Actually, Dick Morris has been peddling the “Hillary will be Kerry’s pick for VP” for quite some time. It’s not just Drudge.
I think it’s looking more and more like Gephardt. If that happens, Kerry won’t be getting my vote.
Paging Dr. Freud. . .paging Dr. Freud 
or am I being whooshed?
No way in Hell is it going to be Hillary. She’s still a lightning rod, and Kerry isn’t that courageous. Or that stupid. She’d probably make a fine V.P., maybe even an excellent V.P., but I highly doubt H.C. will ever make it past her senate seat. Bill made certain of that. I know many a liberal woman, even, who can’t stand Hillary because they can’t figure her out. I mean, how could she…? They don’t trust her, this enigma. She’s too cold. They think she’s got some hidden agenda. Well DUH, but who doesn’t in her circles?
You can not make this kind of shit up. Hillary is some kind of hate magnet, I don’t know what it is. I’m frankly amazed she won the Senate seat in NY, but whatever. That’s a different planet from most of America anyway, and more power too them. No, Kerry will select someone safe, widely appealing, and utterly bland.
Don’t think that Kerry’s people have not been internally polling every possibility out the wazoo. I don’t think Gebhardt adds anything to the ticket. He’s (rightly) perceived as a liberal Washington fixture. He has no pizazz, no mystique and no sex appeal. John Edwards gives Kerry a shot at winning a southern state (and Kerry only needs one southern state to win the election). That affects the ticket in a tangible way.
But just to put a fiver on a real dark horse, don’t forget that Bill Bradley is still out there somewhere. He’s tanned, he’s rested, he’s ready. Nobody’s found any hookers in his car trunk. He has a broad populist appeal and he can ball. If he can still dunk he’ll be perfect.
Bradley is interesting, but I’d put my money on Edwards. Pure geography and electoral strategy. McCain would have been fucking fascinating, but he’s already given Kerry the Heisman, so I think Kerry’s bag of V.P. tricks was emptied immediately. And that public rejection apparently hurt him a little - the stiffarm from your intended never looks good, no matter how improbable the courtship. Kerry won’t look at someone else who will reject him. Edwards won’t.
Kerry needs the South. Badly. Edwards perfectly offsets Kerry’s New England Elitist persona, and that’s critical. Plus, he’s nice to look at, which sure worked for Kennedy in the South…maybe too nice, as Kerry looks more like Tales from the Crypt with each passing day. Juxtaposed, Edwards might make Kerry appear too stiff and crusty. But no matter. It’s Edwards.
Where’d you hear this little tidbit?!?
And as far as Hillary–there’s a difference between “considering” someone for VP and considering someone for VP, if you know what I mean. I’m sure that in every election, some names are thrown around that have no chance of actually being picked. This is POLITICS, after all. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to find that they were trying to appeal to the Hillary-lovers by making it seem like they are interested in her, while not alienating the Hillary-haters by actually picking her.
How about MO and WV?
You won’t get any argument from me there.
Once again, John, you and I find ourselves in the ‘Twin Jo(h)n’s department’ looking for a reasonable candidate.
As for the OP? If Kerry picks Hillary I’ll eat my cat.
Abbie, I’ll bet you anything you care to lose that he chooses ANYONE else.
Would someone care to offer verifiable proof of this notion that Hillary Clinton is like kryptonite to the vast majority of the American electorate?
I haven’t seen any recent figures, but it’s been my understanding that Senator Clinton has won over many of her former critics and considerably gained in popularity over the last few years. I won’t stake my life on it, but I hardly credit the reflexive scorn and derision of the right, who remain so terrified of her it makes me pine for a Hillary campaign just to watch Rush Limbaugh blow a blood vessel.
And this notion of the Clintons sandbagging the Kerry campaign (and the Democrats’ shot at recapturing the White House) solely to safeguard Hillary’s presidential ambitions: grow the f*** up, people.
How about MO and WV?
Can’t speak for Missouri. Polls here in WV currently put Bush & Kerry at neck and neck. Honestly, though? As long as Bush doesn’t do anything really, really stupid, I can’t see WV voting for Kerry. Historically WV votes for the incumbent, even if it’s a Republican. (Plus WVians seem to be less pissed off about the war than other states.)
WV is a weirdass state. Most of the Democrats here are what would be called Republicans anywhere else in the country. Some of the brightest, most conservative, religious people I’ve ever known here, though, are straight ticket Democrat voters. They don’t even bother researching the candidates, they just go in and check off one box and walk out. Boggles the mind how someone could care that little about who they’re voting to put in office.
Voting Democrat here seems to be more of a habit/family tradition than having to do with actual beliefs. “Daddy and Grandpa were union and they voted Democrat so I will too” kinda thing. Pro-life, pro-gun, name it, but when it all comes down to it it’s all about those #%(#% coal mines. I’ll behave since this isn’t the Pit.
WV could make it if the voters would wake the hell up 
This is going to be a real tough one for me. I may just go on a long vacation somewhere in November and avoid the thing altogether. 
She’s “kryptonite” only to the radical right, who are still a gang of insecure misogynists that can’t wrap their minds around a First Lady who’s more than a doorstop. However, in typical insecure right-wing misogynist fashion, they end up projecting their own insecurities to the rest of the populace, so every time you say “Hillary Clinton,” they respond by shrieking that it’s the final warning sign of the Apocalypse.
In reality, if Hillary Clinton were to announce any sort of presidential ambitions, most folks will treat her like any other candidate… and the right-wing nutjobs will pull every trick in the book to destroy her. It’d make the Clinton-smearing efforts of 1992-2000 look like love sonnets by comparison, and we’d all suffer as a result.
Why exactly do people hate Hillary, aside from pure partisanship? Can anyone give some concrete reasons? - I’m really not familiar with the issues.
I’m not really sure either, so here’s a WAG:
A lot of people really hated that Clinton became President. Clinton appointed Hillary to oversee the National Health Care (or Universal Health Care) plan. Firstly, everyone knows that UHC is a Bad Thing. If people are gauranteed health care, then we’ll suddenly find ourselves living in a virtual Siberia while the Party Elite drink out of the skulls of the Masses! (At least, that’s how it was portrayed by the Right.) And Hillary wasn’t even elected! The right did a good job of painting the early Clinton administration as a commie-Socialist pinko gang who was out to enslave Americans, and UHC was all part of their Master Plan. Hillary, who gained her post through nepotism and not through any talent of her own (sarcasm, BTW), was a symbol of how out-of-control Clinton was.
So: Clinton’s bad. Clinton wants to enslave America with UHC. Clinton appoints an “unqualified, unelected” family member to lead this assault on The American Way. Thus, Hillary is evil.
Actually, that still sounds like “pure partisanship”.
Let’s leave hyperbole aside. Hillary Clinton isn’t evil. She’s just a very liberal Democrat, and I’m a very conservative Republican. We disagree on many things.
It troubled me, too when she was appointed to head that health care commission. At the time, she was a lawyer with no special health care expertice. She was the president’s wife, which instantly led to charges of nepotism. This was in an environment, too, when Bill Clinton was installing old Arkansas pals over career civil servants in many posts in Washington.
Also, it was a bad position to be in. Civil servants and political appiontees must have accountability to the president and the rest of the government. This accountability was compromised because of the personal relationship involved.
When the health care system was announced, it turned out to be badly flawed. Maybe these problems could have been worked out sooner, but all meetings had been held in secret. Anyway, what was produced wasn’t politically viable, and died on the Hill.
Just so you know, look for the announcement next Tuesday. “Speculation” (yes, I know) has the short list as Vilsack, Edwards, Gephardt, Biden, and Nunn. Among those, Vilsack looks to me like the best choice.
Which means it will more likely be someone not yet bruited at all.
Abbie, are you going to clue us in as to what newspapers you’re referring to, or continue to ignore all the requests?
I’m just predicting based on past events. Last time Ashcroft was on a ticket, he lost to a dead Democrat. Why not again?
Okay, it was pretty obscure.
Daniel
Couldn’t the same thing be said about Nancy Reagan’s involvement in the “War on Drugs”? Yet conservatives certainly don’t hate Nancy Reagan. And anyway, how does that reflect badly on Hillary herself? Was she wrong to accept the responsibility? If it were a valid criticism, it would be a criticism of Bill rather than Hillary, wouldn’t it? I would think the fact that she got involved in the political process while she was First Lady, rather than shying away from it, would be a plus as regards her leadership ability. I don’t think anybody ever got anywhere in politics by saying: “Oh no, I can’t handle that responsibility.” Can you explain how her wanting to get involved in politics would make her a poor choice for V.P.?
Getting sidetracked here, but what exactly was flawed, and how was Hillary responsible for the flaws? It seems to me that healthcare in this country is pretty flawed the way it is. In what ways was Hillary going to make it worse?