The New York Post, in all of it's ineffable wisdom, printed the headline to the right. Yay! That's some great journalism boys, keep up the good work.
How on earth did they make the call for Gephardt? I mean, honestly, I know he was on the "short-list" and all, but did anyone seriously think he was going to make the final cut? Let's just ignore for a moment that Edwards could be seen coming a mile away as the final pick. (He even looks like a VP fer crissakes!) I could see how if one were to read into things a bit much, one might have called it for Vilsack, as he was on the short-list too, and he & Kerry did just make a campaign stop together; but Gephardt?! He's an old Washington crony who would only appeal to labor unions and doesn't bring a damn thing else to the table with regards to winning the election. Sure he's well qualified for the gig, but he'd be more of a liability than he would be worth in the election.
Oh well. I'm sure the N.Y. Post has printed worse. They aren't exactly a shining beacon of excellence in journalism, after all.
Congrats to Edwards by the way. He's an excellent balance to Kerry. Blue-blood/populist; north-easterner/southerner; walking corpse/energetic speaker; old fart/youngish looking; Washington crony/fresh young face; etc, you get the point-- In fact, looking over this list I just wrote I have to wonder just how in the hell Edwards lost to an asshat like Kerry... (asshat/non-asshat- a perfect balance!)