The “Who will be John Kerry’s running mate” game is picking up steam. Jim Johnson has been making the rounds, conducting interviews with possible choices, and avoiding the media like the plague. Some news reports are quoting “insiders” saying the choice could be made by the end of this month.
The buzz, at this point, surrounds three possible candidates: Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (Mo.), and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack. Each have been the subject of intense scrutiny, apparently, by Johnson and Kerry aides. These three are obviously in the running and on a fairly short list.
My two personal favorites aren’t getting a lot of ink. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson continues to deny any interest in the job, and retired Gen. Wesley Clark seems to hover somewhere in the “also being considered” camp.
But in Clark’s case, it seems the buzz is starting to change and his chances are gathering some momentum. In fact, after a couple of months away from the spotlight, there are several recent reports suggesting the Clark is under serious consideration.
Newsweek is reporting, for example, that Clark is the third candidate to have been through the vetting process, after Gephardt and Edwards. Moreover, the New York Daily News reported today that Clark’s “stock in the Democratic veepstakes is rising again.”
The LA Times’ Ron Brownstein gave the Kerry-Clark ticket a little boost today with a persuasive take on the strengths he’d bring to the table.
[Clark] has proven one of the Democrats’ most acute analysts and effective messengers on national security: His speeches on Iraq last fall, which called for broadening international participation in the occupation and warned against dismantling the entire Iraqi army, look prescient now.
Last week, Clark underscored the potential value of a running mate who once wore four stars on his shoulders and a Silver Star on his chest when he responded to recent Republican attacks on Kerry’s activities in and after Vietnam with a ringing challenge: “Those who didn’t serve, or didn’t show up for service,” he wrote, “should have the decency to respect those who did … ”
As a candidate, Clark demonstrated plenty of flaws. But few other Democrats could deliver a punch like that with such authority. And none could better symbolize Kerry’s determination to rebuild relations with traditional allies than the man who directed, in Kosovo, the one war NATO ever fought. In an election that could revolve more around guns than butter, Clark may pack more firepower than any of the other names on Kerry’s list of running mates.
Brownstein was referring to a New York Times op-ed Clark wrote in response to GOP criticisms of Kerry’s heroic war record. It was a terrific piece, but in the VP game, it also sent an important message: I know how to go after Bush and Cheney. Considering the historic role of running mates, Clark seemed to be reminding Kerry that few are more credible in attacking the Bush administration on foreign policy and national security than a four-star general, a decorated war hero, and the former supreme allied commander of NATO.
All of this comes after several key apppearances Clark made on Kerry’s behalf earlier in the spring.
And let’s not forget, Clark’s home state of Arkansas backed Bush in 2000 by just 5% and a Survey USA poll in the state less than two weeks ago showed Bush with a narrow 2-point lead over Kerry. With Clark on the ticket, chances are awfully good that the state (and its six electoral votes) would be a likely Dem pick-up.
Stay tuned.