Edwards is going to be VP......

[kentuck]

Listening to John Edwards on CNN, he was overly enthusiastic about John Kerry, as if he knows something none of the others know. He said, "we can compete everywhere" then he changed it to "John Kerry can compete everywhere". Edwards is the man! That was my interpretation. Anyone else think likewise?

[chimpymustgo]

1. He was SO good - as always. Such a forceful advocate for Kerry.

Smooth, likeable, DIRECT.

He and Kerry will be a GREAT team.

[cmayer]

123. Major clue: Kerry brings top Edwards advisors aboard his campaign.

I saw a news article about it last night. One comment was something to the effect that the speaker had never seen so many staffers brought on from a rival campaign ever.

I'll see if I can find the link.

[billybob537]

2. You Bet

I've felt this way since it became clear that Kerry had the nomination.:toast:

[calimary]

66. I'd be happy with it. And my 87-year-old mom's boyfriend - I think he's 83

or something - said, earlier in the campaign, that he and his friends were all looking very seriously at John Edwards - they liked him a LOT, and as he put it - they were "sick of all these politics." I think I know what he meant. And these are, pretty much, dyed-in-the-wool republicans. I think Edwards would be a good choice. But I also think Clark would be a good choice. Or Bob Graham. Don't like Bayh too much, and I think Gephardt is just completely lackluster - hope he WON'T be picked.

Besides, if they go after Edwards about being one of those dreaded "trial lawyers," which they use as a negative buzz phrase just as surely as they do "activist judges," then our side can always fire back with - yeah, WHAT trial lawyer? Trials where he was SUCCESSFULLY defending the little guy (or little gal) against some giant, unfeeling, greedy conglomerate or corporate robber-barons (you know, like Halliburton and Enron - that type of robber-baron), THAT's who. And that parenthetical note should always be thrown in for good measure. ALWAYS.

If Edwards is not chosen, he'd make a DYNAMITE Attorney General. Get some integrity back into that office that's been so blighted by that schmuck ashcroft.

Besides, Gephardt would be far better deployed as Secretary of Labor. Unions do love him. It'd be a nice symbol to have him in position to advocate uniquely and directly for them.

[ikojo]

88. I have a problem when someone says the following:

"Gephardt would be far better deployed as Secretary of Labor. Unions do love him. It'd be a nice symbol to have him in position to advocate uniquely and directly for them."

First of all MOST working Americans are NOT in a union. The Department of Labor is there for ALL workers not only those who are in "organized" labor.

"In 1955 America's population was about 166 million, the civilian work force was 54.2 million and union membership was 17.9 million, which was 33 percent of the work force. Today the population is about 290 million, the civilian work force is about 122 million and union membership is 16.1 million, which is 13.2 percent of the work force. " (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20030612.shtml)

I get tired when it seems that people think unionized workers are the only members of the working class.

IMHO, the MAJORITY of NON UNION workers are the ones in need of an activist Department of Labor. Unionized workers have the cushion of the union to protect them against bosses who go too far.

Labor is not only ORGANIZED or UNIONIZED labor but all who depend upon a paycheck (and NOT investments) to make it in the US.

/end of rant.

[loudsue]

118. Great rant, ikojo! I hadn't thought about that! And I've been on DU

a loooooong time! New great concept!

We DO need to start separating the "labor union" concept from the bigger concept of LABOR in general! We need to get LABOR involved in government!! I've always been a big labor union advocate....we owe the labor union movement a huge debt of gratitude in this country. But, the repukes have started infiltrating and breaking the unions. It would be far more powerful to just have LABOR (and laborers -- all of us working folks) be a force without the dues or the easily targeted organizations.

If every town and county had their own labor organization....with a national publication, as well...pushing for fairness and benefits....we would be far less likely to be manipulated.

Hmmmm. Just thinking about all the possibilities is empowering!

:kick:

[fearnobush]

3. Not sure, Edwards would be too predictable for the GOP to smear on

All though I believe Edwards would be the best running mate, I don't think Kerry would be so obvious this early in the race as to his choice. I think Kerry will launch some real surprises in the next few weeks that are not VP related. Perhaps other potential cabnet members. This would provide more voices to speak for the campaign since the DLC and the DNC is so weak and spineless, refusing to backup their man. We shall see.

[w13rd0]

43. I know two Republicans personally...

...who registered Dem in the Missouri primaries to vote for Edwards. They've said that they would enthusiastically vote for a ticket including Edwards. They like his "positive" approach, and they feel that the "two Americas" theme appeals to "working Murikans", i.e. the traditional Reagan Democrats. That's just my observation...

[loyalsister]

115. Those were some dumb Republicans!

Since we have open primaries in Missouri. LOL I'm glad top have them on board with us, however. It seems that Edwards was picking up a pretty big constituency here. Forget putting Gep on the ticket to won Missouri. To be honest, I think it's entirely possible that Edwards could help in Missouri. I hated the idea for a long time, and still se some draw backs, but compared to other possibilities, I see it as having pretty good potential.
As for Clark, no no and HELL NO! One military guy is enough. The military is a mind set and way of thinking. The presidential candidate has been in the thick of it. I don't want a VP who lived it and loved it longer.
Gep would be a slap in the face to the women after our march. He has stood side by side with Bush not just in the Rose Garden. He has been a Partner in crime as they have been chipping away at our reproductive freedoms.

[magnolia]

78. The very last thing...

and I mean L A S T thing we need to worry about is the republicans smearing! They will smear ANYONE! It annoyed me how so many people didn't want Gore to run again because of the republicans smear campaign against him. And now...guess what...they smear Kerry! That's old news and life goes on. Let's just not make the mistake of thinking that there is someone out there who they wouldn't be able to smear. If Jesus chose this time for his second coming and Kerry picked him as VP...the republicans would think of things to smear him with...let's see...he never served in the military, definitely one of those liberals, had that thing with Mary Magdalen, etc....

[kentuck]

80. A truth worth remembering....

There is no one they will not smear. Who would of thought they would try to smear Kerry and his war record?? Against a bunch of chickenhawks?

[KittyWampus]

4. Nope, John Edwards Probably Rehearses His Acceptance Speech While

squeezing toothpaste in front of the bathroom mirror he wants VP so badly.

[GreenArrow]

7. that's how I see it too

Clark, I think will be there in the end.

[knight_of_the_star]

21. His naked ambition worries me

He seems to be one who really wants to climb up the ladder as fast as he can. He hasn't even finished out his first Senate term yet he already runs for Pres, that should raise SOME suspiscion about this guy. He seems to have his eyes fixed on the prize and ignores the road he has to walk to get there. That and from what I have heard he is not running for re-election for his Senate seat. That should speak volumes about his appeal in the South if he thinks he can't re-take his old seat.

[AP]

27. I have had enough of lazy slackers riding on inherited privilege.

I'll take ambition to look after average americans any day.

[chimpymustgo]

30. DAMN, AP! Smack 'em down!

You are so good. And so on the money right.

[AP]

40. Why don't people like a person who works hard for the right causes?

Don't we like people who get the (good) job done?

Have we really turned into a mediocracy?

Are people so anxious about their own place in society that they're scared of someone who has succeded, even if they've succeded by doing the right thing?

[KittyWampus]

45. Edwards Is A Mediocracy

Jeez, even with the Media and Freepers pumping him up, he still lost.

He's none too popular in his own state... cause they knew he only became Senator as a stepping stone.

And he's none too bright when it comes to policy.

[AP]

51. Easy to say. Hard to support. Edwards embodies a meritocracy like

Clinton, but even better, and like Lincoln.

And he is very popular in NC, which is a hard state for a Democrat to be popular in.

More importantly, did you see this:

After choosing a representative national sample of more than 700 people, political scientists conducted what is called a deliberative poll. They created a group of well-informed voters by giving them home computers and exposing them to the candidates' commercials and policy positions. These voters, using microphones with the computers, discussed the candidates and the issues in small groups that met online once a week, starting in January on the day of the Iowa caucuses.

Over the next five weeks, as Mr. Kerry built up momentum among both real-life primary voters and the control group in the experiment, Senator John Edwards enjoyed the biggest surge in the well-informed test group, which was won over by his personal traits as well as by his policies, notably his protectionism on trade. Besides appealing to the Democrats in the test group, Mr. Edwards did better among the group's independents and Republicans, and he emerged as the strongest candidate against Mr. Bush.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=104&topic_id=1514538&mesg_id=1514826

[Kahuna]

82. Like Clinton? NOT! Clinton was a public servant ALL of his adult life..

Edwards was a personal injury attorney who never did a pro bono case. So what makes him so "for the people?" Sorry, I need proof. Got any? What exactly has he done to deserve all of this high praise?

[AP]

92. Clinton went to Georgetown, Oxford and Yale and had his sites set on

being president from the time he was 13.

Edwards had his sites set on getting out of the mill town when he was 13.

Clinton was class president at Georgetown when he was 21. Edwards was trying to graduate from college in 3 years so that he didn't go into too much debt, and was majoring in textiles becasue he thought he thought he should have a back-up in case his dreams didn't come true.

Edwards had the kind of live MOST AMERICANS live, and it clearly informs who he is as a politician today. He went out and got a job so that he could provide for his family. Clinton reached for the stars.

Good for Clinton. Whatever it was about Clinton that meant that as a thirteen year old he could plot a course leading straight to the white house, hooray for him. But there's nothing wrong in what Edwards did. In fact, it is a good reason to want him to be president. In fact in might be the best reason for him being president. It's not a liability.

[AP]

94. Another thing, Hilary supported that family by working hard in the

biggest law firm in Arkansas. Her salary freed up Clinton to do things he might not otherwise been able to justify.

JRE's work freed up his wife to raise their family and do bankruptcy cases out of a home office.

Different choices, but neither is more noble than the other.

Furthermore, it's so clear that both the Clintons' and Edwards's hearts are all in the right place. I can't believe we're criticizing their choices up to the age of 50.

[AP]

95. And if JRE isn't qualified to be president, then neither is Hilary, and

she isn't qualified to be a Senator either. Except for 8 years as first lady, all she did was work in private practice, and she did CORPORATE law (she was on the opposite side of the courtroom that Edwards was on).

Do you think Hillary isn't qualified to be a Senator or President?

[BigThama]

97. Popular in NC?

I live in NC, in a relatively liberal area (the Triangle) and I know almost nobody who supports Edwards here. I like him, but the reason he didn't run for a second term was because he'd likely get about 20% of the vote here at best.

[AP]

100. Last January there was a poll that had Edwards at 95% approval

among Democrats, and he had stellar polls across the board.

It was discussed extensively here at DU.

Furthermore, did you notice the numbers he put up in the NC primaries?

Edwards didn't run for Senator because he's going to be VP and then P.

Polls also show that he would have won and that the Democrats will win without him too.

[BigThama]

105. Key phrase: among Democrats.

Unfortunately, the general election includes all parties.

Seriously. Visit NC, talk to people here. Most really, really don't like the guy.

[AP]

106. He's a Democrat. But he his approval went from 39 to 55 when

you include the Republicans, which is still enough to win.

[AP]

101. Here is the poll:

http://www.newsobserver.com/edwards/polls/story/3207866p-2878099c.html

Democrats in North Carolina are far more accepting of Sen. John Edwards' presidential bid, but he has made no progress convincing home-state Republicans that he should replace President Bush, according to a new poll commissioned by The News & Observer.

The poll, taken less than two weeks before Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucus, found that a majority of North Carolinians -- 55 percent -- approve of Edwards' White House bid, compared with 39 percent when he launched his candidacy a year ago.

related

 More poll results


how the poll was conducted


The Research 2000 North Carolina Poll was conducted for The News & Observer from Jan. 5 through Jan. 8.

Six hundred likely voters who vote regularly in state elections were interviewed statewide by telephone. Those interviewed were selected by the random variation of the last four digits of telephone numbers. A cross-section of exchanges was used to ensure an accurate reflection of the state. Quotas were assigned to reflect the voter registration distribution by county.

The margin of sampling error, according to standards customarily used by statisticians, is no more than 4 percentage points. This means that there is a 95 percent probability that the true figure would fall within that range if the entire population were surveyed. The margin of sampling error is higher for any subgroup, such as by sex or region.


The wider acceptance is due in large part to warmer feelings among fellow Tar Heel Democrats: 93 percent now approve of Edwards' run, compared with 67 percent a year ago, according to the survey by Research 2000 of Rockville, Md.

[loudsue]

120. You're wrong, AP. I'm a North Carolinian. He's a pretty face.

That is all.

The News & Observer is VERY conservative. Edwards couldn't have won many polls if the pollsters had asked PERTINENT questions, which is why I wouldn't trust the results you refer to.

He's the WORST Senator I've ever had in North Carolina. His office does NOTHING for his constituents.

Believe me....I live out in the rural area of N.C., and whether it's the big city or the small town, Dems aren't impressed.

Yes, we'd rather have him than some repuke! But...no, we're not impressed w/ Edwards.

:kick:

[KittyWampus]

44. Edwards- Ambition In An Empty Suit

the man would probably be Shrum's pick... an empty suit to fill with words.

Yes, Edwards charms SOME people rather like Reagan.

But he is only a bit more than what Reagan was.

[chimpymustgo]

52. Dammit, quit attacking Edwards. He's a damn good Democrat.

And may well be the VEEP.

I wrote this later in this thread, but I am just sick of this crap.

If you want Clark. Fine. Say nice things about him. Write the Kerry campaign.

But please stop slandering and maligning a man who is out there fighting for Democrats and all Americans everyday.

Save some malice, some bitterness for Bush*.

[Khephra]

58. Oh, I'm sorry that we're support to line up and only say the "right" thing

Irony and sarcasm intended.

ABB, but don't expect us to become Baaaahing sheep. I, for one, still plan on keeping an open and aware mind. I supported Dean, but there were some mornings that I just wanted to slap him around for being so stupid. If I was willing to do that to my own candidate, I will NOT stop speaking out against others in our party.

Edwards's ego with his "I'm the President or nothing at all" turned me and many against him. It's like a man who's hired by a company and tries to blackmail the company into making him CEO...or he'll quit (making things even harder for the Party). His all or nothing approach is a real turn-off for REAL loyalists.

[chimpymustgo]

61. The primaries are over. There is no need to defile any Dem candidate

There never was. But people did use that "heat of battle" excuse to slam the candidates. We are past that now. We have a nominee. He is a wonderful candidate, and he his in the process of deciding who will be his running mate. I am sure he will make a sound, defensible - excellent - choice.

I was not suggesting that you or anyone else "line up and only say the 'right' thing".

But I ask, whatever is the point of ad hominem attacks against the person who is looking like the frontrunner to be picked as VEEP? Why "freep" this very good man?

If there's someone that you support for VEEP- please support him - and tell us why.

But nasty attacks on Edwards are just plain ugly and mean.

[AP]

62. "I'm the president or nothing at all"?

I'd think, from the way you talk, you're glad that that's the binary choice. It should mean that, for you, he'll be nothing at all and you can stop being angry about this person you percieve as driven by ego, or whatever.

[ShaneGR]

75. Why do you have to resort to demeaning competitors?

I don't recall anyone here saying anything bad about Clark, but you need to attack Edwards because you feel threatened? What's the matter? You're little ego getting bruised by Clark not getting VP? CLARK HAS PUBLICLY SAID HE DOESN'T WANT TO BE VP! CLARK'S WIFE HAS PUBLICLY SAID HE DOES NOT WANT TO BE VP! THIS WEEK!

[Voltaire99]

60. You talking about Kerry? His money came from women.

First, a great aunt. Then his mom's inheritance. Then his wife's loot.

Now, that may say little about the man, or it may say much, depending on one's point of view. But Kerry is hardly a self-made man.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4685276/

[AP]

64. I was talking about Bush. At least Kerry has subjected himself to the

meritocracy at various points in his career.

Nonetheless, I'd be happy with a ticket that says a little more about class and opportunity. And, since Edwards is the candidate who best captures those issues (they're totally entwinded with his persona), I'd like Edwards to be on the ticket.

[Kahuna]

83. But he IS a life long public servant who served two tours in NAM.

I could care less about his money. Sure, I would prefer a candidate who isn't a blue blood, like Clinton. But, Edwards seems to be self serving. If you believe otherwise, please tell me what he has done for the people. I don't really care to hear about his personal injury practice. If he was so for the people, seems he would have taken on pro bono cases from time to time. He did not. I heard that from his own mouth. So, until Edwards supporters can cite at least one example of selfless Johnny for the people, I will continue to consider his an opportunist.

[AP]

87. How can he be "self-serving"?

He took a huge pay cut to be a senator, and he even risked that to do more good.

And, how is he serving his self? Gore spent eight years trying to create the legal landscape for the telecoms industry and then left politics to own a cable station. Clark spent a lifetime in the military and now lobbies his former employer in exchange for millions in stocks and stock options.

Gore's father left politics to make millions on the boards of various corporations.

Clinton, on the other hand, is trying to do good things.

Who is Edwards more like?

It's easy to call him self-serving. but where's the evidence?

As for pro bono cases -- why take a pro bono case when he was doing so much more good, taking cases which were expensive to conduct, and which really changed corporate policy.

And from the perspective of his clients, they were pro bono cases. His great lawyering was the difference for them between winning and getting nothing. He literally took cases nobody else wanted to take. His first case was an alcoholic who was given something like tripple the recommended dose of some medication simply because the doctor thought it was a good idea even though the manufacturer and all the literature said it was a very bad idea. That was clear negligence, but nobody would take the case becuase they thought suing the most respected employer in town (the hospital) and its respected doctors would never work if your client was a drunk.

For that plaintiff, Edwards's work was pretty much, pro bono.

Nobody who hired him expected him to do his job for free. And everyone who hired him was someone who had been the victim of negligence by a very wealthy corporation.

You're saying you didn't want him to do that work?

[loudsue]

119. I TOTALLY agree, knight_of_the_star.....he's a LOUSY senator

In fact, he's the WORST Senator we've ever had in N.C. as far as actually helping his constituents with anything.

Edwards is all ambition, all the time. It's NOT about "the people" with him. Once he was elected, he turned his back on some of the most influential people that got him elected in the first place. I only played a small role in working for his campaign for senator. But I knew the heavy-hitters that were organizing the grass-roots (and particularly the African American grass-roots), and they brought the voters out for Edwards.

Edwards didn't even help those leaders get positions they were eligible for once he ascended. In fact, Edwards allowed those positions to go to people who hadn't done shit, except muddle things for everyone else.

Since then, his office has done NOTHING to help North Carolinians. In fact, if we need something done, we go to Elizabeth Dole....a damned REPUKE!! But her office jumps right on things.

You're correct: it's pretty presumptuous for him to be running for president of the United States when he's only been elected to one office, and wasn't even finishing THAT up when he ran his campaign.

Edwards is a pretty face, that can make the case before the jury. That doesn't mean his client is innocent! All face & pretty words, no substance. Besides, he's too friendly w/ the DLC, no matter WHAT he said during the campaign.

:kick:

[mouse7]

59. No... the death of Edwards son is too prominent as a motivator

Edwards was clearly very deeply affected by the death of his son. He changed his entire life path.

Edwards is also very protective of the way his son is mentioned in the campaign. He hardly mentions him at all. It's obvious it's something that has affected him to his core.

Edwards does seem to be driven, but I would suggest it's something closer to Edwards being driven by his son's loss somehow.

[AP]

65. Clinton said that when you lose someone close to you early in life,

it makes you realize life is short and if you want to make a difference, you can't sit on the sidelines.

I don't think Edwards's son's death changed his priorities. I do suspect that it accelarated the time frame within which he was working.

[lancdem]

5. I would love to have Edwards as VP

He'd be a top-notch choice. They complement each other well. And Edwards is a fine campaigner.

[hexola]

6. I'm good with Edwards...

I still like Gephart...but I'll support the Kerry pick.

[watercolors]

8. Kerry , Edwards

a terrific team, lets hope it will be! He gives energy to the team, Ghephart is too low key , as well as Graham. Nelson and others. Need a Spark to innite!!

[never_get_over_it]

9. Edwards is a good choice eom

[Khephra]

10. I hope not

A one term senator with (questionable) charm....yeah, I hope he runs. There are at least 100 other candidates that would make a better VP than Edwards. We need the left's version of a Cheney and Edwards isn't even close to that.

[chimpymustgo]

13. Nope. JRE is the best. He is a winner, an optimist, with fresh ideas

and energy. He's just what Kerry needs to make a winning ticket. And he is dynamite on the campaign trail.

Also, his wife, Elizabeth is a force herself. And those adorable little kids. Oh my - it's going to be so exciting.

[GreenArrow]

18. just curious

what are these "fresh ideas?" Cause all I've seen is a bunch of same-ole, same-ole offered up in a syrupy drawl with a toothy grin, and an aw shucks thrown in for good measure. Such a nice young man. Well, fuck nice. Nice is overated and covers up a multitude of spins.

[Khephra]

20. I'm sorry, but I don't see it

And none of my non-political friends like him either. I'm reminded of the bit on "Married With Children" every time I see him -- "Mr. Empty Pants".

When did children and his wife become assets to a man (or woman) becoming the second most important person in the Nation? When I hire a man for a job, I don't look at their family.

[chimpymustgo]

28. I do, when picking a President. It says quite a lot about the person.

Take Laura Bush as just ONE example.

I find the Edwards hating around here absolutely fascinating. There's more than a whiff of sour grapes, of envy.

If you're for Clark - that's FINE. He's a good man.
If you're for Dean - more power to you.

But why is it necessary to slander, revile and "Freep" a very fine Democrat, John Reid Edwards. He came in second to Kerry in the primaries, and he has a very good shot at being the VEEP.

Save some bitterness for Bush*.

[AP]

33. What do you think it takes to be the second most "important" person in

America?

A big bank account? Rich parents?

Everything about this guy speaks to what can be good about America, and he clearly understands the connection between his biography, this historical moment in America and public polcy.

[KittyWampus]

49. For A Start How About Knowing Who Rabin Was?

Secondly, how about not swallowing the Neo-Con LIE that Iraq and 9/11 are linked?

[AP]

53. Hello. I've seen it discussed here that that story was a lie.

Sort of like every other criticism of Edwards.

[Khephra]

54. Name one major accomplishment he's done in the Senate?

One major bill he created that changed all of our lives for the better? I can't think of any other than his major support for the War, and that makes him even less likely to be a choice of mine. He's been one of the last candidates to turn against Bush. He's a poll politician.

If a man's wife is so important to being a politician, what's that say about a single politician? The idea that a man's wife makes him a more important person is outdated. We should vote for a man's accomplishments in office, not who he managed to get to walk down the aisle.

He might vote right on the important issues, but like Kerry, he's one of the least seen politicans on the Senate floor that I've seen in the 4 years I've been watching the Senate. If you didn't know he was in office, you wouldn't know it from his actual Senate presence.

Nice guy? Yep.

Right guy? Nope. We need someone with a lot more experience to go up against Cheney. A LOT more.

[AP]

56. Name one major accomplishment of Kerry's in the Senate. Senators who

want to make a difference in America run for President. Kerry knows that, and that's why I like him.

What did Kennedy achieve as a Senator?

Johnson was a sheppherd of some decent legislation, but his biggest accomplishment as a politician was the '64 Civil Rights Act, which he signed as president.

I'd think one big accomplishment of Edwards's was amassing a voting record more opposed to Bush than Kerry and even Kucinich.

That tells you alot.

I think all his votes to protect the value of labor (ie, against free trade pacts with countries that don't have labor and environmental protections) were pretty big accomplishments because, although losing votes, they were more principled than any other votes by Senators, and I'd rather have a vote in a the nay column on those bills than have my name on the top of those bills.

And I think those votes are enough to tell me that he'd make a great president.

[Tellurian]

26. Yep, I'm with you...Edwards hasn't even gotten his hands dirty yet..

and is too green for the battle ahead.

Edwards doesn't bring anything to the table

Kerry doesn't already have.

[fearnobush]

32. Edwards is for getting out of Nafta and WTO.

That takes balls.

[BigThama]

98. Edwards brings a personality.

Kerry reminds me of a reanimated corpse, personality-wise, but is good on policy and is experienced.

Edwards is one of the most brilliant public speakers I've ever witnessed, but is inexperienced.

Sounds like they compliment each other to me.

[xultar]

37. I agree khephra, 100000%! n/t

[Randers]

71. "We need the left's version of a Cheney"...????

I don't get that. Who in the world do you mean?

[nostamj]

11. edwards good, clark better

IMHO, of course.

this will be about national security, the war, international relations, etc.

clark is just stronger there than edwards (who I LIKE)

the fat lady is still in her dressing room....

[Stephanie]

14. I agree. However, Edwards negates the elitist attacks on Kerry.

They are already starting, calling Kerry's personal assistant his "butler," talking about his CARS. Edwards makes it a populist campaign, which is a good thing.

[knight_of_the_star]

17. Clark is even better for that

Edwards was a rich litigator before he ran for the Senate. Wes Clark was an Army man who got into West Point based on his merit and skill alone and served his country in that capacity for 34 years even though he could have done much better for himself as a civilian.

[xultar]

39. Yup, Clark really worked his way up in the Military and he doesn't

have that "lawyer" "shark" thing.

[AP]

48. He does have the NED problem, and the military-industrial complex problem

and he has the problem of being a bad campaigner, as revealed in his answer to the question, "which of those several positions on abortion do you really believe?": "which one do you want to hear?"

I'd take having to explain my job as a lawyer winning money from the vicitims of corporate negligence over having to explain why I was on CNN talking about the need for airport security without disclosing my financial interest in a company lobbying the federal government for a contract to sell airport security devices.

(And I'm not saying that Clark couldn't do that, if he were the VP nominee, or that Kerry would lose because of it, or even that I don't like Clakr -- I do like Clark. All I'm saying is that I'd rather defend Edwards's career as a lawyer than Clark's as a lobbyist.)

[Kahuna]

86. Talk is cheap. Edwards talks a good game. But what has he done...

Nobody ever says. Nobody ever gives any examples of how Edwards is champion of populism.

[AP]

89. Yes they do. You just don't agree.

When Edwards says he's going to try to fix the tax code so that it isn't grossly unfair to people who work for living (something a couple of the other candidates don't even care to talk about) I'm supposed to not like him why? Because he didn't get elected Governor of VT, like that's achieving something? And what did Kerry achieve that's so much greater than Edwards. Kerry was handed a life and opportunities which, if they did not lead to the WH, it would be considered underachievement.

Edwards has clearly achieved a perspective on live and a desire to help others that makes him more worth to be president than more than half the people who have served in that office already.

[Kahuna]

85. They forget. Clark is from humble beginnings too. Plus he has

national security bona fides. As someone mentioned, Edwards has nothing that Kerry doesn't have. Except that he is from the south. Clark is from the south. And is the best choice to go toe to toes with Cheney. And don't forget. Clark knows Cheney reallllly well.

[AP]

91. Clark's persona is not wrapped up in class (or southerness, for that...

...matter).

People have to be reminied of his roots.

You don't have to do that with Edwards.

Also, check out that NYT article about how the more people learned about Edwards, the more they liked him, up to the point where they liked him more than Kerry and more than Bush by a wider margin than anyone else. That didn't happen with Clark.

[nostamj]

99. yup

there's FAKE gravitas (actually just meanness) from Cheney

and then there's Clark.

Clark would destroy Cheney and, imho, should get the chance.

[knight_of_the_star]

12. I doubt it

He was this enthusiastic that he would win the nom, yet where is he now? My money's on Wes Clark getting the nomination (for VP), I doubt that Bush/Cheney will be able to fight the heavy medal team.

[randr]

15. I have a gut sense that most Americans

will feel uneasy about the possibility of Edwards becomeing President. One of the major concerns that people have when considering the VP is to imagine them as President. I like Edwards, but there is somewhat of a boyish nature about him that I am not 100% on and I think that many voters will sense that same notion.
We need proven leadership in the international arena and a strong will against possible terrorist threats.

[AP]

36. That defies what we know from exit polling in the primaries, the study

the NYT writes about today (see LBN) and logic.

The more people know about him, the MORE they like him.

[freetobegay]

16. In your dreams!

eom

[grasswire]

19. I could take Edwards...

...if they announced that Clark was going to be Sec. Defense or State.

[knight_of_the_star]

23. Clark can't be Sec. Defense though

He hasn't been out of the Army for ten years yet.

[Beloved Citizen]

34. Clark'd be a hell of a Secy Of State

Imagine, an administration where key people can actually speak more than one language.

Or, as in Shrub's case, more than no languages.

[MrBenchley]

22. He'd sure make a good one

Frankly, I haven't heard a weak candidate yet...even Gephardt would hand Cheney his ass.

[knight_of_the_star]

24. He's too boring though

We need someone with fire to pair with Kerry to win this, and Gephardt doesn't seem to have much of that.

[MrBenchley]

35. Gee, after the Chimp and Deadheart Dick's wild disasters

voters might have a taste for someone dull, safe, competent, honest and intelligent.

But as I said, I yet to hear of a bad candidate...even the Governor of Iowa impresses. And I'll bet Max Cleland would love to have a little payback in a national forum.

[doni_georgia]

38. Think Cleland would definitely get a major cabinet post

in fact, he's make a great Secretary of Defense.

[TreasonousBastard]

25. He might be on the short list...

or he might be dreaming.

Anyway, it's too early to pick a Veep. Too much can happen between now and the convention, and you don't want to give the other guys a head start on sliming the Veep.

[DaveSZ]

29. I thought he was amazing

He reminds me of John Kennedy.


:P

Clark might be a better choice though.

[Melodybe]

31. Edwards is very popular here in MS, I think that he is the PERFECT choice.

Kerry/Edwards '04 and beyond!!!

[chimpymustgo]

41. "Kerry/Edwards "04. And beyond...

Pass it on....

[xultar]

42. CLARK - U WES A!!! Edwards is to predictable & he has less experience

than Clark or Ghep.

CLARK CLARK CLARK

[w13rd0]

46. As if the primaries weren't acrimonious enough...

..now we've got Clark supporters and Edwards supporters sniping at one another over the #2 spot. Almost makes me glad "my guy" has ZERO chance of getting the nod ;)

[chimpymustgo]

57. No. It's Clark supporters attacking Edwards. Just like before.

I just don't get it. WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME TEAM.

Are you that insecure that you have to tear another candidate down - one who may well be the VEEP?

STOP THIS CRAP NOW!!! What is the damn point? Kerry will pick whom he thinks is best.

Continuing to heap this vile bullship on JRE is just ugly. Finally, DU starts to settle down, and everybody's working for the common good. Now people feel they have to crap all over Edwards, because it looks like he has the inside track to be VEEP.

Whose side are you REALLY on?

[Blue-Jay]

47. Important note: Ohio likes John Edwards.

He polled awfully well in the primary: Edwards 407,386 votes - Kerry 617,945 votes. I think he'd go over well in Florida too. We can pick apart the reasons why we'd each prefer someone else, but the fact remains that he's popular, articulate, and still high-profile. I think he'd be an excellent choice.

[Triple H]

50. I sure hope so.

I really like John Edwards.

[kentuck]

55. Hey! I'm a Clark supporter but....

I was initially for John Kerry and after a lot of thought, I thought Wes Clark would be the best man for the Presidency. However, he did not win and I went back to Kerry, who I think will be an excellent President. After all, after George Jr, everything is relative.

However, after watching Edwards on Blitzer's show, it appeared to me that he already knows he's going to be the VP and he had a slip-up which he corrected. Yes, he is ambitious but the idea is to beat Bush/Cheney - not to whine about whether we think Clark, Dean, or Edwards would be the best VP.

That said, I think Richard Holbrooke or Wes Clark will be National Security advisor. That will be a very important position in the next Administration, more important than VP, in my opinion. A "bucket of warm piss" and all that....Bill Clinton would be a great Secretary of State. :)

I would like to see all of them in a Kerry Cabinet, but that may be expecting a little too much.

[Joy Anne]

63. Edwards as VP

He has a warm and friendly persona that ought to help Kerry thaw some. Moreover, he's a very successful trial lawyer who can argue aggressively in a charming way--maybe Snoopie as attack dog. I see him as an asset to the ticket.
Clark never impressed me as someone who could draw votes, and he didn't really seem to have much of a stand on anything, even the foreign affairs and military topics on which he was knowledgeable. He seemed wholly lost on domestic issues and very flipflop.

Joy, whose political heart still belongs to Dean, who would make a lousy VP candidate for Kerry

[kentuck]

68. I think Dean would be a great VP !

In fact, I htink he would probably help the ticket more than Edwards or Clark, realistically speaking. However, I will be more than willing to support the ticket if Edwards is the man...because my wife likes him. :)

[dawn]

67. I hope so!!

He has such a wonderful message and a positive attitude.

[bandy]

69. OOOOOHHHHHHHHH

I'm out of here!

[homelandpunk]

70. he better fucking NOT be

Two Iraq war Bush-warhard-on ennablers will make me possibly just not go to the booth. I will go to where the booths are, but my guess is, I would stop myself. When I voted for Clark in the primaries I walked out telling myself that may be the last vote I will ever have cast. In this current political system. Because if Bush is in another 4 there will civil war, and at this point, I feel a civil war might really be needed. Not wanted. Needed.
Kerry better choose someone who had a spine back when having a spine was not popular. And it ain't Edwards.

[otohara]

79. But, But, What If Edwards Is The Key To Kerry Victory?

this is how I thought too, but not anymore - what ever it takes to get cabal out of White House must be done. Kerry's numbers go way up with Edwards on the ticket.

[Lindacooks]

90. Being that 'moral' is going to get us

four more years of bush. Just vote for the Democratic candidate, for pete's sake.

[homelandpunk]

114. As I said, I will go where the voting booths are and walk thru the doors,

but if Edwards is the running mate, I cannot promise my feet will carry me to a booth. That would be the most i can promise you or myself. Edwards on the ticket would make it not just one man who did not have the good judgment to know Bush was hard set on invading Iraq and was seeking a worhtless rubber stamp, but it would be two. I will be holding my nose with Kerry EVEN IF he gets the man who should be president on his ticket, Clark.
It needs to be Clark.
To me, southern appeal is not a great endorsement.
Clark is southern enough, if they play that up.

[Randers]

72. I think Edwards makes sense

as a choice.


It's not going to be my ideal ticket, anyway. But I like Edwards personality and campaigning ability. I would rather see Edwards on the ticket than a lot of other people.

[revcarol]

73. I hope not.

At least 4 or 5 stronger candidates who would ADD to the ticket.

[kentuck]

74. Yes, but you don't have to work with that person....

John Kerry will have to work with his VP. He wants someone that he can get along with, that will not try to overshadow him, and that will agree with his agenda.....if he has one.:)

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

76. Edwards is always pretty enthusiastic...

...so, eh, that doesnt say too much yet.

Edwards enthusiasm is probably what was one of his big selling points..a pretty high energy level thats contagous...

[kentuck]

77. In a couple of days, this story (rumor) will probably be on network news

Some of the comments of above posters will probably be paraphrased. I would not be surprised.

[Q]

81. No one yet knows who the VP nominee will be...

...but you can count on ONE thing: it will be a DLCer.

[Padraig18]

84. My 'gut' tells me it's Edwards.

There are just sooooooooooooooooooo many good reasons why it should be Edwards. :)

[robbedvoter]

93. One small consideration: where will the W nomination take place?

And how is your dream going to counteract this?


"Can I just go back a moment ago -- to a question you asked just a moment ago? You asked, I believe, Senator Kerry earlier whether there's an exaggeration of the threat of the war on terrorism.
"It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/debatetranscript29.html

[tishaLA]

96. Nice to see the pissing contest continue

For the record, I have had no part in it.

Thank you.

[DjTj]

107. You're welcome.

...I look forward to November 3, 2004, when all the pissing will stop.

[AP]

109. It never stops.

I don't mean this pissing in particular. But general pissing on good Democrats never stops.

Kerry gets the nomination. People still piss on him here. Kerry will pick a good VP, and people will piss some more. Kerry will win, and people will piss.

People piss on Clinton. People piss on Gore. People just piss. That's what they do.

[DjTj]

111. Haha - you know you're right.

People can piss before they can walk or talk ... the challenge is teaching them how to hold it in.

BTW, good to see you fighting the good fight for Edwards on DU again, even if it is being brought on by the same-old trolls ... they're not going to get away with it on your watch! :yourock:

[AP]

112. The arguments are too easy to make not to make them.

It's fun.

[JohnLocke]

113. Thanks, AP.

:)

[skooooo]

102. Hope you're right!!! Edwards would be good pick...

...and I think would be to Kerry's advantage.

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

103. Edwards would chew Cheney up and spit him out in the debates!

He would energize the ticket!! He's the man! HUNK W/ THE SPUNK!

[skooooo]

104. lmao!!

Hadn't heard that one before!

As long as Kerry doesn't pick someone boring...

:scared:

[Puglover]

108. Oh I

hope so.

[Donkeyboy75]

110. I hope so. I don't see a better choice out there.

His policies rock, and he's charming and engaging. I'm not a firm believer that VP candidates pick up a lot of votes, but it couldn't hurt in the South.

[chimpymustgo]

116. kick

nt

[Yupster]

117. I don't think any decision has been made yet

Certainly Edards is in the running, and every speech right now is an audition tape for him, but I don't think he's been picked.

[loudsue]

121. Ok. Here's another problem w/ Edwards: ASTROLOGY!!!

When you put Kerry's astrological chart with Edwards, you DO NOT HAVE a happy "marriage".

When you put Kerry's astrological chart with Dean, you DO NOT HAVE a happy "marriage".

When you put Kerry's astrological chart with Bob Graham, it's medium ok.

When you put Kerry's astrological chart with Wesley Clark,

IT KICKS ASS!!! IT'S GOOD! THEY KNOW HOW TO DANCE! IT WORKS!

Ok. I don't care for Edwards...he's my Senator and he sucks. I love Dr. Dean. I love Bob Graham. I love Max Cleland! And Dennis Kucinich is WONDERFUL! But Kerry needs a very strong partner, where they're both in each other's court.

THAT PERSON IS WES CLARK!

Edwards praises Kerry because he's an opportunist. I hope Kerry is smart enough to see it.

:kick:

[deacon]

122. edwards is good, but he can't take the job and go with mr. nice guy stuff

or team rove will tear him down quick. edwards has energy and money so he is a good choice. clark wouldn't be bad either.