Kerry/Edwards Ticket

Remove all ads!

Kerry picks Edwards.

As an outsider, this doesn't seem to be a strong pairing to me. But then, what do I know?

Opinions?

 

From my outside view it seemed to be the obvious choice. More or less the most expected one. Edwards is a contrast against Kerry so I dont think it is a too crappy ticket.

 

I think it's a great ticket, and I'm looking forward to the debates. Cheney, a secretive corporate crook, vs. one of the best trial lawyers in the country? He's toast. Bush, versus....well, anyone in a debate, really. He's toast.

Beyond the debates, they're both good men with good ideas. They'll take this country in a much needed new direction. I'm not saying they're the saviors or anything, but compared to what we have now, it'll be a quantum leap forward and a good start in mending our international image.

/flame suit on, I suppose.

edit - I'm glad it wasn't Gephardt. Good man, good experience, but he just doesn't do it for me. I don't know what it is, but I just can't get behind the guy. Milquetoast isn't the right word, but it's the first that comes to mind. Joe Biden would've been good, too, but I guess he wasn't even in the top 5. I only started hearing his name in the discussion a week ago (which sucks, because I was wishing he'd be considered months ago).

 

Completely expected. Edwards was his biggest rival after the Dean express came off its tracks. So it makes sense to take someone who has strong pull from the democratic party at-large.

 

He coulda won with Hillary...don't know with Edwards...they didn't broaden the appeal very much.

They may indeed do well in debates, but debates have rarely had any significant impact on an election...I think you'd have to go all the way back to Kennedy / Nixon to find any direct poll swing due to a debate.

 

One area where the appeal is broadened is in the south, especially the southeast part of the country. However, it remains to be seen if that support is enough to swing some states to the democratic side, and I just don't know that it will. I could see some change in the Carolinas, but Kerry was already running fairly strong there. On the other hand, some state like Mississippi? Not likely that it's changing from red to blue.

 

Kerry Edwards...sounds like a cheerleader I once knew.

Seriously, Edwards is a good pick. Edwards has a sharp, optimistic, breezy style that will blunt the perception of Kerry as pessimistic. Edwards also comes from a critically important Democratic bloc - the trial lawyers - which will keep them happy and their pocketbooks open.

One concern was mentioned by the Wall Street Journal this morning - that the US Chamber of Commerce, usually (ostensibly) nonpartisan, threatened to back Bush if Edwards was the VP choice. The visceral revulsion in the business community against trial lawyers is so deep that even protectionist Gephardt was preferable to Edwards. But it's not as if Kerry was going to get many big business votes anyway, right?

Now the challenge will be to keep Edwards from becoming the new Kemp. Dole picked Kemp in '96 partly because his cheery optimism contrasted well with Dole - but in the end, Kemp fell flat. (And ironically, Dole ended up the funnier and cheerier of the two.) Will Kerry give Edwards enough leash to be his own person, and enough discipline to keep from overshadowing Kerry himself?

That said, I agree with Hacken Slash (go figure) - he would've been better off with Clinton. Heck, he would've been better off with Clinton at the top of the ticket and him as VP!

 

IMHO choosing Clinton would have been suicide for the Democrats. There are just too many people that absolutely *hate* her. I really don't know where else she could go from Senator from New York...

 

Damn...

Am I so extreme (or whacked out) that even GM has to do a sobriety check if he agrees with me

But the people who *hate* her wouldn't vote a Democratic ticket even if Reagan was the VP. Clinton whould have pulled in the further left side of the Democratic party...voters who currently are leaning toward Nader of Green Party. Most current polls show Bush winning by a percentage or two in popular vote and by a bit more of a margin in electoral vote...and that the Democrats lose almost 6 percent to Nader or more Liberal parties...a difference that could have meant victory.

But then again, why whould I expect Kerry to make the courageous and honest choice.

 

I do not doubt that Clinton would have stood a chance to bring in more of that 6 percent that go towards the Green and other liberal parties, but not likely very many. The fact is that you still are voting for Kerry as president, and if he isn't liberal enough for you, voting for him in the hopes that his VP takes over eight years from now seems to be a large leap in logic. Besides, does it not stand to reason that if your selection of VP is enough to significantly shift your perception to the left, that you will run the risk of putting off the moderate vote? I don't have the figures in front of me for an exact number, but the moderates in the country far exceed six percent of the total population.

Well, some would argue that there's nothing courageous or honest about any VP choice. I only hope that a presidential canidate makes an intelligent choice.

But that point aside, is that jab really necessary HS? When you come up with comments like this, all I can think of is the conservative version of Michael Moore. I don't know if you looked at my other thread on MM, but in it I said that when MM never passes up the opportunity to take a potshot at Bush, it weakens his stance and causes me to not take him very seriously. Unfortunately, the same applies to you when you never pass up the oppotunity to take a potshot at Kerry.

 

@Aldeth...Odd that you compare me to Michael Moore...did you know I make movies too? My next film, "Celsius 9 / 11" is geared to pander to the European audience . Your point is well taken, I will endeavor to keep my pot-shots at Kerry to a minimum...like...once a day.

The reason that I felt the Liberal Left was important to the Democratic Party, more so than in recent years, is that many analysts are predicting that the Moderate vote is going to be decided more on an individual voter's postition of Faith rather than political ideals. It seems to me that two Moderate Democrats (in fact Edwards seems a bit more moderate than Kerry) make up a weaker ticket in this particular race than a moderate and a liberal. The Pundits are saying that the vast majority of the Conservative vote will go to Bush, the Moderates will vote with an ideological split, and the Democrats had better darn well hope they carry the traditional Liberal Left of the party.

I just don't see a "Kerry-Edwards" ticket capturing the hopes and dreams of the idealistic Left...in fact it appears that they are the most vocal critics of Edward's selection at this early date.

There, I'm done...and I've made this entire post without any potshots at John Kerry...hey... John Kerry...JK! Has anyone ever noticed that John Kerry has the same initials as another famous American who was engaged in the race for the highest office in our land?


Quick...someone tell Jack Kemp!

 

I think Edwards is an excellent choice, and was hoping for this match from the start.

GM -- I think you hit the nail right on the head. I think the only, but very real danger here, is that Edwards WILL overshadow Kerry....it's already happening. When you see the 2 of them together....Edwards is the one who gets noticed, with that smile that lights up his face, his cheery outlook and gritty toehold on issues that will make mincemeat out of Cheney or anyone else -- he most definitely steals the limelight from Kerry. I can most definitely see Edwards as a future President (his charisma is off the charts--reminiscent of JFK), with some more experience under his belt. I think it's a win-win for Edwards, whether they win or lose.

[ July 08, 2004, 15:06: Message edited by: Spellbound ]

 

There's certainly nothing wrong with your sense of humor.

Tounge planted firmly in cheek I'm sure - but still very funny.

Edwards is definitely more moderate than Kerry. Edwards if probably even more moderate than Bill Clinton, who is unquestionably more moderate than Kerry. This is an interesting point you raise. However, I don't think people really base their decision on who to vote for on the VP. Generally speaking the VP only becomes president if one of two things happen:

1. The president leaves office (whether it be through death, impeachment, resignation, illness, etc.)

2. Eight years pass and things are going so good that you want to stick to the party in power (see Bush I - any Republican would have won that election because of Ronnie's popularity).

The first is unlikely, and the second is eight years off. As no one can predict that far off, it seems that pinning your hopes on a VP becoming President one day comes with so many "ifs" attached to it that it isn't realistic at all. The main reason being, for your VP to one day become president, the president that the VP is currently running with would have to be immensely popular with the country, despite the fact that you don't think he's a particularly good choice. It's counterintuitive.

I can honestly say your brought up a name I haven't thought of at all in the last eight years. Quite honestly, I couldn't even tell you if the guy was still alive or not. He kind of fell of the face of the earth after '96.

 

Actually, I think Jefferson and Bush I were the only VPs to succeed to the presidency by an immediately-following election - and Jefferson was a weird case, since he was a different party than Adams. Chandos, who am I missing?

Oh, I agree with you, Spellbound - not just because you initially agreed with me, that's just coincidence, honest - that this is a win-win for Edwards. Even if Kerry loses, this positions Edwards strongly for 2008 - even better, a Clinton-Edwards ticket (flipped either way). Unless Edwards makes some hideous mistake, but he doesn't seem like the hideous-mistake type.

Edwards might actually be stronger as VP than at the top of the ticket. For all that charisma, he didn't do particularly well in the primaries, where his message would've been most likely to resonate. As VP he can smile charmingly without people worrying about his actual positions. It'll be very interesting to watch the Cheney-Edwards debate.

 

Actually, he did very well in the primaries. He lost to Kerry only slightly, due mainly to the "lack of experience" and "he's so young!" thing. I don't consider that "not doing well."

As for the Cheney/Edwards debate, I agree - it will be interesting. Edwards made millions handing men like Cheney their asses. Of all the potential VP's, no one is better suited to take him to task (with the possible exception of Joe Biden). Who knows...we may actually see another hot-tempered, potty-mouth outburst or two from good old Dick.

 

I like Edwards for VP, I'm just not sold on Kerry as President. He seems very dull, devoid of personality, and I still can't figure out what he stands for. Does this guy have passion about anything?

I can understand trying to gather as many facts as possible before making a decision, but his track record doesn't seem to show any particular pattern of thinking. And that disturbs me.

Amazingly, I'm not going to need too much prodding to not vote for Bush this election, but I do need SOMETHING. Otherwise, write me in America! I'm 35, a lawyer with excellent knowledge of the Constitution and economics - and Military History is one of my favorite subjects! So you have it all! Domestic knowledge to get the country back on track, with a definite sense of when to utilize our military...and more importantly, when not to!

Vote Sir Bel in 2004!!!!

 

You hear this a lot with Edwards, but quite frankly, he's not. The reason people think he's younger than he really is is that two of his children are extremely young - if I'm not mistaken his two youngest children are 4 and 6. However both Edwards and his wife are about 50 (give or take a year). His wife took fertility drugs to get pregnant in her middle 40s. Like I said though, Edwards looks young, but he's 50. Not that 50 is old, it's just that many people think he's about 10 years younger because he looks younger, and because of his young children.

 

Edwards is 51 now, and Bush was 54 when he took office. If memory serves, Clinton and Gore were both in their early 50's during their first campaign. Some of the most successful entreprenears in recent history made their millions before the age of 40. This is such a non-issue, it's laughable.

We needn't look any further than Dick Cheney to decide whether or not old age necessarily equals good leadership.