Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFu
I think Edwards would have been a better choice than Kerry. It would have been a different race towards the beginning that is for sure. We're just now hearing about the real issues. I think if Edwards were the candidate we would have heard them alot sooner since he doesn't have that Vietnam monkey on his back.
|
I think anyone except for Kerry would have been a better choice, I personally think that the man is dangerous for the current situation, his record in the senate and anti-war effort after Veitnam is a good example.
Edwards is probably too inexperienced especially given his lack of attendance in his senate committees. I think his inexperience would have been a problem for him but probably not as damaging as Kerry's less than stellar record.
Bush's strength has always been his cabinet members and advisors. With Bush not having very much experience himself, his political team is very experienced even though the democrats have bastardized most of them like Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Ashcroft.
I have to admit that I think Cheney would be a very good president, I like his record as being a CEO of a major cooperation, which I believe is how the country should be run, as a business trying to serve its customers and shareholders. (Please don't bring up Haliburton and it's no bid contract in Iraq, Clinton gave them multiple no bid contracts also, they are the best at what they do).
How should the democrats have chosen? I would like to have seen Geptheart as the candidate, though I don't know much about him I have to admit. I think Dean would have gone down in flames, as we saw his break down in the primaries, but I still like him better than Kerry.