Gephardt, political relic or perfect VP?

[Nicholas_J]

Although no one save John Kerry and a few top advisers to the presumed Democratic presidential nominee know where Dick Gephardt ranks among the contenders for Kerry's running mate, his name almost always appears on the shortest of short lists.

His assets as a vice presidential candidate - extensive experience, reassuring steadiness, a strong pro-labor record -- could lead to his political rebirth. Yet for some, those very qualities are his drawbacks.

Analysts believe a key reason Gephardt's presidential bid never caught fire is that many Democrats viewed him as part of the party's past. For instance, he first ran for the White House in 1988, and in many ways his message, image and style had changed little since then.

Gephardt's backers counter that such comments sell Gephardt short. They say he has the background and stature to step immediately into the Oval Office, if necessary, and the partisan moxie to go toe-to-toe in a debate with Vice President Dick Cheney. They also claim that Gephardt can rally critical union support for Kerry in the Midwestern industrial belt.

"He doesn't have many minuses," said Rep. Robert T. Matsui, D-Calif., chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and a Gephardt ally. "I guess the only minus you could say is that he's been around a long time. But I think that helps the ticket."

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/world/8967518.htm


ANother intersting fact is that Gephardt is the only candidate where polls takes show hiem adding at least a point to Kerry's polling in Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio, and also adding supoprt for Kerry in West Virginia. ALso, the electoral college mathematics look more favorable with Gepharsdt as running mate, than any other possible nominee.

[freetobegay]

1. If he is picked, I don't have a problem with it

Like I would with some others.

[Longhorn]

2. I don't know why but Gephardt doesn't do anything for me

Kerry's weakest point, as far as I'm concerned, is that he can come across so boring in sound bites, which -- let's face it -- are where many voters get their information about a candidate. I haven't seen that much of Gephardt and if he was on the ticket, it certainly wouldn't change my vote, but Edwards just seems like someone who could excite younger voters enough to get them to the polls! I can see him doing well on Leno and Letterman and The Daily Show a la Clinton. In fact, my biggest worry about Edwards is showing Kerry up!

But I suspect I need to know more about both of them -- and any others under consideration.

[filterfish]

13. Gephardt is definitely yesterday's mashed potatoes...

i want someone who is going to flatten cheney in the debates, sharpton could fit that bill, but that choice would be playing right into the gop's southern strategy, ed rendell on the other hand...

[JohnKleeb]

3. not the best VP pick in the world but would be a nice asset IMO

[Adelante]

4. I like him

At least he has long experience and is a solid liberal. He doesn't have the personality maybe that this era seems to want, but that's not everything. When I think of someone stepping in if, God forbid, anything happened to Kerry, I think of Clark, Graham and Gephardt.

[Darkamber]

5. I would accept as well...

Gephardt is a safe choice. We know that Kerry is very comfortable and trusts Gephardt. We would also know that it a vote the establishment and the insiders of the democratic party. But at the same time it is a move that says, "The field will be wide open for '2012'."

I would rather reach to the future instead of the past and I free a repeat of the "when Clinton was President, I did this" lines or worst the "miserable failure' lines, I can see where Kerry is coming from if he goes that way.

He most likely will need to find a place for Edwards in his administration. The democrats do not want to loose Edwards in the process. I already feel that Clark has a place no matter who is picked.

No one knows, but Kerry, but I could live with the choice.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

6. Pre-Announce Gep as SecLabor

That would do just as well as VP.

Clark or Edwards for VP.

DTH

[Rowdyboy]

7. Will I accept Gephart as VP?

Sure. Will I be happy about it? Oh, hell, no.

[wjsander]

8. Relic or Perfect VP?

I would choose, but I haven't stayed awake during any of his speeches. :boring:

[Suzie57]

9. I Work in St. Louis,

live in Southern Illinois. We were discussing V.P. options in the carpool on the way home this evening and all agreed that Gephardt didn't do much for us. I kinda like Edwards but the driver who is a 62 year old Navy vet thought he was too inexperienced, he preferred Clark. Gephardt as Sec. of Labor would be cool though.

[Nicholas_J]

10. Odd though

For someone who didnt do much, he has been re-elected 14 times, which I think would indicate that enough people think he has done much.

[AP]

29. Congress is gerrymandered to the point that if you don't win as incumb.

you have to be an idiot.

It's not much to say that you've been reelected 14 times, other than it says your career plateaued early.

[FloridaPat]

11. Gephardt did everything Bush asked of him. No backbone.

I am sooo tired of enabling Democrats and he is at the top of that list.

[Nicholas_J]

15. Thats a riduculous comment

Gephardt did not do everything Bush wanted him to do.


His record of voting against most of what Bush wanted is very clearly delineated in the actual record.

Gephardt ACTUAL record:

Roll Call Vote Analysis
Year/ Voting Participation/ Party Support Presidential Support
2003 9% 98% 9%
2002 93% 93% 33%
2001 91% 94% 29%
2000 91% 93% 83%
1999 90% 94% 88%


2003 Party Support 93 %
Presidential Support 9%

2002 Party Support 93%
Presidential Support 33%

2001 Party Support 94%
Presidential Support 29%

2000 Party Support 93%
Presidential Support 83%

1999 Party Support 94%
Presidential Support 88%

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=H2180103


Thats Gephardts ACTUAL record of the percentage of times he voted in accordance with what either Bush wanted, or what Clinton wanted.

Now lets look at the same data for another democrat:

John Edwards

2003 Party Support 97%
Presidential Support 41%

2002 Party Support 84%
Presidential Support 76%

2001 Party Support 91%
Presidential Support 67%

2000 Party Support 94%
Presidential Support 92%

1999 Party Support 92%
Presidential Support 87%


http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=CNC68243http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=CNC68243

So looking at the overall voting record, John Edwards has voted in accordance with the position held by George Bush more frequently than Dick Gephardt did during the same years.

In 2001, the year of the terrorist attacks and the decision to go to war with Irq, Edwards voted along with Bush 67 percent of the time where Gephardts voted along with Bush only 29 percent of the time.

WHO did whatever Bush wanted?

[bushwakker]

18. Not fair - you can't bring facts into the debate

Listen this is DU, and Geppy is bad - OK?

[Nicholas_J]

22. Yes

I have noticed that, which is why I dot spend a lot of time on DU anymore. Facts are untidy little things that should be destroyed hidden. altered, or simply ignored whrn they become too inconvenient.

[Adelante]

23. Heh

I love it when the numbers speak this clearly.

[venus]

28. Where did Edwards stand up to Bushie, vote-wise? n/t

Just what I wanted. Thanks for the info. Nicholas_J!

[Rooktoven]

12. Kerry could put Sharpton on the ticket and I'd vote for him, but--

It would still be a lousy choice. Gephardt brings nothing nationally, no excitement, no rank and file Union guys, just the bosses.

JK needs to get over his "unease" and put the country first. That means picking Edwards. Nice take on it by guest TPM writer John B. Judis here:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_06_20.php#003092

[bushwakker]

14. He would be an excellent choice

Tactically and strategically he is a gteat choice. not hard to see him sitting in the O.O. should it come to that.

That said I like Edwards and Clark as well.

[Nicholas_J]

16. I find it odd that Gephardt is attacked for supposedly

Doing everything that Bush wanted, while the record shows that his main competition for the VP slot, John Edwards, has voted along with President BUsh on issues far more frequently than Gephardt.

[bushwakker]

17. The antipathy on DU to Gephardt has always baffled me

Gep is a solid labor/progressive Dem - has been for years. I guess it's leftover stuff from the hard fought primaries. Some say that he can't bring Missouri. My question is: does he hurt you in Missouri? The obvious answer is no. Hence, he helps in MO. If Gep is the choice I'd just camp him out in IA, WI, MN, MI, OH, PA and MO for 4 months doing town hall meetings.

[JohnKleeb]

21. that's my opinion too

[Nicholas_J]

24. Actually its more than that

And much of it is similar to the "Kerry signed the War resolurion" crap that floats around here (first there was not "WAR" resolution, as the word war regarding actions in Iraq was not used once, and secondly, the idea that the resolution was a blank check for war was a concept that Howard Dean created, and the media complied with, as Dean was the flavor of those months and the media gave substance to his preachings, regardless of his own abilities in the area, which becamew obvious later when it was revealed that he didnt understand that the Biden Lugar Amendment Dean latched onto gave exactly the same powers to Bush, and did not require a second vote from Congress or the United Nations).Gephardt, as minority leader was required. according to congressional protocol, and stand there in the Rose Garden to represent the decision made by the majority of members of Congress whether he voted for or against the issue. Thats just the nature of the leadership positions.

Most of people who make such dstatements about Gephardt, base it totally on that appearancew in the Rose Garden and have little or no knowledge of Gephardts record, and are inclined to vote on what I consider the absolutely worse stances possible. One event, completely misrepresented by the opposition to that person. It is far better to look at a persons entire record, than to listen to the crap they are shovelling when they want to get elected. Thats what killed Dean, as his campaign rhetoric was so disconnected from the reality of his terms as governor that once people became aware of how disconnected they were, Dean plumeeted. Much of the anti-Gephardt sentiments probnably come fron the fact that Gephardt ruthlessly brough the facts of Deans record to light of day, and Dean could not do anything about it, because Gephardt released cold hard facts and data that Dean could not deny, or cover up.

[JohnKleeb]

26. Ive never understood it honestly

really. We got so many anti free traders here on the boards and they have issues with Kerry because of this but yet they think it would be the worst thing ever if Gep would be VP. Gephardt also opposed "welfare reform", he was a cofounder of the DLC yes but hes quite liberal socially and economically, economically IMO more than Kerry. Gephardt as VP wouldnt kill me, it might even has a person who is big on labor issues bring a smile.

[JI7]

31. right

it was kind of like during the primaries when people attacked kerry for voting for iwr but they didn't support the ones who voted against it like kucinich and graham. and when the candidate of those who attacked kerry for iwr dropped out, they supported edwards instead of kucinich even though they had spent the whole time attacking kerry for iwr which edwards also supported. of course i don't mean everyone but a certain large amount was that way.

and now the ones who complain about the dlc for things like welfare reform and nafta and other trade deals attack the guy who actually voted against it even though they supported a candidate who did not oppose those things.

but this is only du and there are many other people out there. they like kerry, gephardt, edwards and many others and will vote for kerry and be happy whether he puts gephardt or edwards on the ticket.

[wuushew]

33. IWR is almost as immoral as preemptive war itself and excuses no one

why should any nation hold the threat of military force against a country for not caving into US pressure? Why can't any country possess as many WMD's as it wants? I only fear the use of such weapons. The unlikely casualties of such weapons adjusted for likelihood of use can hardly be said to be more than the very real and massive casualties we in our history have caused other nations in the pursuit of our self righteous foreign policy.

The only clear objective of international law is to prevent one countries sovereignty from interfering with another's(Saddam when contained did not threaten this arrangement). Sovereignty is one of the few concepts agreed upon by most of the international community, otherwise interference in cultural affairs such as abortion or capital punishment would be justifiable grounds for other countries interfering in our affairs, since the cause of "human rights" trumps American law under Bush logic.

That is why the international community was correct in removing the occupation forces from Kuwait in 1991. How this mandate was twisted by Bush and Clinton into authority to maintain illegal no fly zones or support for internal rebellion. How and why we apply U.S. exceptionalism is something that that continually irks me. It could be argued that Saddam was demonstrably worse than many international Rogues however where and why we choose are battles is clearly influenced by economic and global hegemonic factors.

To me the whole threat of force is illegitimate and all the major candidates save Kucinich voted incorrectly. Saying IRW is not the same as war does not make it better. Carrot and or Stick are far more preferable to stick.

[bushwakker]

36. President's Kerry, Gephardt or Edwards would not have invaded

Iraq. I was against the IWR also but I don't think a vote in favor of it is tantamount to reaching the conclusion that all who voted in favor would have pursued the same policy as AWOL. I'm quite sure that is not the case.

[Nicholas_J]

37. Kucinich himself

Used the incorrectly named "IWR" to file a law suit in the first federal district court to prevent Bush from sending troops into Iraq, based on the fact that the act required that either the U.S> get (1) United Nations support for going into Iraq based on the premise that Saddam violated U.N. resolutions imposed on Iraq since the Gulf war, or (2) the event that Iraq was found to pose an imminent threat to U.S. security. Kucinich's case stated that Bush had not met wither of the conditions set by the act, which stated that the U.S. could only go in to uphold U.N. resolutions if the U.N. approved, or in case that the U.N. didnt do this, that the President was able o provide evidence of an imminent threat to the U.S> It was Kucinich (with Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, and a number of others) who contended that these were requirements set by the act and that Bush fauled to meet them. The only other condition set in the act was if the U.N. had exhausted all diplomatic measures, and still was deadlocked and unwilling to act on the information it had uncovered about Iraq through its own investigation. Kucinich's case was thrown out as being non-justicable because at the time, diplomatic efforts (UNMOVIC and IAEA) were still ongoing, and since diplomatic efforts were still going on, there was no evidence that the president was not attempting to exhaust diplomatic efforts.

The mis-named IWR (called the Authorization of use of military force in Iraq Act) did not authorize war, nor is the term war used in the act regarding the authorization of the use of the military. The act was made a war act by public opinion stgarted by Howard Dean who had the media's ear at the time and kept referring to the act as a blank check for war, which it was not. Kucinichs timing was poor, beause had he waited until the president actually acted, he could have been said to have violated the act,as at the time, the U.N. was still attempting to engage in diplomatic measures to deal with the situation and had clearly not exhausted them. This is clearly a case of a candidate trying to politicize the decisions made by other candidates, creating the impression in the public eye that they act was a simple declaration of war, which it was not. Dean boxed himself in to a major corner when he decllared his support of Biden Lugan, which did not differ from the October resolution in any way other than it prohibited the removal of Saddam's Regime.

The act did not trump international law, as the bulk of the sections of the act that required U.N. authorization were placed into the act after Kerry and Gephardt met with members of the Security COuncil to ask what they wanted to see in the act in order for it to harmonize with international law.

[AP]

30. That just isn't true. CQ said that Edwards voted against Bush more than

anyone running for president, which included Gephardt.

[AP]

32. Here's the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x555677#555953

[Nicholas_J]

40. That article

Was based on Edwards sudden change in the last quarter of 2003,where he started voting against virtually everything the Bush administrations wanted to pass, skewing the overall average. The data presented here comes from Congressional Quarterly and cdoes a year by year breakdown of Edwards voting record. If you vote 100 percent for the president one year, and vote zero percent for him the next year, your average support for the president becomes 50 percent. Which is how Edwards got his percentage of supporting Bush down, by voting against anything the Bush Adminstration wanted passed in the last quarter of 2003 (and dropping off significantly in the 3rd quarter)

His overall record, year by year, as tracked by Congressional Quarterly show a different breakdown, and a rather change in stance that one would view quite cynically if it were being done by a candidate on the other side of the aisle.

[AP]

41. Psst. That's when he no longer had to worry about winning reelection in NC

As dsc suggested (and I reiterated) somewhere here, being a congressman in a safe district you've won 14 times (and has been gerrymandered to ensure your job security) cuts you a little slack. You can vote for whatever you want.

It's not fair to compare Edwards, Sen from NC, to Gep, congressman for life in his snaking congressional district. Compare Edwards to other senators, and not to Gephardt. As the link shows, Kerry (from liberal Mass, no less!) and Tom Harkin weren't very far from Edwards.

Over the years, Edwards has voted exactly as you'd expect for a NC'ian (and actually voted the opposite of his fellow senator the second most of any state other than SC -- so you can see that he really was setting himself apart).

The national journal decribes him this way:

Edwards, on the other hand, had a moderate voting record during the first four years following his election to the Senate in 1998. The results positioned Edwards comfortably apart from Senate liberals, but not so far to the right that he locked arms with centrist Republicans. His consistent moderation placed Edwards among the center-right of Senate Democrats. But once Edwards decided to run for president and abandoned his bid for a second Senate term, his record moved dramatically to the left in 2003. (See PDF chart on Edwards's lifetime vote ratings.)

http://nationaljournal.com/members/news/2004/02/0227nj1.htm

I think this is the formula for 2012 success. I know you're trying to sell Gep to the liberals here. But, if I may for a second: I'd like to try to sell 2012 success. Edwards is exactly what you want. The soul of a liberal, with the appearance of a moderate, and the sense to get elected. I think his voting record and his actions in the primaries prove this.

[Nicholas_J]

43. Again, this this is speculation.

There is really no advantage in being a senator or a representative when it comes to running for re-election. You have a smaller group of people who you must persuade to vote for you, but you there is no strategic differince in trying top convince them if a candidate has not met the criteria that those he is representing want in their elected official. The idea that a Representative has an easier time than a Senator has no basis in fact, as statistically the number of one term senators and one term representatives is the same. Edwards is noot necessarily a shoe in for 2012 either. Especially if you add Hillary Clinton to the mix, which is rewally the most likely choice after two terms of Kerry. Edwards also has a considerable amount of problems considewring that Edwards could not win one other state in his own geographic region, including states bordering on his own home state. Kerry, a regional outsider, and fairly unknown in the south, beat Edwards handily during the race for the nomination.

Again, looking at the south, Bush has most of this region sewn up with double digit leads in most of the south. Right now Kerry is further ahead of Bush in Arkansas ( a 2.1 percent lead) is 6 points behind Bush in Louisiana, 6 points behind Bush in West Virginia, 5 points behind Bush in North Carolina, states which Edwards will have to have a fair chance of delivering to Kerry in November. Bush is ahead 2 point in Virginia. The fact that Edwards could not beat Kerry in these states has given a good deal of the democratic party leadership a good deal to doubt about Edwards. However looking at Gephardt's state of Missouri, Bush is ahead 8/10ths of a percent.
The most recent polls place Kerry 6 points ahead of Bush in Ohio, but the polls for this state have been fluctuating back and forth between Kerry and Bush and polls based on possible running mates have Gephardt being the one running mate who boosts Kerry's overall lead in this state more than Edwards or anyone else, and this is a mere one percent boost. Just enough to give the state to Kerry, along with his own Missouri. The same has been found in WIsconsin and Michigan.Gephardt as a running mate increases Kerry chances in Michigan significantly due to the fact that Gephardt is the candidate who the United Auto Workers have strongly suggested that Kerry select. The U.A.W. will be a very big factor in Michigan. Pennsylvania is another state where Gephardt is seen to provide a significant advantage for Kerry. Edwards has to provide a boost for Kerry of five or more points in the Southern states that Bush does not have double digit leads in. As noted, Bush has almost all of the South locked up, while Kerry has the populous Northeast, and the more industrialized Midwest/Great Lakes states. All indications are that Gephardt has a better chance of boosting Kerry in this area enough to secure the region for Kerry. Nothing other than speculation that Edward did well in Wisconsin indicates that Edwards can do much for securing states for Kerry.

It is not 2012 that is an issue. The primary factor in selecting a running mate is someone who can replace Kerry should some unexpected tragedy occur. Not in 2012, but in the 8 years preceding it. Looking at how Edwards did in the south against someone from outside the region is a good indicator that Edwards would not be the candidate to try to win in 2012, VP or no. A VP does not always win after 8 years sitting in that office.

Another problem for Edwards is that Andy Stern, wants him. Stern threw a major monkey wrench into this camapign by deciding to endorse Dean even though Dean was by and large not the choice of the majjority of rank and file union members. It also causef AFSCME to have to do the same, decide to back Dean rather than the choice of AFSCME rank and file member (this was Gephardt).

While Kerry met with Edwards secretly a day or so ago, He met with Gephardt a wek ago. And rather than meet Gephardt in Washinton, Kerry went out to meet Gephardt out in Missouri.

History is also against the selection of Edwards as running mate. IN virtually every election the running mate had the exact opposite characteristics that those who support Edwards tout as the bet reasons for selecting him. No running mate has ever been selected for Charisma, Personality, Vision, or Popularity. In fact the opposite characteristics have most often been the qualities sourtg in the VP. That an a lot of experience in Washington. I am afraid that the idea of thinking about 2012 does not really work wel into the decision process, and in fact, even if worled into the mix, the campaign of 2002-2003 may work very strongly against Edwards.

[AP]

44. I doubt Edwards will be VP. I'm not arguing for Edwards to be VP.

I'm arguing that Edwards would make a great VP and a great P and would be an asset to the ticket.

Having said that, Congress has been gerrymandered to stalemate. I've read time and time again that there are only 40 competitive districts left in the House. Gep's isn't one of them.

I appreciate all your arguments, but I don't appreciate trying to sell Gep as a more palatable liberal than Edwards based on their voting records. It's like comparing apples and oranges, given the politics of having to get reelected. But I'm more than willing to point to Edwards's late 2003 voting record as evidence of what's in Edwards's heart.

I also think that any fool can see that Edwards has everything you need to win a national election and be a great president, so I find the "stepping in" argument silly.

I suspect that you and Will Pitt and JI7 feel like you need to soften up dems for a Gep selection. That's cool. But I don't think the arguments you're making make the decision sound as palatable as you might whish. Putting Gep on the ticket would be a deicision that combines a little bit of rewarding him for his service, and trying to win a few specific states, which is going to upset a lot of people who think a gold watch would be fine and who dont' live in those few states.

It used to be that Americans got to pick the VP. Even though we don't do that anymore, I think a lot of Americans will feel like they should be able to. I think they're going to be disappointed if it isn't Edwards. (And, by the way, I think the media knows it won't be Edwards and they're trying to exploit the inevitable disappointment.)

If Edwards choses to run again, he is going to start from a much higher place, and I totally expect him to take advantage of the bounce. If Kerry doesn't win, and Edwards runs in the primary against Kerry, Kerry's VP or any other Dem in 2008, I think Edwards would be the shoe-in. If Edwards runs in 2012, I think he's going to be a instant favorite then too.

You think not winning anywhere other than SC and NC was a sign of weakness? Kerry won the whole thing when he won Iowa. Edwards had a spectacular primary. He will be perceived as a winner even though he lost. I don't see anything that happened this year as being a liability for him at all.

[Nicholas_J]

45. I'd say Edwards odds are fairly good

Just they do not make a lot of sense from a strategic point of view.

If he is not Kerry's running mate, the ods of him starting from a higher place in 2012 are slim, if Kerry wins in 2004 because 8 years is a long time in politics, and if he is in another elected office during those years, he will be way out of the media loop, and there will be other figures who will pass him by in the public arena.

[AP]

59. Lincoln was out of politics for 10 years and lost a senate race in '58

before winning in '60. But I'm not sure Edwards will be far out of the loop in 2012. I'm sure he'll win the next thing he choses to run for, or will be a huge success at the next thing he choses to do.

People loved him this hear, and I don't see that good will evaporating. I only see it intensfiying.

He hasn't campaigned at the level he was three months ago and he's till polling at 40% among Dems for VP and winning all the other polls. People want him around.

As for your strategic arguments, I'm not sure they make sense. They mostly sound like paliatives to make people feel not so disappointed if Gep gets picked. I don't think they make all that much sense, but, like I said, it's cool of you to be covering Kerry's back. I think people will be disappointed if Kerry picks him, and I'm not sure if Missouri and the union support would be worth all that. I say it'd be about a wash, and it would open up Kerry to the criticism that he's more interested in rewarding the insider for his service than bringing new ideas and new blood into the party. Of course that might also be a wash too (the perception of cronyism evened out by the machine loyalty for given to Kerry for rewarding the insider).

[Nicholas_J]

60. Actually

Outside of DU, not all that many people are going to be disappointed if Gephardt is selected and not Edwards. Polls show that Edwards is the first choice of Americans for VP, but there is a bit confusion in those polls, as most of the same polls show that even though Edwards is the more popular choice, Kerry's polling percentages are exactly the same if the VP selection is wither Gephardt or Edwards, so there is really noe differnce from the polling aspect of it. Only one VP running mate turns the percentages around and gives Bush a lead on Kerry in these polls and that is if Tom Vilsack is the running mate.

As far as the good will towards Edwards. some of this is evaporating. While he was running for the presidency, there was a remarkable amount of good will, ut now that people are starting to actually have to scrutinize his qualificantions for the VP slot, polls are also indicating that Edwards popularity is dwindling somewhat.

Outside of having the minority base which is the strongest single group base that the Democrats have, the unions are EVERYTHING for a democratic candidate, and more important, theranks and file membership of the unions is critical. No democat can win without the support of the rank and file of the unions in America. Anytime the unions sat back and did not strongly endorse a democrat, that democrat lost miserably.

As far as bringin new blood into the party, i has become very obvious that the democratic electorate has totally rejected the "new blood' idea, when they rejected Howard Dean, and Edwards and everyone else to begin with. The selection of Kerry indicated that the Democratic electorate is attempting to turn back to the pre-DLC candidates, and the pre-DLC political establishment. Missouri and the unions are a far stronger hand to play than nothing,which is pretty much what Edwards has to offer. Edwards can not so much as bring in ONE SURE THING and as I said, the union rank and file has statef in no uncertain terms that it wants Gephardt. Just before the head of the teamsters, the head of the AFL-CIO and the heads of the U.A.W. forked over 44 million dollars for a door to door, get out the vote campaign in June on behalf of Kerry in the 17 swing states, the heads of these unions went to Kerry and stated that they would strongly prefer Gephardt as Kerry's running mate. They also reminded the media that this 44 million was the largest sum ever contributed by unions for a presidential campaign inelection history. That is for entire presidential campaigns. They clearly delineated in the media that this was only a small percentage of what they planned to contribute, and also let the media know thaat this didnt include the money that the 68 member unions of the AFL CIO could contribute. This information was provided along with the statements about the preference for Gephardt. Kerry went to meet with Gephardt the following week in Missouri in private for 90 minutes.

The unions will support Kerry, but they have made it clear that there is a price for that support. THe 44 million was simply a down payment and while the unions can support Kerry if Gephardt is not the running mate, the degree of that support can vary depending on Kerry's choice.
Unions have often varied the degree of support, the amount of money, and the programs they put on during the campaign.

Kerry's meetings with Gephardt on the heels of massive sums of money to support Kerry in 17 swing states, most of the money being spent in Michigan and Ohio, two staes with very large Union membership , both very important for Kerry to win, and states where union members constitute almost 50 percent of democratic voters (47 percent in Michigan) may have been comsmetic, in order to assure the unions that Gephardt is still in the running given all of the media coverage about Edwards, but that support means enough for Kerry to have sent a message to Sweeney, Hoffa, and the heads of the state presidents of the U.A.W. in the midwest.Gephardt is hardly inactive, but his activity has been at union rallies again, primarily in Ohio, Missouri, and Michigan.

Again, the unions are likely to be the winning factor in this election.

Other factors. Edwards is actively publically jockeying. almost advertising for the VP slot. Gephart is not, but playing things rather cool. The unions are solidly backing Gephardt. I am listening to NPR right now and they are indicating that the Unions are absoltely critical for Kerry, as they are needed for Kerry to take indistrialized states away from Bush, where Bush is ahead, or he and Kerry are running neck and neck.(Program, Politics with Juan WIlliams)


The Week in Politics with Juan Williams

Day to Day audio

June 25, 2004

NPR's Alex Chadwick speaks with NPR's Juan Williams to review the week in politics, including how ongoing developments in the Iraq war are affecting the presidential campaign.



Related NPR Stories

NPR Political Coverage


The Week in Politics with Juan Williams
NPR (audio) - 5 hours ago
... John Kerry feels comfortable with him. Gephardt is also very close to the unions that will be absolutely key if Kerry is to have success in November. ...


http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1978223


Kerry and Gephardt have had very good personal relations for years, while Kerry and Edwards relationship is known to be quite strained, much of it being caused by the primaries.

The media is beginning to attack the posibiity of Kerry selecting Gephardt, as of today, the idea of this creating an image of Kerry going back to old school politics being their argument. IN fact, that seems to have been the publics very reason for selecting Kerry. They wanted someone inside.

Other facts that will cause a great deal of trouble if Kerry selects Edwards. Edwards populism is very new found:

There's credulity: "There has also been a generally deceptive quality to John Edwards's campaign. The populism is new. A man of considerable charm, and a persuasive speaker as well as being very clever, Edwards has managed to convince most of the political press that he has been running a 'positive' campaign while in fact he's engaged in some rough attacks on his opponents."


http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=54&aid=67574http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=54&aid=67574
A Kerry/Edwards ticket isgoing to have the problems that Dean had with his campaign. Deans actual record as Governor match his campaign rhethoric. The differnces between Edwards voting record, and his campaigning are going to be very open and tempting targets for the media and for the Bush/Rove machine. Gephards campaign ran along with his record. Edwards as Kerrys running mate will bring him under far more scrutiny than his running for the presidency, as he was not the front runner ever. Once he is firmly on the ticket, every change in Edwards stance on anything is going to be food for the media gods, and opportunity for Bush. Kerry needs not take such a chance unless he feels so strongly about his chances about Bush that he feels that Edwards will not effect his chances one way or the other.

[AP]

61. What polls are you looking at?

40% on Southern super tuesday. 40% today. He's holding steady.

Juan Williams and David Brooks arguing for Gephardt? You want me to rebut that? It speaks for itself.

I'm not going to argue whether Edwards's populism is fake. I find that notion absurd. Understanding a politicians convictions and policy positions isnt' reading tea leaves. I find it insincere for someone like you, who seems to spend a lot of time thinking about politics, to be pretending that you believe that "credulity" argument above.

Suffices to say, I find your gep arguments (and your Edwards criticisms) merely an attempt to cushion the blow of disappointment rather than provide a set of coherent sensible reasons to pick him.

I'll say it again, a gold watch would suffice. Gore got the P-slot for time served and look how that played out. It's always better to go with the person the people like and who can connect with them, and who would make the better president.

[Nicholas_J]

67. Edwards voting record in Congress

had one of the highest levels of voting in support of the BUsh administration until the last two quarters, when he sstarted voting 100 percent against anything that Bush wanted. Which pumped his average rating of voting againt Bush higher, but this was a sharp and sudden change to something that did not resemble Edwards Sounthern Democratic conservatism. Edwards pretty much matched the traditional southern democrat from 1998 to 2003. when he took a sharp turn and started totally opposing the Bush Administration. Prior to that his actual voting record was very favorable to the Bush Administration.

Others do not see Edwards as a good chouce either:

The betting in Democratic circles puts Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) and U.S. Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) as the favorites. Democratic party pros dismiss the talk about Kerry courting Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, a Kerry friend, as sheer fantasy.

Edwards has pushed hard for the job. The telegenic North Carolina senator has already visited several states, including the key battleground of Ohio, to raise money and beat the drums for Kerry. Edwards, a first-term senator, lacks a lengthy voting record that Republicans could punch holes in. Several top aides are already working for Kerry.

There is no real personal chemistry between Kerry and Edwards, but the Bay State senator could probably warm up a guy who could help him catch President Bush in states like Florida. The downside in picking Edwards is that he lacks foreign affairs and national security experience. Voters might be wary of choosing such a novice in a post-9/11 world.

Gephardt, meanwhile, looms as a safe pick for Kerry who could likely help him in a vital swing state, Missouri. Gephardt could also pump up labor support for Kerry. But the Missouri Democrat would be a bland, unimaginative choice who has a long House voting record that Republicans could exploit for attack ads.


http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=30458


Gephardt has anoother strong suit in the Midwest, and particualryl in Missouri, where the unions are playing the strongest role in that states politics, and where the heads of the largest union in the state, as well as a number of political figures all happen to be ex-Gephardt aides.

This is a conservative point of view here,but it accurately point out the differnces between Edwards and Gephardt:

So, whom will the man choose? There are many possibilities, of course, and more than a few are quietly lobbying for the job while publicly disclaiming any interest in it whatever. But recent news reports indicate that the Kerry campaign is only doing extensive background checks on two possibilities: North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri. Both men would be on any list of possible candidates, but one wonders if potential candidates such as New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson have already been eliminated.

If they have and if the choice is between the two reportedly being vetted, Edwards had better start looking for another job for the simple reason that he doesn’t bring much to a Kerry ticket. It is true that he is a more inspirational speaker than Kerry and he demonstrated during the primaries that he can handle himself well enough, but he can’t deliver his own state or much else and his selection would do little to unite Democrats who are currently held together by little other than visceral hatred of Bush behind a nominee who has thus far been far from impressive.

Bob Shrum, the able veteran who seems most days to be calling the shots for Kerry, tries to run all his candidates as populists, and Edwards is a former client who talks the populist talk, so he might conceivably be attracted to Edwards. But it is difficult to imagine any of it rubbing of on Kerry, who comes across as perhaps the least populist of any recent Democratic nominee.

That leaves Gephardt, who has also demonstrated that he can handle the pressure of a national campaign and might make the difference in Missouri. He wouldn’t be an inspired choice by any means, but there aren’t many real alternatives and he would at least guarantee that organized labor would go the extra mile for Kerry. If Edwards warms the cockles of Shrum’s heart, Gephardt does the same for the men and women of the AFL-CIO.

But will this matter? It will tell us something about Kerry, of course, but it is something we already know. He is risk-averse and won’t swing for the fences if he thinks a bunt will get him what he wants. Beyond that, it’s not likely to make much difference, since vice-presidential candidates rarely make much difference by November. Voters vote for the presidential candidate, not for his running mate


http://www.thehill.com/keene/062204.aspx


EXPERIENCE MAY BE ISSUE

But the economy — Edwards' main issue as a presidential contender — appears to be on the rebound. The new dominant issue is the war in Iraq, and Edwards has no military and little foreign policy experience on his resume.

Edwards' general lack of experience, as a one-term senator, could also sink his chances. In what may or may not have been a signal from the Kerry camp, campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill recently told Newsday that developments in Iraq only magnified the need for a running mate who could take over the presidency in time of war.

"It becomes more and more necessary that the person chosen have the stature to step into leadership should the necessity arise," she said. "The more perilous the times become, the more it becomes necessary that (Kerry) be assured that his choice can rise to the task."

It's also debatable whether Edwards could put any states in the Democratic column if he's added to the ticket.

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/nation/8901986.htm?1c

Overall, Edwards brings bothing but the ability to speak to Kerry's campaign.

You may decide he is a populist by Edwards campign, but go back and look st his voting record prior to late 2003. early 2004 and you see an entirely different picture. Much like the picture of Howard Dean as the Liberal or Centrist while he was running for the presidency, the picture did not stand up to even the sligtest scrutiny. Looking at individual votes made by Edwards brings up a very different picture.

[janx]

48. AP, I agree with just about everything you say here.

That man has nowhere to go but up. He's still young for a politician, and he has unlimited talent. There's a good chance he'll be Kerry's running mate, but if he isn't, he still has another good 25 years of further accomplishments and time in which to hone his experience and skills even further.

If it is (as it is looking now) between Geppy and Edwards, I'd choose Edwards, if only because I think he has a great and enthusiastic bunch of supporters who want to see some real change, who realize that real change is necessary. But unfortunately, politics in our country often revolves around who is owed what in D.C., whose time has come, and who "deserves" the back scratch in the inner circle. I wish it weren't that way, because it takes away from the wisdom and imagination of the people, but there you have it.

I especially like your gold watch analogy.

[Lefty Pragmatist]

19. Why not go all the way?

Kerry/Mondale '04!

[janx]

20. I don't know, but my husband says that if you hear Gep talk

and don't look at him, he sounds very much like John Wayne.

Has anybody else ever noticed this?

[in_cog_ni_to]

25. I like Gep better than Edwards.

I just can't get that picture out of my mind. You know the one where he was standing in the Rose Garden beside the chimp supporting the IWR? Remember that? I do. And it sucked...big time.

At least he has more to offer than nice hair and a pretty smile.

If he's VP, I may just stay home. How damn boring could that ticket be? Kerry and Gephardt? :boring: Talk about putting voters to sleep. :eyes: I'm not wild about Kerry to begin with. Throw Gep into the mix and I'm comatose. :(

[venus]

27. The more I see and hear of Edwards, the more I like Gep if the

choice comes down to these two. They're both safe for Kerry, but Gep has more gravitas. And I trust him more. Edwards is still getting by on his looks. Why else would he have been considered by Gore in 2000 when he had just won election to the Senate. Was that his first elected office I wonder.

[IndianaGreen]

34. Gephardt would be a solid choice and...

an experienced choice. I am not a Gep fan, but he would be one that we would need a "heartbeat away" in case anything were to happen to Kerry. During perilous times such as these, we can ill afford to have an inexperienced person as VP, no matter how good he might look on TV.

We are not casting a movie here, we are forming an alternative to Bush/Cheney.

[DWolper]

39. That's a very good point , IndianaGreen..n/t

[Nicholas_J]

42. This has been pretty much the real way VP's have been selected

In most cases. The real decision has most frequently been based on experience, particualry of the kind that would enable a Vice President to step into the shoes of president in a worse case scenario. In almost all cases, popularity and personality were qualities that came in dead last in the decision to choose a running mate, and most often the running mate had a significant history of serving in political office, and having years of political connection, at both the Congressional level and at the state level. If you go back, you have Gore, who had been in office for a while when Clinton selected him. before that, George HW Bush, with years of political experience. Dan Quayle with a great deal of political connection in DC and in his state, the list goes on and on, Gerald Ford, years of experience. Someone like Edwards does not fit the profile that fits most VP's of the last 50 years. Kerry may decide to base his chouce on different criteria, but most of the leadership of the Democratic Party beleive that Edwards would be the riskiest choice for Kerry, and hits on very conservative sources like NewsMax would seem to verify this. The extremely conservative seem to want Edwards to be the choice for some reason, and seem most worried about Gephardt being the choice. People on DU may not like Gephardt, but conservatives fear Gephardt as much as they did and do Kerry.

[Dr Fate]

54. Good analysis, but he's an AWFUL campaigner...

...witnessed by the fact that he has never won any of his numerous Prez. bids.

Also- they will dig up his voting record & spin it like mad.

He has the experience, but that wont matter if he cant get votes for Kerry.

The media & types like George Will love him, so I say "no."

Clark for me.

[Awsi Dooger]

35. Gephardt would add nothing

He won't help Kerry at all in those midwestern states, regardless of current polls. Gep didn't come close to matching his poll numbers in Iowa, a factor Kerry can't afford to dismiss.

A year ago February I watched Gephardt speak at the 2004 Dem kickoff event, the Roe v. Wade anniversary dinner. Gephardt paused perfectly at least a half dozen times at the key points of his speech, waiting for applause that never came. It was stunning silence. I knew at that point Gephardt was shot as a politician, and wrote on DU the next day that the lack of applause would be symbolic of the votes he would expect/receive in the early primaries of 2004.

Gephardt would be Kerry's worst possible choice, among the logical candidates.

[Nicholas_J]

49. Your opinion is not the same as that of most

political analysts who have stronly stated that Gephardt brings the most to the table when it comes to being the Vice Presidential nominee. He brings a great deal of respect from organized labor. The larest unions, and more important, the rank and file members of those unions are rather insistant on Gephardt being the nominee. Particularly in onme of the most important states for Kerry, Michigan. Tha U.A.W. in particular is backing Gephardt for the VP nomination. If you look at Edwards, he bringsvery little from a political standpoint. Clark brings nothing.

Edwards, is pretty much about political negatives. Very short time in congress, not national power base in the form of organizationa support from groups that traditionally support the democratic party. His home state of North Carolina is not a swing state.

Clark has no political power base whatsoever.

Gephardt, is the defacto choice of the AFL CIO and the United Auto Workers. He hails from a swing state, Missouri. Polls indicate that Kerry can take that state,but only if Gephardt is his running mate.
Gephardt has years of dealing with the powers in Washington. He knows Congres, he know its members and he has negociated with a members of both sides of the aisles as Congressman and as House Minority leader.
His years in Congress and having been vetted during two presidential runs and winning 14 Congressional runs mean that ther are no negative surprises that the Bush/Rove machine can dig up.

As noted in a number of articles along with this one, there are virtaully no southern states that are considered too clsoe to call and in fact, it seems that Kerry and his campaign staff have decided to avoid the south outside of Florida as a part of the campaign strategy:

Furthermore, despite his popularity in the polls, Sen. Edwards doesn't appear to tilt even a single state to the Democratic column. In his home state of North Carolina, for instance, adding Sen. Edwards to the ticket merely brings the Democrats within striking distance in the polls rather than putting them in the lead.

With no Southern states classified as "too close to call," some Kerry advisers want him to avoid the region altogether, instead picking a vice president with the ability to tip a battleground state to his advantage. That strategy would seem to favor Rep. Gephardt, a favorite son in vote-rich, hotly contested Missouri.

http://www.worldmag.com/newsite/content/displayArticle.cfm?id=9114

The one thing that is a strong indication of Gephardt strength in the Veepstakes is the fact that out of all of the possible choices, Gephardt is rather serenely calm about the prospects of being selected, as noted in a number of articles as well:

THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: The No. 2 Spot; At a Fork in Gephardt's Path, A Job Interview of Sorts

By CARL HULSE; ROBIN TONER CONTRIBUTED REPORTING FROM DETROIT FOR THIS ARTICLE. (NYT) words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 25 , Column 1
DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF WORDS - Ror a man in the middle of the vice-presidential frenzy, Representative Richard A. Gephardt was remarkably relaxed. Tranquil ... Instead of endless meetings on legislative strategy, Mr. Gephardt is enjoying long walks along the waterfront with his wife. Rather than trying to outwit House Republicans, he revels in exploring the...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0816FA3C5D0C7B8DDDAF0894DC404482http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0816FA3C5D0C7B8DDDAF0894DC404482

The two largest unions in the nation have backed Gephardt for the VP slot and stringle requested that Kerry give the job to him. While Edwards and Kerry met this week in Washinton at the Senate for 90 minutes, It was Kerry who made the pilrgimage to see Gephardt at home in Missouri last week, and spent 90 minutes discussing the prospect of being VP with him in secret.

Has nothing to offer?

Gephardt seems to be the only candidate who has anything to offer from a political vantage.

[spooky3]

38. Do you have a link to the poll results you are describing?

I have not seen polls in all those states, where his #s are compared with those of other potential VP front runners. Is the evidence that he beats the other candidates' performance in the polls, or that the pollsters haven't ASKED about those other candidates?

[cosmokramer]

46. I see a pattern here on DU...

It appears most Edwards supporters are having fits that it might be Gephardt, and the Clark supporters are okay if it's Gephardt. Hmmm, strange.

[JohnKleeb]

47. I am a person who wants Edwards and I'd be very happy with gephardt

I dont really care who the VP is, I'd prefer a democrat.

[cosmokramer]

51. Good for you!

And I agree--a democrat would be best :-)

[JohnKleeb]

52. Ive always liked Gephardt

He was one of the first people I remember seeing when I got in to politics. It saddens me to see him retire, so I want him retained as VP or Secretary of Labor.

[cosmokramer]

55. I prefer Sec of Labor...

...and certainly hope he doesn't retire any time soon. I just saw him again back in April, and he was so full of energy. True, he may not be the most 'exciting', but he is incredibly qualified, and I would trust him to assume the Presidency in the event of an emergency. I can't say that about some of the 'other' contenders.

[Dr Fate]

57. Now there is an idea...

...because he certainly sucked as House Minority Leader- perhaps he will be better suited in the executive branch...

Do this to keep that labor support as well....

[JohnKleeb]

58. agreed, sec of labor

he's not exciting to a lot my age I admit, but I am a believer in old time pro labor policy which I think Gep is great at. Having Gep in the Kerry admin I think would be great.

[Dr Fate]

56. I love Clark, oppose Dick.

I DO indeed want an "exciting" ticket this year.

[Myrina]

50. He's dead weight

.. and would cost the Kerry ticket alot of younger, more progressive support, IMO.

[Dr Fate]

53. Loser. He never won a single one of his Prez. bids...

We need someone fresh- like Clark or Edwards.

[incapsulated]

62. Nicholas_J, You have a sale!

Your posts on this thread have convinced me that Gep would be a solid choice for VP based on facts, historical precedent and political reality. My response to Gephardt was initially "boring, been there done that", but you have changed my mind.

The only two requirements that the VP should have are these: Can he sit in the Big Chair? and, Can he help us win?

Clearly Gep can do the former and now you have made a solid argument that he can help in the latter. I don't care if all of DU and a good deal of Americans think he's a human sleeping pill, if he can help deliver two States and a ton of midwest votes, I'll just drink more coffee.

I'm for Kerry no matter who he picks but now I'm actually feeling good about Gep if he get's the nod.

[yellowdawgdem]

63. I'd trust Gep to do the right thing

Well, Gephardt is one of the people that I would like to see as veep in actuality. He could swing some of those midwestern states our way, no doubt. However I think that his lack of "oomph" could hamper the 2 of them as a team. Maybe saying that would make Gephardt mad, cuz he is firey in his way. But I did watch them together on cspan one time, and felt a bit bored. I guess it's not "oomph" just some type of sparkle that would boost Kerry's seriousness. I like and trust Gep much more than Edwards. Edwards seems more interested in himself and getting ahead with his career. But he does have that needed sparkle, and it is really too bad that we are that shallow. The question could well be whether Kerry wants a veep with whom he can campaign easily, or that he is more secure now about winning, and wants someone very experienced, somebody he knows and trusts during what is bound to be a chaotic time in history. And then there is the Union/Labor factor, you know, the people who brought us the weekend.

[cosmokramer]

64. Never were truer words spoken

"I like and trust Gep much more than Edwards. Edwards seems more interested in himself and getting ahead with his career."

[Joe Fields]

65. Given the choices....

if Bill Richardson is out of the running, I could live with Gephardt as Kerry's runningmate.

[Lenape85]

66. I'd hate to doubt Gep

But how would Gep help Kerry to win Missouri. Keep in mind that he is only a REPRESENTATIVE, which means that he is only elected by his congressional district. He represents one of the more liberal districts in Missouri, and he is often perceived in the middle of the state as too much of a city slicker.

[Leilani]

68. Your posts show a real grasp of politics...

So much of what is posted here at DU is opinion, & rather strong ones at that.

You have posted real links from a wide range of sources & not just talking head pundits who have no idea of what the real facts are.

I have been a strong Clark supporter, & I still have hope that he may be selected, as I feel international relation, war on terror, will be important factors in this election. Not to mention Iraq, which seems to be deteriorating daily. When you consider the blood & treasure being expended on this Bush folly, it calls for some strategic thinking. And I can think of no one better suited for this role than Wes Clark.

With that said, I will comfortably support Gep for all the reasons you have listed, which make perfect sense. Experience, labor ties, comfort factor, & rock steady.

And the most important reason of all: he is ready to assume the Presidency in a heartbeat if an emergency should require it. Therefore, perhaps being a political relic translates into perfect VP.

[kodi]

69. gep helps kerry govern better.

if the kerry administration expects any of their inititives to pass congress it would be best to have gephardt's experience there to help.

the gop has become very proficient in using congress and it is a snake pit for any democratic administration sponsored legislation.

gep is strong on what helps overcome the working man's blues... unions, health care, education, fair trade, and seniors support.