Gephardt, Edwards Undergo Checks for Veep - 22 Minutes ago

"WASHINGTON - Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites)'s campaign has begun background checks of top running mate prospects, including Dick Gephardt (news - web sites), John Edwards (news - web sites) 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."

Edwards has an advantage in the polls. So, my bet is with him ??

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040428/ap_on_el_pr/veepstakes_5

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x516693

But good catch. You all are on the ball tonight!

:hi:

that Edwards is the most popular of them, but there are reasons to stand behind some of the others. With Gephardt, there is the advantage that he's a union man, and most of the unions stand firmly behind him. With the other man (so far named), there is the fact that he helped Kerry get the Iowa caucus win.

I would speculate that Kerry and his team are mulling choices for a wide variety of potential pluses--what they need to find is someone who is popular, but also someone who will give them a distinct advantage in helping grab a specific portion of the vote. That, in and of itself, is very important. It's one of the reasons why Edwards would be good, helping to capture the vote from the south, but Wesley Clark, for example, is still very popular with the military families.

I would hesitate to second guess Kerry and his team, though; like with Gore picking Lieberman, it could be someone from left field ultimately.

find an anti-war pick though...

Just wondering. He's got all the security clearances, so would he even need a VP vetting?

:shrug:

considerations and how it might affect the ticket and getting votes. like in 2000 one reason gore didn't pick kerry was because of the many women he had relationships with before getting married to teresa since gore wanted to run on the morals thing.

and bob graham wasn't picked because of the thing with him writing down everything he does each day which he has been doing for decades.

they want to check out and be prepared to deal with things that might show up about the vp. and if they feel it would be difficult or impossible to overcome and would hurt more than help they would not be chosen. gephardt and edwards both come from the same type of family so i don't think there is anything on them in terms of their personal lives.

For instance, Gephardt tips the odds of winning Ohio and Pennsylvania in our favor and definitely takes Michigan out of play. In addition, he puts Missouri,another swing state, in play.

The disadvantage is that the Greens and some of the hardcore Dean people won't vote for a Kerry-Gephardt ticket given Gephardt's disgraceful Rose Garden appearance. While I understand their disgust, I calculate these individuals wouldn't vote for a ticket with "Tox" on it anyway.

Dick is a dull choice.

He has for the most part, proven that he does not know how to fight Bush...

He did poorly in the primaries- that should be an indicator...

None of these 3 guys is value-added to the ticket,IMHO,yet each would bring a distinct down side: Gep is soooooooo yesterday's news; Edwars knows ZIP about national security--can't you just imagine SOMW debate Cheney; and Vilsak for crissesake--I'd rather have his Iowa (house)wife!
:grr:

I'm sure that they would still vet him regardless of his clearances.

MAY bring something...possibly making Missourri more competetive. He would lock up MI probably....and might help in OH and PA -- all states needed and which seems to be part of Kerry's electoral strategy.

Edwards and Clark bring a much needed excitement though. They really would give Kerry that needed bounce...Both showed that they have the ability to bring out independants and moderate republicans out to vote as well -- while at the same time, not completely alienating anti war dems -- I'm pretty sure that Rose Garden thing helped derail his and Lieberman's campaign (plus they both aren't very exciting anyways).

Gephardt just seems to be old news. His primary showings should be an indication.

I have great respect for Gephardt, but I think to bring in independents and swing republicans, we need to bring someone in who is fresher and not so deeply considered an 'insider'.

And the Union vote is not all we need to win. We need to go beyond our base and keep the Dean supporters active and out there helping and after what happened in Iowa, I just don't see them wanting to support Gephardt. He was great in his day, but I want change.

So...I would agree that Edwards or Clark bring more excitement and hopefully can reach out beyond our base to new voters like they did the primaries.

Also...regarding OH, Edwards has been invited as a special speaker for the Democratic party state dinner coming up in May. So, he would help to bring OH just as much as Gephardt might.