Is the day after Independence Day weekend really a good day to do this? Will anyone be paying attention? Or is that the plan?

How exactly does picking a minority help him
shore up the white vote (which is still decisive)?

Nunn's better than Edwards across the board. He can spin national security credentials, has more experience and is not an ambulance chaser yet he's every bit as southern.

As for picks that meet your criteria: Richardson would be solid and Hilary would bring out the base.

Kerry has some decent options.

Shouldn't they at least be doing background checks on the other options? It's easy to see him pulling an Eagleton.

J.H.:

It doesn't. He can't contest the white vote. He needs really high base turnout just to avoid apocalyptic losses in the House, Senate and at the state level.

O.J.,

Am I wrong in thinking that the white vote
split 50/50 in 2000? I assume that you are
predicting that this time the white vote will
be more like 60/40?

Nunn has been off-stage for 10 years; his vote against the first Gulf War doomed him and obviates any potential gains from his 'gravitas'. Richardson is not interested and is probably too much of a real person to endure Kerry. Hillary is a negative for reasons well known.

It looks like Kerry will pick pretty boy - but how do the Democrats explain a ticket with 2 very wealthy Senators, one of whom is a gold-digger and the other a trial lawyer? Cheney could handle Edwards in debate with just one question: "Senator, why are you running for VP if you ducked re-election? Are you judge-shopping?"

How would picking a "black" help Kerry?

IIRC Kerry was originally going to announce his VP on or about May 1st. This has been dragging on for months. I think Kerry is so indecisive that he won't announce anyone until he is finally forced to at the convention -- and the determining factor will not be any of those mentioned, but rather who he can find who will actually run with him.

H-man:

The conventional wisdom holds that in some of the "battleground" states the balance might hinge on the turnout in the black community. To this point the black community has not warmed to Kerry much and might be inclined to pass. A black VP candidate would be more likely to raise the turnout among black voters (who go 90%+ for Democrats).

Also, I think some Dem stratagists believe that any white votes that might be lost because of this kind of move are for the most part already lost or are in states that are already lost. Most of the remaining "yellow dog" Democrats are in states that are pretty much in the President's hip pocket already.

If Kerry picks another rich white guy, which is as likely as tomorrow's sunrise, that would make picking Condi for VP just all the much sweeter.

It seems like there is a rather shallow pool of black politicians with the ability to appeal to the nation as a whole withing the Democratic party right now. Still, it seems like the Kerry campaign ought to at least leak some female, black, and minority names to at least make it look like they are considering them. No suprise really, the Kerry campaign, like Kerry himself have been pretty tone deaf.

>It seems like there is a rather shallow pool of
>black politicians with the ability to appeal to
>the nation as a whole withing the Democratic
>party right now.

How about Bill Clinton? Everybody was calling him Our First Black President...

>As for picks that meet your criteria: Richardson
>would be solid and Hilary would bring out the
>base.

But would anybody want someone as single-minded in pursuit of Power as Hillary only "one heartbeat away from the White House" -- especially if it's your heartbeat?

John Kerry picks a vice president:

"In a minute there is time, For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse."

"Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare to eat a peach?"

T.S. Eliot (1888–1965). The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock

h:

Right now he seems likely to get the lowest black turnout we've seen in recent decades. That loses seats down ticket.

J.H.:

Yes, you're wrong. It was closer to 60-40 even in 2000.

JH--

If OJ were wrong, Gore would have won easily.

If the white vote had been 50-50 in 2000, Gore would have won in a landslide, based on his 9-1 advantage with blacks and his 2-1 advantage with Hispanics.

Kerry's VP selection effort seems to be aimed at targeting single states -- North Carolina with Edwards, Missouri with Gephardt -- more than targeting ethnic groups, though I assume picking Gephardt would also be designed to spur nationwide union support, while Edwards would supposedly attract the women-who-get-the-hots-for-cute-and-rich-politicians demographic.

Neither would be a bold move, and either would seem to show the Kerry camp taking minority voters for granted. Not a real bold strategy, but given the nominee's personality of blandness mixed with egotism, any really bold selection (including Hillary) would risk totally eclipsing Kerry in the media, something that would drive him crazy.

In that secnario, Vilsack would be the most logical choice, since he's a cypher to at least 95 percent of the American public, and could be used in whatever way the Kerry people liked on the campaign trail. But other than no high negatives, it's hard to see what his major plus is for the ticket, unless the senator from Massachusetts thinks Iowa's having another presidential caucus on Nov. 2.

Sharpton's available.

So is John Street, whose top officials were just indicted (along with some investment bankers).

Maybe Kerry should just pick Cruz Bustamante. Or Barney Frank.

It will be interesting to watch the Clintons duke it out with John Edwards for control of the party after Nov. 2.

Hillary: "I'm experienced".

Edwards: "I'm better looking".

Regarding the black turnout, in Florida as I recall it was very good in 2000. I imagine it was high in the rest of the country, maybe for instance Pennsylvannia. Therefore there is not much else to squeeze out of that bloc of votes. Republicans have already suffered the Democrats best shot on racial turnout. (I for one was surprised at that, and I will grant that Bush did "lose" the popular vote).

If Democrats get too bizarre in their choice they could start to lose white voters, not necessarily to Republicans, but to Nader/Greens/Socialist/Peace Party types who I doubt are enthusiatic about affirmative action as it plays out in for instance college admissions.

They are already consistently alienating union membership on what I would call lifestyle type issues (for instance gun control, homosexual rights etc) Maybe instead of lifestyle, I should say self image issues. To add a big push for Black turnout at this stage, could backfire even more with labor.

Regarding women, I will let somebody who understands women speak to that.

h-man: "Regarding women, I will let somebody who understands women speak to that."

Don't hold your breath.