Gephardt, Edwards Undergo Checks for Veep

WASHINGTON - Democrat John Kerry's campaign has begun background checks of top running mate prospects, including Dick Gephardt, John Edwards, and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, while other hopefuls anxiously await word that they're worthy of a Washington "vetting."

Several Democratic officials familiar with the selection process said Wednesday that background checks have been under way for several weeks. The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said individuals other than Gephardt, Edwards and Vilsack are under consideration, but they would not identify them — nor say how many there were.

The candidates are known only by Kerry, a handful of advisers and a team of lawyers conducting background checks that are described as unusually thorough.

Gephardt, a Missouri congressman, and Edwards, a North Carolina senator, challenged Kerry for the Democratic nomination. Vilsack is an two-term governor whose wife, Christie, helped Kerry to a surprise win in the Iowa caucuses.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=703&e=7&u=/ap/20040428/ap_on_el_pr/veepstakes

Gephardt has paid his dues, is dedicated to the party, and has worked hard as a public servant. Edwards is like America's Tony Blair in the eloquence of his speech. However, I know that is not how they pick who is going to run; however, Gephardt is more deserving than Edwards.

...and he lost.

Paying your dues doesn't get anybody elected.

Picking a VP is an opportunity not only to win in 2004, but to win in 2012. Better to pick a winner who can move the party toward future victories rather than reward a guy who paid his dues but will not help you win now and definitely doesn't have much of a future.

and well put. Gephardt's 'service' will be amply rewarded by a life without worry. He's got healthcare, retirement. We don't owe him squat.

We need a winner and he aint it! He couldn't even retain his position as the leader of House Democrats.

And Edwards is just too cute for his shirt!

Surely there is a governor or even a businessperson out there better than those two!!

nt

Young, trim, eloquent, ebuillent..... Gephardt just looks plain MEAN!

Exactly what I thought when I read the headline. I really don't want Gephardt.

only as a courtesy. He washed out of the Presidential race early and is off the charts on the "yawn factor" scale. Kerry needs to choose someone who will energize people - and Gephardt's not it.

Please not Gephard we what to win and he not the one to take on Bush and Company

to it is reading the DU messageboard they see that if we, the hardcore folks, think Gephardt is a bad choice that they run as far away as possible from selecting him as VP.

He lacks the charisma needed to make up for Kerry's deficiency in that area. Edwards has charisma in spades, he also has a compelling story.

GEPHARDT IS BORING...BORING...BORING.

He led the Dems to defeat in 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2002. This is who Kerry wants...a guy who lost the House of Representatives when he was its leader.

Aaaargh!
Clark, Cleland, and Edwards would be great choices. Why Gephardt? That'd be suicide..

They acknowledge that many are being checked but only release the names of a few. It helps to keep it in the news and create some buzz and mystery about the eventual choice. I take all of these stories with a grain of salt.

A surprise pick would make a bigger splash in the press than someone that everyone knew was being considered.

and a disaster.

I admire Bill for many things, but he alienated too many people when he lied about Monica.

It would be a slap in the face of those senators and congressmen that crucified this man for something that was privet. However, once impeached (and the main reason they did it I think), I do not think you can run for a public office again the rest of your life. I think the constitution says something of the like but not 100% sure.

What does one have to do to start impeachment proceedings on a sitting president? Who would have to do this . . . speaker of the house?

and helps with the Anybody But Gephardt initiative.

not sure what he does for our chances in OH

Come talk about how bad the education system has suffered in the Heart of it All, and talk about how to get it back on track with a real plan. That's how you win Ohio, jobs are important here too but the people I know feel a whole lot better even without having a job if they know thier kids are getting the very best education they can get and will have the opportunity to go to college no matter what the income level. That's how you win Ohio's hearts and minds. That's how Ohio will vote Democrat in 2004.

Dick is a nice man and he has done some good things. But he will just inspire not one single whiff of excitement.

Please let it be Edwards. Please.

PLEASE tell me you forgot the smiley!!

Why not just lay out the red carpet for another 4 years of Bush?

First order of business is to get chimpy out of the White House. A Nadar vote is not an option.

I'd vote for Kerry even if his VP tab is Leona Helmsley.

If the Democrats don't want to stand up for the citizens they represent and for the Constitution why should we vote for them?

4 more years of Bush and there will be no more cover for him that the Democrats can help him hide under.

He won't have to worry about it because he will be out of office.

We need to stop Bush NOW. Not try to survive 4 more years of his 'clean air' and other anti-environmental tactics.

Stopping Bush now isn't enough. If he gets voted out he will get off the hook of all the BS he has caused.

boring, a career politician, and i'll never forgive for this:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I35418-2002Oct02

Democrats are privately questioning House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt's motives in supporting President Bush's Iraq resolution. (For The Washington Post)

I'm starting to warm to the idea of Clark because they are making this all about who would be strong on national defense and because it would be nice to have someone who can effectively go after * on the Iraq war. I like Edwards but he really can't go after them on Iraq.

I love Gephardt but he would be a total loser on this ticket.

We have got to add someone with charisma.

I don't know much about Vilsack, so I can't really comment on that, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was Edwards. I always thought it would be. He's intelligent, articulate, handsome (face it, it counts with the superficial sheeple), and very likable. He looks much younger than he is (which could very possibly make young people sit up and take notice), he's got that "regular guy" appeal and he's Southern. Not a bad choice.

in despair. What Kerry needs is someone charismatic and attractive-NOT someone who sucks the charisma out of the room even more than he does. Gep is human Sominex, but I'm sure he's get the DLC stamp of approval. Edwards is the best choice, IMHO. Name recognition, good looks, Southern and personable.

LOL; couldn't agree more!

Gephardt could turn me into a Naderite.

:dem:

Gephardt, Vilsack and Edwards...in a country the size of this one, that's the best that can be come up with? Politics is unspeakably ugly. Unsurprising, but discouraging nevertheless.

Edwards proves that you don't have to get ugly to rise to the top.

The guy has done the right thing his whole life and could become president. That ain't ugly. That's beautiful.

and a lightweight. Of course we have a phoney lightweight as president at the moment who makes John Edwards look like Solomon, and to be fair to Edwards he is intelligent and hard working. I just don't trust him, and the thought of him as President scares me, because the only thing that he really seems to stand for is his personal ambition. I think the same could be said about a lot of politicians (maybe most), but right now he is claiming considerably more limelight than most other politicians.

You've certainly been among his staunchest supporters (if not the staunchest)on DU, and I have to respect your knowlege and passion for him, and I know you've suggested he's a lot more liberal than he lets on, which may be true, but my overriding concern is that his tendency towards expediency outweighs his tendency towards liberalism. My gut and intuition say beware. Again, to be fair, there are very few political figures that I would trust as far as I could throw.

no interest other that doing what's right for the most Americans.

It baffles me that some see this as being phoney or being lightweight or being motivated by an ambtion that works to the disadvantage of most Americans.

Gore, Kerry, Bush...to me they all have family, business and political ties which, in some cases, give the appearance of a conflict in interest, and in other cases are manifestly and unapologetically a conflict in interest. (Gore, for example, was eager to deregulate the telecom industry. What does he do when he leaves public office? Starts a cable company. Oh come on!)

Edwards has none of that.

Sometimes I'm baffled by the fact that there are people who don't understand the difference between real conflict in interest and whatever it is that goes on in people's heads that's making them think things that are clearly not founded in any kind of reality.

You could start a lively discussion on just what "doing what is right for most Americans" entails. Personally, I don't think John Edwards offers it, and I don't think most Americans are willing to do what it takes.

You'll get no argument from me, however, on the various conflicts of interest extant with Gore, Kerry and most especially Bush. It baffles me to see that Americans in general don't consider politicians in general to be untrustworthy and phoney. Or perhaps they do, and just don't care. Or vote.

The problem with Edwards is that he believes in a system that is broken. He isn't offering any new ideas, or demonstrating any long term vision. He offers safe, largely pain-free (an exception being his mandatory health insurance program) alternatives that don't require deep thought or sacrifice. Nor do they really entail much genuine change. Somehow, this translates as optimism.

I'm reminded of the joke Ronald Reagan used to tell, about the little kids, one an optimist, the other a pessimist, who underwent tests to check their personalities. The pessimistic child was taken into a room full of toys, but wouldn't play with them because he was a afraid he'd break them. The little optimist was taken into a room full of manure, which he began frantically and joyfully scooping up. When asked why, the little boy beamed with joy and replied, "with all this manure, I just know there's a pony in here somewhere!" No kid, sorry, there's a room full of shit. Unfortunately at this time in the country's history, most Americans want the pony but they don't want to clean the shit out of the barn; instead they busy themselves heaping the crap ever higher and higher.

is broken in our society, and knows what it takes to fix it.

He talks about an America that built up a middle class until the early 70s and then started flowing wealth in the wrong direction -- up the income ladder. He says that history is littered with failed countries that did exactly the same thing.

So far, this is what, say, Dean thinks he's talking about.

But where does Dean take this logic: let's not make the tax code more progressive. Huh? Edwards, on the other hand, says that the tax code is precisely the thing that is assisting the one-way transfer of economic, political and cultural power up the ladder. He's going to fix it.

Dean says, race-based affirmative action is no longer neede. Huh? Edwards says that race, gender, and other discrimination or one of the ways that power is kept from flowing down to people who don't have it, which is why it's important to take it seriously.

Those are just two of many examples.

Like I said, Edwards, to me, is the one who sees the problem and knows what it takes to fix it, and is not compromised in any way shape or form which would prevent him from persuing the policies which would fix what's wrong with America.

His Mr. Nice Guy / Good 'Ol Boy from Carolina schtick provides excellent camoflauge for a knock-em-dead-and-make-em-thank-you-for-it-afterwards trial attorney who's taken on some of the biggest corporations in America and beat the Brooks Brothers pants right off of 'em!

"Lurch" Cheney wouldn't stand a chance!

While it would be hard to imagine a character more loathesome than Dick Cheney (Don Rumsfeld? Henry Kissinger? Paul Werewolfovitz? Tom Delay?) he would treat Edwards like a squab, roll in him butter and garlic, and roast him on a stick. The one thing Edwards would have in his favor would be his youthful looks, a refreshing contrast to the ghoul-like Cheney. It doesn't hurt either that Cheney's business connections have rubbed a bit of the "luster" off of him.

Lieberman should have thrashed Cheney, but we all remember how that turned out. I wouldn't underestimate Big Dick. Edward's aw-shucks "schtick" (exactly what it is) will not compare favorably to Cheney's deadpan projection of august sobriety and world-weary experience.

Another factor to consider would be format: I doubt the Bush team is going to accept any debate format not of their own choosing.

Cheney's lies like Cheney was telling a funny story (specifically, when Cheney said he'd never made a dollar off the federal government, or some such nonesense).

I don't think Edwards would let that happen.

I'll be rooting for Edwards.

And yes, that display with Lieberman/Cheney was nauseating.

People like my mother-in-law (who doesn't give a rats ass about policy, just votes on personal likeability) will see a charming, upbeat, handsome guy taking on a scowling, sweaty, old creep.

eh, I could go for Clark, Edwards, Cleland, Clinton (Bill or Hillary), Graham,

I wouldn't mind voting for Gephardt on the snooze ticket.

:-(

n/t

and I think Gep is a smoke screen, for that matter so is Edwards. Edwards being a former malpractice lawyer, althougha fair and honest one give way to much fuel to the rpukes and most American voters will not take the time to look further, plus he does not have the security and foreign policy experience that others could bring. ie Clark, I know I know I know Clark Clark Clark, that's because I want to win an elction and most moderates like Clark.

methinks.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

Gephardt. Seriously, my couch has more charisma.

But I'll still send the ticket money. I...am...that...desperate.

MzPip
:dem:

He's just a decoy.

I tend to think it will be someone they haven't seriously mentioned among the VP "rumors." Either Clark, Cleland, Richardson... along those lines.

Anyone who could convince my Dad to vote Democratic in 2004 deserves to be on that ticket.

would seal the deal.....

no offense, but the guy would help kerry govern better and secure democratic programs better than anyone else in a kerry administration.

gephardt's strong labor and seniors policies help with traditional democratic bastions. labor is proportional stronger in the battleground states than nationally, so a strong labor candidate would be valuable in these critical states for kerry.

gephardt's experience with congress would be vital to any kerry administration policy initiatives that have to go thru that byzantine maze known as congress.

sure, i would like a mix of jesus christ and bruce springsteen as vp, but we got what we got, and winning is just prelude to governing.

any one who thinks that a kerry presidency will herald a new golden age of liberalism had better put down that crack pipe. what faces any democratic presidency is a strong gop in congress, think tanks and media ideologues organized for the political assassination of democratic programs and an adversary that is willing to play dirty and attempt to abort any democratic initiative, simply to make democrats look bad.

this ain't spitball, and the best we can do considering the forces aligned against us is increment gains.

unless i am missing something?

am i?

martians perhaps?

in 2004, we hold back the floodgates of right wing power. that should be enough folks. expecting more than that considering the forces facing us, well, that is plain hubris. we are going to be lucky to win and we ought to realize that by now.

i will take what i can get as long as i got more points on the board.

any liberal worth her/his salt bristles at such a choice, but there it is.

i wear my heart on my sleeve just like any liberal does, but this time, i am playing the odds, and gephardt provides the best odds for successful democratic policies to be enacted......and i admit, readily, half a loaf is better than none.

He is a very nice man and a wonderful politician but he is not the man for this season or this race.

I don't know if he brings anything to the dance, but he is a good man and has done a good job in Iowa.

I'd still like to see Clark.

Unless we could have Bill or Hillary, or some surprise candidate not yet mentioned!

whaaaaaaaa :cry: well, maybe he's being saved for Secretary of State! :-)

he'll be there at the end.

:eyes:..

Please..not DG..:(

morning? While not a fan of Don Imus, I watched him this morning only to see Edwards. He was in great form!! To me, Kerry would be foolish to pick Gephardt over Edwards. Of course, I'll vote for Kerry regardless of who he picks for his running mate.

He's dull, been in Washington too long (too much insiderism), and was cheerleader for Bush's war --- never forget that Rose Garden picture with him and Lieberman standing sidled up next to their Smirkmaster.

Despite all of Bush's fuck-ups, if Kerry picks Gephardt, we're toast

The military industrialists will be ecstatic. Same old. Same old.

Kerry/Clark IS the ticket!!!! 2 Enlightened War heroes vs. 2 Neanderthal Chickenhawks!!!

:bounce: