These "friends" talking about Kerry's search sure don't sound like the kind of friends I like to have.

John Edwards is the obvious choice, and Kerry will be criticized for choosing Edwards in a way that implies unpleasant things about Kerry's character. But, Kerry will criticized in that way, regardless of what he does on the Vice-Presidency or any other issue, because Republicans and the Mickey Kaus types of this world enjoy doing it.

If I were in Kerry's campaign I would recommend that Kerry meet with Bill Clinton in a well-publicized way, and then start the rumor that Kerry is begging Bill to consider becoming his vice-President. This would be like throwing red meat to the lions. The media would have a field day, and Democrats could talk about how Kerry is so fearless about being upstaged and about how Kerry is able to "think outside the box" etc. Clinton could demur after a week or two of pondering the possibility, and bow out, leaving Kerry to choose Edwards or almost anyone else.

Can Clinton even be VP since he already served two terms as President?

Clinton most likely can't serve as VP, but there's a little bit of uncertainty about it. Kaus talked about it a couple of weeks ago.

So what did Kerry do to make Kaus dislike him so much, anyway? I know Kaus leans conservative, but he's not usually strongly ideological. But man, he just can't stand Kerry at all. He must have stolen Mickey's girlfriend or something.

Rumors don't have to make sense. . . They just have to be juicy.

Substitute McCain for Clinton in the above discussion, as has already occurred: draws the connection to veteran status, integrity, bipartisanship, patriotism, balls, and creative thinking. ...Associating Kerry with Edwards, in contrast, detracts from the Kerry candidacy's gravitas, even if it does compensate for its stiff upper lip... The Edwards rumor also generates disappointment that no surprise is in store--come on, where's the drama we want? ...Edwards's likeability will also undergo far harsher attacks and scrutiny than it did in the primaries, when Mr. Positive was decidedly in non-attack mode, and could expect some reciprocity.

Daily Kos is floating the rumor that Howard Dean is back under consideration, after a Zogby poll that shows Kerry/Dean outpolling Kerry/Gephardt by up to sixteen points. (As he points out, somebody paid for the poll.)

Dean alienates people who would never have voted for Kerry in the first place, so there's no net loss there; he fires up the Democratic base better than any other candidate; and if an all-Southern ticket can win the White House (or if you can choose a VP to lock in your base, as Bush did with Cheney), then why not an all-New England ticket?

Personally I still lean toward Sam Nunn, but his name shows up on the "should have been considered" list more often than the "juicy rumor" list.

If you haven't already done so, please vote in the on-line Vice-Presidential Preference poll in
Sozadee CA
Where Wes Clark leads John Edwards and John McCain.

Several of my cousins's families have lived and worked in DC and environs for generations. One of my cousins has a very dear friend who works in BC04 HQ in Arlington. Within the past two weeks the very dear friend has flipped and begun filling in Kerry HQ, through a series of cut-outs, every bit of information which crosses this persons desk, most of which deals with...

But that would be telling.

Why does anybody think John Edwards can win anything in the South? Simply because he's from the South? He wouldn't even win his Senate seat back if he ran for it a second time. Al Gore was from the South and he didn't win a single Southern State. Clinton and Gore were both from the South and only won Arkansas in 2 tries.

National Democrats won't win in the South until they change their policies, not the state of birth of their candidates.