Edwards may be keeping No. 2 Card Up His Sleeve

[ringmastery]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/whitehouse/la-na-edwards9feb09,1,1429472.story?coll=la-news-politics-white_house

JACKSON, Tenn. — Sen. John Edwards, who had insisted that he would not accept an invitation to run as the Democratic vice presidential candidate in the fall, appeared to crack that door open a bit Sunday — one day after rival John F. Kerry cemented his status as front-runner with victories in Michigan and Washington state.

Appearing on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos," Edwards repeated his statement that there were no circumstances under which he would campaign as vice president. But then he hedged.

"Here's the problem with the question," the North Carolina senator said. "You don't know what's going to happen a month, three months, six months from now. As I sit here today, I intend to fight with everything I've got to be the nominee."

His spokeswoman, Jennifer Palmieri, said later that the remark did not signal a change, and that Edwards continued to believe he would face off against President Bush in November — even as many of Edwards' supporters said they expected Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, would be the Democratic nominee.

"If anything, the situation is more clear to him that this is narrowing down to a two-person race," Palmieri said after Edwards spoke to more than 100 people here at a community center. She described the race as still in its early stages.

[Bombtrack]

1. He shouldn't have to answer this innane question

all people do will say "he's running for vice president" unless he rules it out.

He would make a hell of alot better of both a presidential candidate and presidential than a vice-presidential candidate or a vice-president

He'd make an outright aweful runningmate for Kerry, compared to Bob Graham

[colonel odis]

2. a guy with prostate cancer and a guy with a bad heart

yeah, that'd strike fear in the g.o.p.

that's the best the party can do? kerry and graham?

[spooky3]

3. Bob Graham does not have the appeal needed

Otherwise he would have done better in the presidential race.

[Bombtrack]

5. He has the Florida appeal to make the state competative for Kerry

and it's the most important swing state by far. If the GOP can write it off, it will screw us everywhere

[ShaneGR]

8. We do not need Florida

We need Ohio. We need West Virginia. We need Tennessee. We need Arkansas. We need Louisiana.

I say we skip Florida this time around and focus on where we should have focused in 2000. I don't like the idea of focusing all of our attention in a state where we already know the brother of a candidate will do anything to screw us.

[ShaneGR]

4. I like Graham but Kerry needs some excitement on that ticket

We learned a lesson from Lieberman's 2000 run, the VP pick is important.

[Gore1FL]

6. Some IFs

If Kerry gets the nomination, I'd rather see Edwards in the Senate until it is determined how balanced that body is -- (I don't know the party of NC's gov) so the
Instead of VP, I'd like to see edwards as AG or as a noiminee to the SCOTUS.

I would love to see Maxine Waters as VP, myself.

[PATRICK]

11. Stand still and you fall

Trying to keep Senate seats safe is a losing strategy. Even Edwards would acknowledge that it is no sure thing he could keep his Senate seat once he retreats from the top ticket. Ask Mario Cuomo who played it safe and for the party's "wisdom".

On the other hand Edwards could vitalize the ticket in many ways to complement Kerry. He has no electoral negatives, unless some progressive thinks him bad enough to withhold support, but if so then they probably hate Kerry too. In picking a Veep it is preferable to have a friend and partner who won't hurt your campaign. Anything else is a bonus. Some say a Veep doesn't matter, but Edwards can, especially if Kerry keeps making a strong impact on the electorate. Edwards can make the win bigger and grow the region beyond this ephemeral "divided America" illusion created by the GOP minority. When LBJ picked Humphrey he not only "balanced" the ticket but acquired a beloved firebrand of a campaigner that helped create an even bigger landslide. In a milder fashion Carter achieved something like that with Mondale with the additional strength of a real "partner" Veep later repeated with Clinton/Gore. Kerry/Edwards would be a stronger personal ticket than any of those, maybe any ever.

Though I would prefer Edwards on the top.

[elsiesummers]

14. Edwards, Graham and Breaux are all retiring from the Senate.

Gephardt is retiring from the House. Dean is no longer Governor.
Clark does not hold a political office.

So there are no political considerations of holding a seat when any of these potential candidates are contemplated for VP.

Kerry will actually potentially lose us a Senate seat, at least for the short term since a Republican will likely be appointed to replace him.

Bayh would very likely result in a Republican win of his Indiana Senate seat.

Bill Richardson - Governor of NM - not sure when his term as Gov of NM is up - or how many terms he may hold that seat.

Have I missed anything in this list?

[dusty64]

7. Two Senators that

voted the same on many issues that have divided the Democrats are not going to be on the same ticket. If things turn out the way they appear, I would imagine Clark would bring the most to the VP slot. Graham has much to offer but is simply to advanced in years to be a viable pick (would be 76? in 2008). Dean isn't gonna cut it cause you can't have to New Englanders on the ticket (as much as I'd like there to be).

[ShaneGR]

9. The General Electorate doesn't care about same votes

They care about region.

[HFishbine]

10. There is only one way I'd vote for Kerry

And that is if he nominates a VP who is not a warmonger. Edwards' unwavering support for the war makes him unacceptable on the ticket as far as this voter is concerned.

[ShaneGR]

12. This man thanks you

[HFishbine]

13. And Bush thanks you

for supporting a candidate who is unacceptable to the millions who marched against the war.

[elsiesummers]

15. The only consideration should be who adds the most votes in swing states.

First I am an Edwards supporter. Second I think Kerry has the nomination locked up.

I think the poster above who pointed out that Fla is likely to be bananna republiced again is dead on. Fla is a losing strategy - forget Fla. Baby brother Jeb will deliver it by hook or crook.

So I'd count out Graham.

Next consideration: Kerry has to balance potential anger and division from Dean crowd on the left with need for a "Massachusetts Liberal" to tack to to the right.

Except for states such as Washington and Oregon, it seems unlikely that enough of the left wing will split off to vote third party to make Bush the winner. Lately the media is spouting a story line that the Democratic party is both angry and unified against Bush. How true this actually is, I don't know. If not true - would Dean be a better candidate?

Third - while I personally think John Edwards is the best presidential candidate out there - I don't think Kerry has enough electoral room to maneuver and pick a charismatic or attractive candidate that does not actually bring along a state. Perhaps the combination of the Kerry war record and the Edwards Southern appeal might be enough to pull VA, TN, NC or SC into the Dem column - but I doubt it. I think Kerry should probably write off all of those states.

So that leaves us with candidates that bring one state or a swing region. Specifically - I'd look at Gephardt, Richardson, Clark, Breaux and Bayh. The latter two will obviously tick off the left of the party. Can any of these candidates make the map work?

Kerry is looking at such a tight electoral map that it leaves me asking why oh why do we have the NH primary so early? It just sucks.

Footnote - is there any possibility of Gore as VP? Is this crazy idea good or bad?