Latest in Veepstakes, Edwards in first place Gephardt 2nd.

[Nicholas_J]

Veepstakes polling method

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

The Associated Press-Ipsos poll on the Democratic nominee for vice president is based on telephone interviews with 788 registered voters from all states except Alaska and Hawaii. The interviews were conducted June 7-9 by Ipsos-Public Affairs.

The results were weighted to represent the population by demographic factors such as age, sex, region and education.

No more than one time in 20 should chance variations in the sample cause the results to vary by more than 3.5 percentage points from the answers that would be obtained if all registered voters were polled.

North Carolina Senator John Edwards, 36 percent (Dems: 43 percent)

-Missouri Congressman Dick Gephardt, 19 percent (Dems: 19 percent)

-Retired General Wesley Clark, 18 percent (Dems: 18 percent)

-Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, 4 percent (Dems: 4 percent)

-(NOT READ:)Other-none of these, 6 percent (Dems: 4 percent)

-Don't know-refused, 17 percent (Dems: 12 percent)

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apelection_story.asp?category=1131&slug=Veepstakes%20Method

[AmyStrange]

1. Thanx Nicholas_J...

I've been telling people this since January,

d

[TheFarseer]

2. interesting

didn't know Edwards was so much cooler than Clark. Vilsack and Gep won't help - JK shouldn't even consider them.

[AmyStrange]

3. yeah what's up with the Gep part?

is name recognition the only reason he's up over everybody?

d

[Nicholas_J]

6. Nope

The area of the country outside of Kerry's home area, the Northeast, where Kerry is doing a lot better than Bush is the midwest, which is Gepardts home territory, as well as being heavily unionized states and most of the unions in the Midwest backed Gephardt for the nomination. The Teamsters and in particulat the Teamsters president, Hoffa, directly indicated that they want Gephardt as the running mate and unions are very good at motivating their membership to support a particular candidate. Union voters tend to be more activist voters, so Gephardt is getting a big boost from not only the union leaders, but the union members. Right now the AFL-CIO is running the largest get out the vote drive in its history, members going door to door to push for Kerry. This is the earliest and the largest walk for a candidate in union history. The union is spending more than it has ever spent in its history for this one campaign alone, spending 44 million dollar ,focusing on the 17 battlground states. This 44 million dollars does not include the political campaign budgets of the AFL-CIO's 61 member unions. And this door to door campaign is just for the month of June. It is estimated that the unions alone will be spending more money to defeat Bush, than Bush is expected to raise for his entire campaign.

These are the people who want Gephardt, and it seems likely that they are going to get him if they have already agreed to spend this much to get Kerry elected.

[chimpymustgo]

8. But does labor really want Gep that much more than Edwards?

Edwards has similar pollicies and background - but has pizzaz - charisma, looks, smarts, he's the rock star of the party right now. And Dems want him, as evidenced by the poll you posted. I understand loyalty, but winning is much more important. Gep would make a great Secretary of Labor - that's where their long-standing relationship could be most beneficial.

[Nicholas_J]

35. Charisma in a running mate

is complete anathema. Its Kerry running for the presidency, not Edwards and Kerry does not need anything that is goinmg to divert attention to him. Lets puit it this way, could you see a ticket in 1992, where Gore was running for President and he had Clinton as his running mate. Just would not work. Whether democrats want him is really not the issue. For Kerry to let the public decide, and let polls decide what he is going to do in this matter itself woud lend to a feeding frenzy among Republicans who would cite it as proof of weakness of will on Kerry's part. That he does not have what is necvessary to lead, and that frequently means doing what your years of experience tell you is the correct thing to do, not being led by the polls. Pizzaz, charisma, smarts are simply not qualifications for the job of VP, You are right, they are qualifications for a rock star. Not the person who will be made president in case that Kerry must stand down. Selecting Edwards as VP would run contrary to the reasons that Edwards was not selected to be the party nominee. This time around it seems that the Democrats of the nation, and a number of Republicanas and Independents decided that they wanted someone with a great deal of political experience to be president. A Washinton insider as well. A long-time Washington insider. Logic says that they will also want a running mate with the same credentials, as If something happens to Kerry, they are going to want someone with the same credentials that Kerry had. Years of experience, years of experience inside of Washington. Which is why slowly Gephardt is moving up in polls for the VP which he was not even include in three weeks ago. ANd why Edwards is doing well, but not as well as he once did. You are applying the criteria that has been used for selecting a president of late, Charisma,pizzaz, and these reasons only being important of late. Using such criteria has not served well in the recent past, as they have given us Ronald Reagan, and in his own strange way, George Bush, who to most Republicans on the street will attribute the same characteristics to Bush that you have attribted to Edwards. Again, other factors are more likely to get us a good president.ANd Vice President. Experience being the main one.Which Edwards does not have, and Gephardt does. Even smarts simply are not enough

ALso one of the problems with having Edwards on the ticket, is that the very polls that show him in the lead no longer show Kerry doing any better with Edwards against a Bush/Cheney opposition, that they do without him.

[AP]

37. In '92, if Gore had been from Mass. and said during the primary debates

that he didn't need the south to win, and he had been the nominee, I think it might have a good idea for him to pick Clinton. He could have told Clinton to campaign for him all over the south while Gore concetnrated on the rest of Ameirca. They could have met up a few times in OH and WI, and they would have won the election.

Also, Edwards has been holding steady in the polls, if not improving. On southern super tuesday, 40% of primary voters wanted him as VP. Today, 43% of Dems want him and 36% of all voters. He's not sliding.

Where are the polls you talk about in that last paragraph? All the polls I've seen show that Edwards Kerry do better than other combinations and in some cases are the difference between winning and losing.

By the way, talking to voters the NUMBER 1 reason I heard for people picking Kerry over Edwards wasn't experience. It was "I want to beat Bush and because Kerry's winning now, it looks like he's the one who can beat Bush." It was because he won Iowa and NH.

[Nicholas_J]

42. The very IPSO REID poll that

that has Edwards in the lead, and Gephardt in second place show the fact that Kerry does no better in the polls with Edwards than without him, and this is the latest poll in the veepstakes:

Poll: Edwards favored for Kerry vice president

By RON FOURNIER - AP Political Writer - 06/13/04

WASHINGTON — Sen. John Edwards, the smooth-talking populist who emerged from the nominating campaign as John Kerry's chief rival, is favored among registered voters to be the Democratic vice presidential candidate, according to an Associated Press poll.

But his name on the ticket does not automatically boost Democratic prospects.

A Kerry-Edwards pairing ties with the GOP tandem of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, which is no better than Kerry's current showing in head-to-head matchups against Bush, according to the AP poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs.

Democratic strategists cautioned against reading too much into any poll before Kerry selects a running mate.

‘‘Polling information on potential running mates is soft and unreliable because it's all about name identification and hypothetical,'' said Doug Sosnik, a top adviser in the Clinton White House. ‘‘Eventually, we'll have a campaign when people will get to know them. Right now, it's just mush.''

http://www.helenair.com/articles/2004/06/13/national_top/a01061304_03.txt

Right now it looks more and more like Edwards may be the Howard Dean of the Vice Presidential polling. Up in the lead in the public mind as who they want as running mate, but in fact, having few of the qualifications found in the final selections for once the final choices come hjearer.

[AP]

45. I guess time will tell.

But one way he's different from Dean is that people like him because of what they know about him after comparing him to the other candidates.

People liked Dean because he got more coverage than all the other candidates combined. People didn't know anythign about the other candidates.

[chimpymustgo]

39. But those polls also show Kerry LOSING with Gephardt on the ticket.

43% of Dems polled want Edwards. Those are astounding numbers. Senators - and candidates for Senate want him.

I think Kerry is confident enough in his own abilities to can pick someone with Edwards' appeal. I hope he is.

[Nicholas_J]

44. One thing that Kerry is notirious for.

And that is that he does not act in concert with the recommedations of polls most of the time.


The statement that senators and candidates for Senate want Edwards does not bear close scrutiny. The party itself has indicated that it also prefers someone other than Edward. Preferring a safer, choice.

To which the New Republic's Ryan Lizza replies:

"I don't necessarily think Wesley Clark would be the greatest pick. With Bush in freefall, the guiding principle for Kerry in choosing a veep should probably be caution and the rule of do no harm. The more chaotic the situation gets in Iraq and the more Bush sinks in the polls, the more the situation calls for a safe, vetted, vanilla pol like Dick Gephardt. Clark would reinforce Kerry's national security credentials, but as an amateur politician prone to saying embarrassing things, he is also a gamble.

"But that doesn't mean that he really has said every silly thing attributed to him. Maybe Kerry's aides have additional evidence of Clark spreading the rumors about an affair, but as far as I know it's a false accusation."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32740-2004May17.html

Though much revilve, it was Richard Nixon, probably the predidential cnadidate who had the best preparation to sit in the Oval Office who made the keenest observation about selecting a Vice Presidential candidate. That observation was that a Vice Presidential running mate cannot help a presidential candidate, but only hurt them, so the choice has to be made with that in mind. Which is why no matter what the public thinks, most political pundits, the leadership of the Democratic party, and the leadership of the large organizations that have traditionally supported the Democratic Party are not leanoing towards Edwards, but someone safer. And why Kerry was seriously considering John Mc Cain.

A New York Times article from May 26th makes the same statements about the party beleiving that Kerry should make a safe choice, someone who has been around for a long time:

THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: OVERVIEW; Democrats Ask If Careful Path Is Best for Kerry

By ADAM NAGOURNEY (NYT) 1330 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 1 , Column 5
ABSTRACT - Pres Bush's political difficulties prompt debate among Sen John Kerry's aides and other Democrats over how cautious Kerry's campaign should be on variety of issues; some party officials want Kerry to take chances and turn election into referendum on a struggling president who, in three new polls, is more embattled than he has ever been; other Democrats warn that such a strategy entails risks of its own, banking on proposition that Americans would be willing to fire incumbent during war time and replace him with someone they know little about; Kerry has been displaying caution until now, much in keeping with his style as candidate over past 20 years; he has said he could not win presidency by relying on misfortunes at White House; aides say speech he will deliver May 27 is part of series of speeches on domestic and foreign policy that would fill in gaps of what they acknowledge has often seemed an anyone-but-Bush candidacy (M)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=132&topic_id=547001&mesg_id=548021

Again:

Every presidential nominee polls before his party's convention to see whether potential running mates would help or hurt him. Invariably, polling data indicate that almost any running mate will hurt the presidential candidate. The best that can be hoped for, in most cases, is that the vice presidential nominee will help carry key states or constituencies.

Such non-entities as Spiro Agnew and Dan Quayle were chosen by Richard Nixon and George Bush the Elder specifically because they were zeros -- that is, polls showed they neither hurt nor helped the presidential nominee whereas bigger-name figures carried damaging baggage. No presidential candidate wants to find himself in the position of Vice President Walter Mondale in 1984, hurt by revelations about the husband of Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, or Sen. George McGovern in 1972, who chose and then unchose Sen. Tom Eagleton as his No. 2...

Certain times call for certain running mates. President Lyndon Johnson chose Sen. Hubert Humphrey as his running mate in 1964 because, in the wake of President John Kennedy's assassination, it was important to have a vice president of presidential stature. Johnson also needed a certified northern liberal to excite Democratic constituencies lukewarm about LBJ. Four years earlier, Kennedy had selected Johnson as his running mate because he needed to balance his ticket with a certified Southerner. As it turned out, LBJ's candidacy carried Texas and won the election for Kennedy.

The setting in 2004 is not unlike that in 1964. Post-9/11 and with American troops fighting abroad, voters will be unlikely to welcome a Democratic vice presidential nominee not seen as prepared for high office, experienced in international affairs or able to hold his own in televised debates with Vice President Dick Cheney. Kerry, in pondering his choice, will be asking: If something happened to me, could my vice president step in as commander in chief?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/173044_vandyk13.html

Most of these articles seem directed against the idea of the Vice President being selected by popularity poll, but rather that the V.P. be selected by the candidate, and a candidate who in no way overshadows the nomination, and in particular is seen as having the experience to step into the shoes of the president if necessary. A noted, Kerry, knowing Kerry is asking the question, who has the experience to step into the shoes of the presidency if some event were to remove me from office. IN fact, this is one of the final decisions a nominee has to make before the election. In actual fct, out of all of the top tier choices with the total removal of Mc Cain, of all of the remaining top tier selections, only Gephardt has the qualifications that would allow him to step into the presidency in an emergency. Edwards doesnt have the years or experience, Clark has virtually none. Only Gephardt has long term experience in dealing with Congress, and various aspects of running the government. He is somewhat lacking in foreign relations experience, But less so than Edwards.

[Nicholas_J]

49. Nope

The latest polls shows that Kerry polls exactly the same against Bush/Cheney whetther Edwards or Gepahardt is the running mate. The only running mate Kerry could choose that gives Bush a tiny advantage is if Kerry chooses Vilsack, and this is statistically insignificant. This reduces the question to the one real question What can any candidate give to Kerry that can actually be substantively proven, not guessed at. And that is the fact that The teamsters have already told Kerry that he will get a lot more support from them and a lot more substantial action from them if they choose Gephardt. So far, Gephardt is the only candidate who can deleiver something real and tangible to Kerry's canpaign. All the other arguments about charisma, and which states who might better able to deliver are simply specualtion. The union issue based on Hoffa, the president of the teamsters telling Kerry directly, choose Gephardt, and you get a lot more willing help from us. So right now, only Gephardt has something that can be given to Kerrys campaign that can be proven, and quantified.

And another thing has also occured recently which indicates that Kerry may do what most presidential nominees have done in the past with striking regualrity. Choose someone that no one else is anticipating. The only name that Kerry has been heard to have personally been mentionining by name is Robert Rubin, CLintons Seccretary of the Treasury.

[AmyStrange]

10. Good point N_J...

and he's South. Makes sense,

d

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. Essentially a dupe thread.

There is already a developed thread for this here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x546622

The only diffence is that header does not note that Gephardt edged Clark out by 1%, it semply says Edwards came in first. I suggest the discussion be directed there where it has already been going on.

[flaminbats]

5. I thought Senator Clinton came in second, with a quarter of those polled.

North Carolina Senator John Edwards, 36 percent (Dems: 43 percent)

New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, 25 percent

-Missouri Congressman Dick Gephardt, 19 percent (Dems: 19 percent)

-Retired General Wesley Clark, 18 percent (Dems: 18 percent)

-Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, 4 percent (Dems: 4 percent)

-(NOT READ:)Other-none of these, 6 percent (Dems: 4 percent)

-Don't know-refused, 17 percent (Dems: 12 percent)

margin of error 3.5 %

margin of error for results of polled Democrats 5%

[Nicholas_J]

50. No, with CLinton in the race

Edwards and Hillary then TIE with Edwards dropping down to 25 percent.

[cosmokramer]

7. As stated in the original article

...of which has not been adequately excerpted here), the poll is essentially meaningless...AS STATED IN THE ARTICLE, nothing but name recognition, that's all. Hmmmm....

[Scoopie]

9. I've been voting for 16 years

Which means I'm on the doles.
My phone number isn't unlisted.
How come I never get polled?

[AP]

20. You an me. I've never been polled ever either.

[Tansy_Gold]

33. I've been polled a couple of times, by various pollsters and on

various issues.

A pollster called Friday but wanted to speak to a male and hubby was out running errands.

Just letting you know -- real people do get polled.

But I'm sure there are those who won't believe it until it happens to them.

[Sugarbleus]

23. Go to Zogby online and sign up....that's one way

of having polling come right to you via your computer. I think there are several polling orgs online. Check them out. I get a poll thing from Zogby maybe twice a month.

The other thing is if you donate to a campaign, sometimes you'll start getting phone polls coming to you. I've been polled once by the PEW institute.

Online polling orgs are the fastest and surest ways though.

[flaminbats]

12. If name recognition was the only factor, why didn't Senator Clinton lead?

Name recognition was a big factor, which explains why Senator Clinton came in second, but not the only factor! Clearly the other factor being considered was..which of the best known candidates do those being polled think will help Kerry most on the ticket?

[AP]

16. Because Edwards is THAT compelling.

[atre]

13. Cosmo likes his polls UNscientific

thankyouverymuch

[Scoopie]

15. If it's so scientific

how come I'm NEVER... NEVER... NEVER called?
I ALWAYS vote... even for dog catcher.

Yet, Nada.

[spooky3]

27. Because samples don't have to be bigger than 500 if they are truly random.

There are 280+ million people in this country. How many registered voters are there--maybe 75 million? So how many samples of 500 or 1000 people would have to be drawn in order that you personally would be likely to be reached?

[Doosh]

18. it's only meaningless to you because Edwards is winning

If it was Clark leading in some obscure 1 in a 100 MSNBC poll, why that's big news.

:eyes:

[AP]

19. If it were a DU poll there'd be the poll and then the separate celebration

thread.

There's a double standard here, isn't there?

[cosmokramer]

36. No, it is meaningless because the article states exactly that.

[Darkamber]

21. Are you saying Clark has no name recognition?

Sad as it is a good percentage...I'll go as high as 50% of the voters out there don't research and do go by name recognition. It is the part of the problem.

We are informed voters, but other voters go only by how they feel about the candidate or what they look like or if they have heard the name and good things. They don't research the issues.

What was interesting was that only the Kerry/Edwards combination beat out the Bush/Cheney combination in the head to head match ups. I remember when CBS did that poll and only included McCain and Edwards and I wanted to see a Kerry/Clark match-up.

This article shows that match-up and it's not very strong. The Kerry/Edwards combination was much stronger.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. True about the match ups.

But the only poll that would be really meaningful about a potential match up is one that can't be taken. That's the one that would show how voters would regard each potential ticket after 5 or 6 weeks of campaigning together as a ticket on the National stage. VP polls now have the same mushiness as the Presidential polls had last December, when Dean who had been getting the most publicity then was consistently and strongly at the top of the pack.

These polls narrow the field in a way, in so far as they show which Dems out there currently have an active National following, and to an extent, how broad that following is. But just as often if not more often the Presidential nominee picks a VP candidate who has little national following, and lo and behold, they then go on to establish one once they are in the spotlight (sometimes they shine, sometimes they flop, but everything changes once they get the nod.) I remember all the Dems who wished Lloyd Benson was at the head of our ticket once the 1988 campaign got going good. Before that he was an asterisk to most.

Having said that, I am now pulling back from the VP "wars" and promo efforts. I might pop up to defend my guy or another from unfair attacks, but this does grow wearisome. Edwards, Gephardt, Clark, Vilsack, or who knows who. They all have their advantages I suppose. I know who I prefer but I ain't Kerry.

[chimpymustgo]

11. JRE has a "spunky fun vibe", says DUer calliphoto.

I LOVE that description.

Spunky fun vibe.

[Scoopie]

14. Yeah..

Just what I want a heartbeat away from the president:
Spunky Fun Vibe

Good Lord!

:eyes:

[AP]

17. Hey, if that's what it takes to get within a heartbeat of the presidency

I'll take it.

[magnolia]

32. Hey...don't....

...underestimate the SFV! One thing I heard over and over and over...this last week, regarding Reagan "Even those who didn't like his policies liked him...because of his optimism, enthusiasm, blah, blah, blah." Well...I didn't like his policies, or him. But...there's truth to this. People vote for someone they like! Apparently...that's why many voted for Bush, cause he's the guy they wanted to have a beer with. (Not me!)

Bottom line: 1) John Edwards is highly likable, if not lovable and in some cases, lust-afterable. He's got that positive, sun shining in his face thing. 2) If that isn't enough...he's way more qualified to be president than Bush or Reagan.

[Sugarbleus]

22. I like Edwards first then Clark.....I used to be

in favor of Gephardt but I've heard so many negative things about him that I think he might be the kiss of death as a running mate.

I wish Kerry would make his choice PDQ, I can't stand the suspense.

[hadeosun]

24. woooh all about Edwards!

Oh yeah I hope its Edwards...there's some rumor Bayh is up too?

[chimpymustgo]

25. Edwards - OVERWHELMING FAVORITE!

The people have spoken.

[Nimble_Idea]

26. since when have gov't listend to people

lol, you better check the SC to find out who the VP will be.

[WI_DEM]

29. and Kerry-Edwards is the only ticket which beats Bush-Cheney

interesting.

[Scoopie]

30. And even CNN

says VP polls are nothing but mush.
Gosh - this poll must be horrible for the pro-Edwardian CNN to make that statement.
Personally, I, like Kerry, don't pay attention to polls other than to judge trends. Polls, like sheeple, are easily swayed.
When someone mentions Edwards to me, I point out two things:
1.) Heartbeat away from the presidency and;
2.) Debate with Cheney.
That cures them of Edwards-lust very quickly.
Most people just haven't thought that far in advance.
And that's probably why CNN says these polls are mush.

"Polling should be a factor on the final selection of a vice president, but I wouldn't put it on the top four or five factors," Sosnik said.

Presidential nominees are usually more interested in whether candidates are qualified to serve as president, whether there are any political problems in their background and whether the relationship would have some chemistry and trust, Sosnik said.

My thoughts, exactly.

[AP]

31. Lots of primary voters wanted to put someone else within Edwards's heart-

beat of the presidency.

His background is clean.

And they seem to have good chemistry.

[chimpymustgo]

34. Edwards is working non-stop over the next couple of weeks

campaigning and raising money for Kerry and other Dems. He's amazing.

[Nicholas_J]

51. Not according to the latest poll

The only ticket that beats Bush in the latest poll is Kerry/Mccain. The latest Veepstakes polls indicated that there is no difference in Kerrys position in the polls against Bush/Cheney if either Gephardt or Edwards is the presumed running mate...NO DIFFERENCE. The only running mate who would give Bush/Cheney a little lead would be Kerry/Vilsack. So even though polls showvthat Edwards is more the more popular choice, he does not improve Kerrys chance of winning any more than if Gephardt was the running mate. However a number of articles that have come out in the last few days by political commmentators have indicated that Gephardt would be the striongest choice:

John Kerry needs a running mate who adds strength to the ticket. He appears to have been disappointed in his early choice, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. McCain is an even more unlikely candidate than Conrad is, of course, since he's a Republican. Plus, he has his own presidential ambitions, and these wouldn't have been enhanced by his presence on the Democratic ticket.

It would have been an attractive ticket, of course, and Democrats, apparently including their candidate, might have hoped it would happen.

With McCain out of the way, Kerry can concentrate on sifting a dwindling field of potential running mates. Perhaps, the strongest of these is Richard Gephardt of Missouri. Gephardt's appeal to organized labor is considerable, and it could be critical in a number of states, including Ohio and Missouri.

John Edwards, another senator, is on the short list printed in Saturday's Herald. Since he's from North Carolina, he might be expected to help Kerry in the South. Wesley Clark might help solidify Kerry's appeal to Clintonites, an important element in the Democratic Party, mostly because the former president has access to money. Among the dark horses is Iowa's Gov. Tom Vilsack, a darling of Midwestern populists but an unknown on the national scene

http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforksherald/news/opinion/8912391.htm


Just one of several artiles in the last few days analyzing the possible running mates.

[TexasSissy]

38. I saw on CNN last night that Clark is in first place in VP list?????

What's up with this contrary view?

[chimpymustgo]

40. That's the meaningless MSNBC Internet poll.

That the Clark supporters are voting in in droves.

Edwards won the CNN poll - in which you could only vote by subscribing, and only vote ONCE per round. But that, too was unscientific.

I think this AP poll is the only currently credible poll of support.

And it shows that the Kerry/Edwards match-up is the ONLY one that beats Chimpy/Cheney.

[Jai4WKC08]

41. Nope, not MSNBC

It's widely reported that Kerry doesn't care about any polls, "scientific" or otherwise. What was reported last nite was the DC buzz that Clark is the leading contender, with an announcement due out on or around the 4th of July.

[chimpymustgo]

43. I haven't heard that DC buzz, and I live here.

MSNBC's Internet poll is THE ONLY ONE that Clark leads in - and I don't have to re-iterate why.

Whether Kerry reads them is one thing, but Edwards leads in every other poll.

[Jai4WKC08]

46. I said nothing about any polls

Juan Williams of NPR reported it.

So inconsiderate of the DC insiders not to keep you informed. lol

[Scoopie]

47. My grandpa lives just across the river

from the Pentagon and called me Saturday with this buzz.
His choices were Kerry and then Clark - he knew I was a Clarkie.
My Pepaw is a former federali (fed. gov. worker - duh... why else would be living so close to the Pentagon! LOL.) and HATES Shrub. He's never been so anti-anyone in all his life!!
In any case, according to him, it's definately the buzz among the federal crowd.
I haven't mentioned this before, but, since Juan let the cat out of the bag... :P

[chimpymustgo]

48. Juan Williams. One voice, one opinion. Hardly the in-crowd.

I do believe this is a case of "those who say don't know, and those who know don't say".

I have spoken with plenty of insiders.

It's down to Edwards, Gephardt, Clark, Richardson, Breaux, and Bayh. Maybe he'll even pull Mark Warner out of the hat. But I don't think Kerry has decided yet.