate Edwards. This so called "sleazy" trial lawyer had all that crap thrown at him by the right wing in his 1998 Senate election, assisted by the insurance industry and Corporate America that hates trial lawyers because they are the one group that can make them accountable for wrongdoing. The result? Edwards kicked the ass of the entire Jesse Helms-Republican "machine" of North Carolina and sent Helm's handpicked incumbent candidate packing.

For those of you who call Edwards sleazy and say he has had some "shady" cases, I challenge you to provide details. This is a man who has spent his career protecting the interests of the most vulnerable (prinarily children) against powerful interests that do give a rat's ass if their malfeasance leads to horrible and tragic results. There is nothing shady about representing a girl who was DISEMBOWLED by a home swimming pool that had a grossly defective drain that literally sucked her into it and pulled her innards out through her tuchus.

For those of you that say he's sleazy or shady, you should have the balls to tell that little girl and her parents that Edwards is sleazy. The man is a hero and even better, HE CAN COMMUNICATE TO PEOPLE. You do not become a great trial lawyer in the heart of the conservative bible-belt South without being to communicate and relate to people with conservative value systems.

WhoMe? - nobody here is painting edwards as a sleazy trial lawyer, but that is the meme that is out there now and will be out there even more if kerry picks him. face reality. just like if dean got picked, the meme that he's too angry would be out there.

The public is very fickle so it is hard to tell if Edwards was a good choice by Kerry. Only time will tell. However, I think that in the year 2000 Edwards would have been considered too liberal and would probably have been no more help to Al Gore than Liebermann. In my opinion, Richard Gephardt would have been the Democrats' best choice for president the last time and again, this time.