. . .
Point being, that since 1980 the norm for vice-presidential picks seems to be that pundits bandy about half a dozen names of serious contenders. And then the pick ends up being someone who was either never even considered or someone who was thought the longest of long-shots.
Now, like everyone else did in 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996 and 2000, I certainly figure that it'll be one of the logical choices -- Edwards or Gephardt most likely. But if it is one of those two, it'll be a break from the trend of the last quarter century.
Call me a pundit, but I'm thinking Edwards or Gephart, probably Edwards because he's better looking. Read Joshua's whole post and you decide.
2:30 am: Daily Kos feels just the opposite:
Kerry's team is operating under the C.W. assumption (correctly, IMHO) that a reelection battle is a referendum on the incumbent. Hence, they are fully expecting Bush to do himself in, leaving Kerry as the only alternative by the time November runs around. It may not be an exciting strategy, but a sound one nevertheless.
Gephardt as veep would be a natural extension of that strategy.
I'm going to sleep now.
No comments:
Post a Comment