11:52 p.m. - 2004-05-06
vice city
veepstakes update...long...skip if you're not a complete political nerd...
Round one held few surprises really. I picked the winner in 11/16 races. there were a few cases in which conventional wisdom trumped good sense - for example picking John Edwards over Jim Clyburn. Edwards may have name recognition and a southern accent, but he's got a face that just makes you want to punch him and, well just generally I think it would feel like an awkward ticket. You need a southern guy that it feels like Kerry would actually want to hang out with.
Dick Gephardt (over joe biden) is the other terrible choice. Do that many people even know who he is, or care? Being the leader of the long-lived Democratic congress that got busted up by Gingrich isn't exactly a good thing in many people's minds, and at best, he's way too similar to Kerry, admittedly with more of a history working the nationwide Democratic base. But I just don't see it.
Round Two!
John Edwards v Bob Graham: Bob Graham. Friendly-seeming, has a certain good-ole-boy quality that will be crucial to getting anything done anywhere in the South, period.
Max Cleland v Mark Warner: Oh man, this one's tough. But I say Warner. Cleland got sacked by Saxby Chambliss, and aside from the fact that "recently defeated former Senator" isn't a great byline, the same tactics used by Sax could come into play in this election. No good.
Dick Gephardt v Wesley Clark: I'm annoyed that they're seeded against each other, because I think they're both bad choices. Gephardt for the reasons discussed above, Clark because his cragginess kind of matches Kerry's. He was also a complete flop in the primaries. His military credentials might help beef up Kerry and insure his patriotism - but just wait for the attack dogs to come out; Clark was a star of the *Clinton* military after all... but I pick Clark anyway, to replenish the gravitas that Kerry's mumbling sucks out of the ticket.
Bob Kerrey v. John McCain: McCain won't do it, not unless deals were cut that drove the Democratic base away from the polls in droves. Since the aim of this exercise is supposed to be to predict a likely candidate, I have to say Kerrey - even though the similarity in names, by itself, will probably be the end of that. (I did vote for McCain in round one, but only because he was up against Tom Brokaw, a joke candidate.)
Hillary Clinton v. Dianne Feinstein: Feinstein, no question. Hillary has only a couple of years of actual elected-office experience and has to be concerned about fulfilling all her enemy's theories that she's a power-thirsty nutjob. Wait till 2004.
Mary Landrieu v. Kathleen Sebelius: Neither has recently won a wide-open, one-on-one election without some questions in the air. But Landrieu's association with a dicey election would kill any attempt to mobilize lingering resentment over Bush v. Gore, and anyway, a governor would be a nice addition to the ticket. Sebelius.
Bill Richardson v. Tom Vilsack: Richardson. I had him on my shortlist for Gore back before the Wen Ho Lee scandal, which most people have basically forgotten and in which I think there is little traction. I am also convinced that Hispanic voters are going to be *crucial* swings in this election, and probably the target of aggressive registration drives by both parties. Cynical though it may be, I expect the Kerry campaign to be thinking about this. I just don't see Vilsack wanting it that badly or bringing that much to the table.
Evan Bayh v. Russ Feingold: This one was tough to me. Feingold has definitely got good anti-corruption credentials. I'm torn - does this campaign need to pick up more support in the center (which might caution against Feingold)? Or is the most pressing issue getting all those Dean supporters to bother showing up for dull old Kerry? Ehhh....Feingold.
fun!
�
�
