Superbelt

It's pretty much official now, though Kerry hasn't announced it.
All the major news sources, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, Fox, AP etc are all reporting that their sources have told them Edwards is the pick.
Say hello to your 2004 President and Veep.

pan6467

Damn good ticket, would be better Edwards/Kerry but this is damn good.

Problem is we Dems lose 2 great senator seats, hopefully we can find decent replacements or the GOP will snag them up in a heartbeat. (Well Mass. will probably go Dem. at least that is a stronghold. The Dems. ever lose Mass, then the partyu is beyond hope.)

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

wraithhibn

Definitely more of a popular pick than a political pick. Gephardt was the political man, where Edwards is only a freshman Senator. This gives Kerry what he needs to make a run, help in the South and a popular running mate.

I bet Hillary isnt too happy with this one.

__________________
If you won't dress like the Victoria Secret girls, don't expect us to act like soap opera guys.

djtestudo

So...I'm throwing a "Bush just got reelected" party tonight...who wants to join me?

Seriously though, I think of those suggested as serious choices, only Hillary would have been worse.

Both Gephardt and Graham would have been much better choices if the Democrats wanted to win.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

highthief

Oh no, not at all. Gephardt's day is long passed. He's not as bad as Cheney but he is still yesterday's man.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

onetime2

Edwards is a good choice but in the end I don't think it matters much. People vote for the Pres not the Vice Pres.

It will be interesting to see Edwards in the attack dog role.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

User Name

Kerry should have chosen someone from a big swing state. Edwards is from North Carolina, which will go to Bush anyway. While Bob Graham is not exactly a popular senator, he would help Kerry get Florida, the biggest swing state there is.

onetime2

I tend to agree and that's what I thought he'd do. I'm not sure that Edwards will help him but I don't think he will hurt him too much either.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

pan6467

Don't underestimate the power of the VP candidate. Gore truly helped Clinton and Quayle hurt Bush.

Edwards may help Kerry in N. Carolina and the South, including Fla. where Bush's new visitation laws to Cuba has the very powerful Cuban contingent mad, so Fla. may swing Kerry's way anyhow.

If anything, where Kerry is dull, Edwards has the enthusiasm and charisma to truly make a difference. Biden might have been a good choice, as would've McCain. But I think Kerry chose the best man possible and I think with Edwards' charisma and ability to energize people, Kerry will get a lot more undecideds and those are the ones who truly win or lose the candidates the elections.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

assilem

Good call is all I can say. Sure makes things harder for republicans. Also a better pick than the gossip about Hillary Clinton. That would have been more trouble than it was worth.

__________________
The mother of mankind, what time his pride
Had cast him out from Heaven, with all his host
Of rebel Angels

dy156

I was very surprised at this. I thought Kerry would balk at picking Edwards, because Edwards was the one who wanted it so bad, and not that Kerry wanted Edwards. Kinda a pride/ego thing. I figured Graham wouldn't do it, (and he's kinda nuts, too)but that Gephardt would be the choice.
Gephardt would have been the Cheney-like pick, in alot of ways. Great for the Demo base, help with labor and the midwest, and lots of experience, but Edwards will probably be the best bet for him in the long run.
Kerry is a bad campaigner, and the cliched joke is that the less he speaks, the better his numbers are. Who better than a successful trial lawyer to spin facts and convince undecided average Americans to make the decision he wants them to. Plus, the "son of a mill worker" helps counteract Kerry's upbringing to anyone that might think that's an issue. Edwards, like Bush, has always exceeded low expectations, and I think this was a bad day for the Bush camp. Gephardt would have been their hope, I bet.

User Name

-John Kerry, speaking about his then-opponent in the primaries John Edwards.

I would be really amused if someone mentioned that quote to either of them when they are being interviewed by the press

wonderwench

My interpretation is that Hillary is not on the ticket by her own choice. She doesn't think Bush is vulnerable enough to lose. She will only run as a Veep if it is a sure thing in order to protect her political capital for her own eventual presidential campaign.

wonderwench

The GOP will make much of Edwards' trial lawyer background. This will not help Kerry.

wonderwench

Double-edged sword. Edwards charm will make Kerry look even worse by comparison. The contrast creates a risk that some voters will think: "Too bad Edwards is not the top of the ticket - I'll wait until he runs on his own."

Superbelt

Good lord, get off the "Vast Hitlary Clinton Conspiracy". She doesn't wield much power. Reading Dick Morris, William Safire and Newsmax rots your brain.

Edwards is a big boost. He is personable, intelligent and refreshing. If anyone in this election is a liability it is Bush's entire staff.
Ashcroft, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the fact that the only sane one, Powell is jumping ship.

onetime2

Yeah but I don't think it will truly put a hurting on him. Anyone he picked would have had a vulnerability or two that the GOP would attack. This one is relatively minor I suspect and he has a personality that can overcome it.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

onetime2

I agree about the personality part. Just don't agree that the VP is or was significant in those races. Hell, Quayle was shrugged off by many as "assasination insurance". Much was made about him but in the end the effect was probably neutral I think.

Gore was the target of lots of "wood" jokes and I don't for a minute think he mobilized many votes for Clinton. He certainly had a great ability to fundraise but he didn't sway people toward Clinton by his presence on the ticket.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

wonderwench

I'll ignore your snide remark and comment on the substance.

The Clintons control the DNC. If you doubt that, reconsider the role of Terry McAuliffe and the concern that Bill sucks all the air out of the room (often expressed by Dems).

They are still the rock stars of the Democrats.

Superbelt

Sorry but it really does seem like that. The comments you made are a damned if she does damned if she doesn't type of statement. Hillary promised the people of New York that she would fulfill her first term. But many on the Republican side don't seem to be able to believe her. Even when she is finally free of her VP speculation some still have to spin the event towards being her malevolence.

Clintons control the center/right DLC, not DNC. And the DLC has been deflated considerably. The New Democratic Network (quite a bit more liberal) is quickly stealing much of it's thunder.
The Clinton's themselves command a leadership role in large part because of their successes as politicians and for their fundraising network. But they are now two cycles out of Presidential power. That plus the primary did a great deal to decentralize the structure of the party. Especially with Dean's rediscovery of the strength of small donors and his alliance with Gore.

The Democrats are not the puppet party you think it is. The Clintons will always be Stars. But they are not the Democrats dictators.

onetime2

Hey SB, it's been a while but something else that we agree on (at least very nearly). Hillary not fulfilling that promise wouldn't have really hurt her. She could easily have made the argument that she needs to do this for the sake of the country and all that. Her core would have supported her completely and most of the rest of her supporters would have followed suit.

I would not be surprised if that last little floater in the press about Hillary being considered for VP wasn't her own people's doing to keep her name out there.

The DNC was only being "controlled" by the Clintons in his second run. That first one was almost entirely out of the DNC's control, IMO. They did a hell of a job creating their own political infrastructure.

I don't think the swing you speak of within the DNC will hurt Hillary's standing though. It's kind of a forgone conclusion that she will be back either in the next race or the one after that (depending on who wins this year). She's not out for VP she's only out for Pres. No matter the state of the DNC they've proven they can circumvent the party controls to promote themselves and (unless the problems with a number of their core fundraising people really limit their network, which I don't think will happen) they can more than likely do it again.

It will be interesting to see however it shakes out.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Mojo_PeiPei

I tend to agree with the notion that the VP doesn't matter much, although dear lord I wish Bush would dump Cheney. At any rate Edwards is a good pick, ideal, but he is lacking slightly. Him being a junior senator could hurt, plus although him being a charasmatic southern helps, if Kerry would've gone with say a popular figure from Ill., Fl., or Ohio even, it could devast Bushs' hopes because those votes are critical.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Superbelt

I would have preferred Iowa's Vilsack myself electorally. I want to see the dems make serious inroads of locking up the MidWest. I tire of hearing about how the democrats need to pander to the south to try and win them back to stay nationally competitive. They will come around on their own in a generation.

But Edwards is my more idealic choice and I am very happy with it. Besides it does open up North Carolina, which becomes neck and neck when Edwards is factored in and even South Carolina, which is where John E. was born. Even if John2 lose the Carolinas still, it will have cost Bush precious attention and money sent Carolina's way rather in the real battlegrounds of PA, OH, and FL.

Sparhawk

My two favorites of those who were running - I'm a happy man. I think they both have qualities that are very complimentary to the other. The only thing that concerns me is that if they win, the Democrats will be hard-pressed to win back the Senate.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

Superbelt

I'd rather have the House with Nancy Pelosi leading anyway.

mml

For everyone worried about losing Edwards' Senate seat, it is already lost, he is not running for reelection and his term is up this year. He has played an "all or nothing" game, and no matter how it turns out, he has set himself up for the future.

Overall, I think Edwards in a good choice. He is bright, energetic and a natural campaigner. While he does not bring a state, he brings an ability to energize the Democratic base which the Dems are hoping will ensure a high Democratic voter turnout. The Kerry campaign determined that none of the VP candidates could guarantee a needed state, so they chose the guy who had the widest national appeal.

As far as Gephardt, he could not bring Missouri and Edwards actually has more labor support than he.

Graham has been very stong in Florida, but his numbers have decreased in recent years and much of the country finds him a little odd.

Vilsack once again could not guarantee his state and does not poll well nationally.

Hillary was never really considered a candiate for V.P. and she did not want it.

I really think this should be an interesting campaign.

__________________
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
-Douglas Adams

fuzyfuzer

you know picking Gephardt would have probably swung Missouri and the way Missouri voted for like the last 36 years has decided the outcome of the election

they need to learn how to make these decisions

__________________
"The difference between commiment and involvment is like a ham and egg breakfast the chicken was involved but the pig was commited"

"Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt

XXXs

So the most liberal Senator picks the 4th most liberal Senator and some people think this is a good thing? I wasn't going to vote for Kerry before, but I can't imagine Edwards will bring that many independents over to Kerry.

thesupermikey

I would love to see gore out there on stump this fall. Now that he doesn?t have to worry about being senator/veep/presidant Gore he can say all the things that he couldn?t say before. He will be just as powerful asset to Kerry/Edwards as I hope Clinton will be.

__________________
If you are not outraged than you are not paying attention!

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert

Stare At The Sun

I think honestly, If he would have choosen someone from ohio, that would have been huge. Ohio has gotten its ass kicked around in Bush's term. Locally, almost every single major factory has shut down, or is in the process of doing so.

In my town, (canton) both bush, and Kerry have visited here, and spoke. It's also a pretty well known fact that if you win ohio, you win the election. Only 2 times has that not been true.

Ohio holds a lot of symbolism, and has a lot of union power.

I think Edwards is still a good pick.

cosmoknight

I think it will amount to a wash. If you are a non Union Democrat this would be your ideal ticket. Edward's does have charisma something Kerry is lacking but I don't think a VP selection will really mater that much normally. Someone like Hillary, who by her very name would polarize both sides is a glaring exception. Edwards will not really help in the south as he is not very popular at home in NC and may have lost his seat if he ran. Edward's trial lawyer background I don't think will sway many as it was tried in 1998(?) during his Senate run without much results. The best tactic against them would be to use their voting record and extreme liberal stances against them IMO.

tecoyah

I truly dislike Kerry as a political candidate. I was however inclined to vote for him regardless, simply because of the alternative. The addition of Edwards to the ticket, makes my descision somewhat more palatable, and for this at least, I am relieved.
I would hope , upon taking office the two combined can change the direction of our country, with or without GOP support. I do have my doubts though.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Superbelt

Edwards has broader and more union support than Gephardt does.

Paq

I say,
Andrew Jackson and John C. Calhoun for pres/vp

could you imagine if the same way of choosing VP were the same today...you put the person with most votes as pres and 2nd most as VP...

Bush/Gore....could you imagine?

I, for one, am really happy about the edwards pick. I spoke with them briefly in 2002 and they just mesh very well together. I think i'd like it as Edwards/Kerry, though, but either way works fine for me.

I do find it funny how Fox news is lambasting kerry and edwards HARDCORE since the announcement...Right now, it's lynn cheney bashing edwards while they have a clip of dick giving a speech on how liberal kerry is and how that's next to being satan...

__________________
Live.

Chris

Superbelt

You see anything from the Right about how Edwards is too young and inexperienced? Wow, that meme jumped out hardcore the second Edwards was picked.

How quickly the right forgets that Bush was only 4 years in politics (Tx Gov) when he decided to run for President.

What the hell substantive does Lynn Cheney have to say that anyone would care about? What kind of bashing is she doing?

wonderwench

9/11 changed the criteria for Presidential qualifications. At this point, Bush has been tested. Edwards has absolutely null foreign relations / national security experience.

Lynn Cheney is quite an intelligent woman - and has every right to speak up, just as Theresa Heinz-Kerry has been doing.

Superbelt

Ooh, so neophyte Bush can lock the door behind him? When did the regulations for president tighten?

9/11 changed nothing. That's a weird ass meme. We are under the same pressures and dangers as we have always been. If it's not the British hiring Hessian Mercenaries to bring us back in line it's Northern Aggression. If it's not Mexicans outnumbering our Texas outposts it's those uppity Canadians (seriously, they kicked our asses). Germany set plans to attack american soil, They couldn't follow up Pearl Harbor though. Neither did the countless scares we had with the Russians and all the Nukes we've had laying around. LAX attempt, WTC I, and OK City. Again, I say, nothing's changed. Only the tactics coming out of some of our leaders mouths intent to scare you. America has always been sitting on a powderkeg. As such our leader has a very important job, always has. A President's first job is always to be Commander in Chief. It's been that way for the past 250 years. A hierarchy is in place to advise a President in military matters.

Plus, the primary half of the Democrats ticket has several decades of foreign policy, defense and military experience.

Paq

9/11 may have changed the criteria...and bush has been tested..and found wanting..


Lynn was mainly just bashing the leftist voting record, how kerry is #1 and edwards is #4 in left leaning voting records...heck, it's become a new catchphrase on fox news bc it's been heard more often than WMD in the past few days...And she has a right to say whatever she wants, that's fine, but I just found it funny that it took fox news about 2 days to get her on the air..

Btw, i have checked out some of her history books...innteresting stuff..a bit more conservative than atilla the hun, but pretty interesting..

__________________
Live.

Chris

Zeld2.0

I don't recall the criteria for President's changing

If that were so then no one could run again unless they were Bush! Bush for president for life!

Sarcasm aside, I think it would be foolish to say that. Most people who run for this often have little to no experience at all honestly. Did Reagan have a whole lot of foreign relations experience? Nope, but many would agree he did his job.

If you look back at the long history of presidents, most haven't had this experience.

FDR: Pearl Harbor and WW2. Tough set of things to go through for any of the next few presidencies. I think we have done fine since then though.

Truman was a new senator as well and he took over in the midst of the greatest war in human history. Then through the early Cold War and Korean War.

Heck, honestly, most of the president's haven't had previous experience in these areas unless they were VPs.

Hanxter

the process of choosing a running mate has been quite challenging for kerry - ya gotta understand just how difficult it must have been for him - he's never made a decision and stuck to it before