Edwards for VP expectations are real.

[katieforeman]

In one of my earlier posts supporting Edwards for vp, I noted that many of the Kerry voters seemd to be under the impression they were voting for a Kerry/Edwards ticket.

Here are some numbers to back it up:

FL LA MS TX
Edwards first choice for VP: 44% 36% 42% 42%
Kerry voters w/Edwards VP: 44% 38% 44% 42%
Edwards 1st choice + 48% 46% 46% 47%
Edwards voters with other vp choice

These are numbers I calculated from CNN's exit polls on March 9th. The first row was raw data reported directly by CNN. I was able to use this data to calcualte the percentage of Kerry voters in the poll who listed Edwards as their "preferred running mate".

Then I noticed that not all Edwards voters listed Edwards as their "preferred running mate". It occurred to me that the question may have been somewhat ambiguous. The respondents who voted for Edwards for president may have been telling the pollster who their "preferred running mate" would be for Edwards. Other Edwards voters may have taken the question to mean: given that Kerry will be the nominee, who is your "preferred running mate" for Kerry. To me it makes sense to assume that people who took the time to go vote for Edwards after he had already withdrawn were sending a signal that they wanted Edwards for Kerry's vp. The fourth row gives the percent of respondents who either selected Edwards as "preferred running mate" or voted for Edwards but selected another "preferred running mate."

The fourth row numbers are pretty consistent. Nearly half of primary voters in these four states showed a preference for Edwards for VP. Even if you don't buy the numbers in the 4th row, the number of Kerry voters who selected Edwards as "preferred running mate" is pretty impressive. Granted these were Southern states, but two of the states had home state Senators listed as choices.

Some more numbers:

votes for Edwards % of total votes
Through Super Tues. 2,554,838 25%
Since Super Tues. 227,318 12%
Total to date. 2,782,156 23%

(calculated from CNN primary results. Maine was excluded because only 80% of the results were reported.)

Another poll:

When given a list of possible running mates and asked, who would make the best running mate for Kerry. This is how people in a national poll of registered voters responded.

All Dem Repub Ind
John Edwards 33% 34% 32% 33%

Source: Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll taken 2-18-04 and 2-19-04
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2004.htm#misc

Does anyone doubt that if we held primaries for running-mates, Edwards would have won in a landslide? There is even a draft Kerry/Edwards website. Has there ever been a movement to draft a vp?

This clear preference and even expectation for a running-mate is unprecedented. Kerry ignores it at his peril. There will be a let down if Kerry goes with Bayh or a Midwestern governor and mayby even a slight dip in the polls. True, most of the base will still support Kerry. However, the enthusiasm may not be there. The thousands of small donors might be a little less willing to make their small donations. People might not be as willing to pay the price of admission to a Bayh fundraiser as they would to an Edwards event.

There is already speculation that Kerry won't choose Edwards because he doesn't want to be outshown by Edwards or because he still has resentment from the primaries. That would be the spin if he made an unexpected choice like Bayh.

What kind of signal would it send if Kerry's first major decision as our nominee completely ignored the preferences of the people who gave him the nomination? Announcing a DLC candidate like Bayh, would almost be a slap in the face to Dean people and others. It would re-enforce the image of Kerry as aloof and out-of touch and send some people running into the arms of Nader.

Edwards has proven his ability to get the votes of moderates and republicans in states like OH and WI. He has proven appeal as a national candidate and campaigner. His message obviously resonated with primary voters.

In the campaign, Kerry told voters to send Washington a President not a message. They will be sorely dissapointed if it turns out they sent a President who didn't get the message.

[TomSeaverr]

1. Polls will have to show a

Kerry/Edwards ticket to run close in NC or South Carolina or he won't be the VP choice

[katieforeman]

5. I don't buy that.

In this election there are many battleground states. We need a candidate who can help the ticket appeal in as many of them as possible. Even though Edwards is from NC, he is the only candidate with proven appeal to Independents and Republicans. In states like OH and WI, he won this group of voters.

I'm from OH and can tell you people really like him there. That's why I supported him for president in the first place. Just because he is from NC, doesn't mean he isn't the candidate with the most appeal in the Midwest.

State of origin isn't what it used to be. Gore lost TN in 2000. Edwards beat Gephardt in IA, Gephardt's back yard. A St. Petersburg Times poll showed Kerry/Edwards did as well as Kerry/Graham in Fl. FL exit polls showed voters had a clear preference for Edwards as VP over Graham. we live an age of national media and people move frequently. Homestate advantage is less important. It's not as simple as people vote for someone becuase the vp is from their homestate.

In my opinion, it would be a very bad mistake to select someone like Graham on the assumption he is the only one who can deliver Fl, especially if he doesn't help the ticket in other states.

[cosmokramer]

58. Since we called a truce, I will be nice...

...and not say anything about my candidate.

However, Edwards is not the candidate with the most "appeal" in the midwest, especially not Ohio...there are several that are more appealing and could do well here.

The great quandry is that the most appealing candidates for the midwest have the same problem Edwards has--legislative only experience, and Edwards has very little at that.

Gephardt, just as an example, were he not a legislator, would be ideal for Ohio. IF the nominee were a Gov or someone with Exec. Exp., you could COUNT on Gep being the VP nominee. The unions would make a major, major GOTV effort here with Geppy on the ticket--and he could help win Ohio for Kerry. The same can be said for several persons, including Former Rep. Tony Hall (now Ambassador Tony Hall), who was a Rep. for 24 years AND has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize...TWICE. Issue: Legislative only.

And Graham won't be selected either--as wonderful as he is, he is too quirky, and Florida is not a guarantee with Jeb and Deibold there.

I can nearly guarantee that the VP will be one of the following:

Gov. Bill Richardson, Gen. Wes Clark, and possibly Gov. Mark Warner (though I have yet to figure out why--Kerry camp. staff told me he was on the list, though)

And before someone reminds me again that Richardson said he didn't want to be VP, if asked, he will serve.

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. The Big Dog has let it be known

that if Kerry doesn't choose a VP with foreign policy experience...we lose in November. Edwards won't be VP. He has NO foreign policy experience and THAT is what we MUST have in a VP. Bush's whole campaign is based on war on terror/Iraq.

[w4rma]

3. We've got a nominee with foreign policy experience

Edwards, like it or not, appears to be the running-mate of choice of Democrats, and particularly Democrats who didn't support Kerry in the primaries.

[Skwmom]

4. And the Democrats wonder why they keep losing.

If a personal injury attorney who channels unborn children is the choice of most Democrats, it really doesn't say much for the Democratic party.

[katieforeman]

6. That personal injury lawyer won a Senate seat as a Democrat

in NC. That personal injury lawyer was beating Bush in national polls by about 10%. That personal injury lawyer beat your candidate in the primaries.

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. That personal injury lawyer

isn't running for his Senate seat again because he knew he would lose because he was such a bad Senator. He wasn't going to be re-elected in NC. Edwards isn't going to be the VP. He has NO FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE. We are at war...one HE voted for and still thinks we should be fighting, btw......Bush's ENTIRE campaign is based on IRAQ and THE WAR ON TERROR. Edwards cannot be VP. He will NOT be VP.

[katieforeman]

9. I really think Kerry is leaning toward a Midwestern governor

or Evan Bayh. I think we both might be disappointed. But I would never claim to be certain who Kerry will nominate.

I'm impressed that you can both see the future and read minds, claiming to know why Edwards didn't run for re-election and who Kerry will choose. That's impressive.

Furthermore,
-Edwards does have foreign policy experience-More than Reagan, Clinton, or Carter when they were elected President.

-The main line of attack against Kerry will not be that he lacks experience,(Kerry has lots of experience), the main line of attack against Kerry will be that he waffles and tries to take two positions at the same time (he's for the war and he's against i, he's for NCLB and he's against it etc....). Getting people to believe this is Bush's only hope, adding a vp who would not have voted for the IWR in it's final form does not help Kerry's crdibility.

[Darkamber]

11. Yes that's true...

We are aware that Bush's entire campaign is based on that, but the question is what are the voters in the key states worried about? Are they worried about the war or are they worried about the economy and health care.

The answer to these questions in the Heartland and Midwest seems to be jobs and economy.

I have total respect for Clark and I hope his experience is used in the Democratic party on the cabinet, but I think it is wrong to take this election into the playing field of the GOP.

BTW, he voted the same as Kerry. But Kerry and his advisors will pick VP. It will be a great loss to the Democratic party if Edwards or Clark are lost to them in the future.

[in_cog_ni_to]

32. The IWR vote...

True, that they both voted for it, but the difference is....Kerry regrets his vote. Kerry knows he was lied to by the cabal. Edwards doesn't regret his vote and STILL says we were right to pre-emptively, unilaterally and illegally attack Iraq. He STILL thinks we should be there and it was/IS the right thing to do. It was/is not the right thing to do.

We already know that the election is going to be based on Iraq and the war on terror...it doesn't really matter what we in the Midwest/Heartland are concerned about....Bush is running on the only thing he can run on. Taking Clark as his VP gives Kerry the power to let Clark address the foreign policy/homeland security/war on terror issues while Kerry addresses the healthcare/jobs/economy domestic issues. The BEST of both worlds. Clark smacking down Bush/Cheney while Kerry does his thing with the people on what matters to them....staying out of the fray. It's a perfect ticket for NOW and after the election.

[jsw_81]

19. Edwards isn't ready for the vice presidency

It's unlikely that Edwards would deliver even a single Southern state for Kerry. Edwards withdrew from his Senate race not because he wanted to "focus all his attention on winning the presidency" (that was just silly spin), but because the polls said that he was going to lose the seat big time.

Clark, on the other hand, has tons of foreign policy experience and will immediately put Arkansas and possibly Louisiana in play.

John Edwards is a good man, but he just isn't ready. He'd be better off as Attorney General or possibly Governor of North Carolina (if he can win).

[katieforeman]

24. Over 50% of Americans thought Edwards was ready

before Edwards dropped out of the race. Polls showed Edwards beating Bush by about 10 points, about the same as Senator Kerry at the time.

According to exit polls a plurality of Democratic primary voters seem to think he's ready for VP.

Close to 3 million primary voters thought Edwards was ready for the Presidency.

Kerry has gobs of experience. Lack of experience is not his problem on defense. Adding more experience to the ticket isn't going to solve the problem. It'll just focus more of the debate on National Security.

Edwards only lost to Clark in OK, the neighboring state to AK, by less than a percentage point. Furthermore, Clark has never run for office in AK and he hasn't lived there most of his career. I don't think he'd have that great a home state advantage.

Edwards has proven appeal to independents and Reoubs in the important swing states of OH and WI. No other candidate has proven that.

Finally, you don't know that Edwards wouldn't have won his seat in the Senate. Edwards was in single digits in the polls about a month before IA, but he was one of the last two candidates standing.

[in_cog_ni_to]

33. Edwards also lost to Clark

in NM, AR, ND, and NH. THOSE wins were AFTER Edwards supposed Iowa boost, too. Remember that Clark had just entered the race in Sept. Had he been running for 2 years like the other candidates....he would probably be where John Kerry is today. If Clark had the coverage as the media darling...his poll numbers would have been sky high too. He didn't get the coverage because the RWers FEAR him. Why do they fear him? Because he has their number, knows where the bodies are buried and has already said that he will investigate and he can WIN. If he's VP, the press will have NO choice but to cover him. They cover him? The American people will fall in LOVE...guaranteed. A Kerry/Clark ticket is a win/win ticket.

[katieforeman]

37. Clark spent all his time in NH

and only beat Edwards by a few hundred votes.

Clark was the darling of the media when he first anounced. He was on the cover of Time or Newsweek (I forget which). I don't think Edwards ever was. Clark was an instant front-runner when he announced and then gradually sunk. Edwards was in single digits and then rose dramatically.

I've said it before but I'll say it again. Kerry has lots of defense and foreign policy experience. That's not his problem on defense. We won't make our defense problem go away by adding more experience to the ticket. We'll only end up focusing more of the debate on foreign policy and military matters which isn't good for Democrats.

[Skwmom]

36. Polls that are not worth the paper they are printed on.

The corporate media and right wing talking heads have been talking Edwards up for VP which is why the personal injury attorney is polling so high.

Is he fit to be president/is he presidential? is a meme the corporate media and republicans have been floating for quite some time. Bob Schaeffer on Imus described the moment when he determined that Howard Dean was unfit to be president as his "Hey Mabel" moment (Hey Mabel (Schaeffer’s wife), come look at this concession speech.) Can "Hey Mabel ,come listen to the pundits discuss Edward’s channeling of an unborn child" be far behind?

[Auntie Bush]

46. The only word that pops

into my mind right now is "La-la-land"

[Skwmom]

35. The personal injury attorney

who the corporate media was a cheerleader for, who Bush supporters voted for in the Democratic primary, yeah that personal injury attorney.

[DjTj]

10. Where did he say that?

Do you have a link?

[atre]

28. In my opinion

If Bush's whole campaign is based on the war on terror, we help him accomplish that goal by nominating a VP who will help ensure that is the main issue in the campaign.

Defensive political strategy does not work. Bush is trying it now, and it's clearly failing. Why would we want to do the same?

I personally don't care what Clinton thinks about this matter, especially considering the fact that his attempts to maintain vestiges of control over the Democratic Party (read Terry Mac) have NOT helped the Party in any way, shape, or form. Many people here love Clinton because of the contrast with the previous and current Administrations, but he's harmed the Democratic Party more than anything since Reconstruction (when the Democratic Party was more like the current Republican Party). Why he has been turned into some sort of demigod is beyond me.

[in_cog_ni_to]

34. Ummmm, Clinton was elected TWICE for a reason.

Clinton Policies.....here's a few reasons he's liked so much.

Tried to get Universal Health Care
National Health Care Costs rising at 10% per annum. Cut to 3%
Deficit Reduction Package
Crime Bill
100,000 cops on street—crime down down down
Welfare Reform-- Mend do not end. GOP helped bit time
80% increase in child welfare payments
Job Growth-Record 236,000 per month. (Reagan/Bush 167,000)
Largest percentage of Americans working in history
Largest Home Ownership in history
Record number of small business formations
Tax Cut for 15 million working families
Family and Medical Leave Act
Defense Reinvest and Conversion—Bush enjoying weapons created by Clinton
Direct loan programs for students
Guts to put promises in a book "Putting People First"-58 promises in book. Took action on 56 in first two years.
Second best record in history for getting legislation through Congress in first to years. LBJ number one.
Reinvented Government—cut payroll
Fewest number of civilians on federal payroll in 36 years
Attacked cop killing nasty rifle association.
Attacked the cancer inducing tobacco industry
Promoted a global effort to ban abusive forms of child labor
Loan 12.8 Billion to Mexico. Made 800 Million profit. Kept Mexico afloat.
Wash. Post kept list of campaign promises. 162. Took action on 96% in first two years.
Took on prejudice toward other Americans in military
Took on his own Southern Baptist Church
Hard smart work in Middle East and Bosnia-Kosovo
Honored with all of the following:
Dove of Peace Award
Rabin-Peres Peace Award
Gandhi Peace Award
Order of Good Hope Award
Nominated for Nobel Peace Award
Northern Ireland Peace Agreement
Lifeaholics of America Award for Quarter Century "Working for a Life Not Just A Living".
First President to visit Northern Ireland
Cleanup of Toxic sites. Record
Increasing weekly earnings
Shoo Shoo Saddam get away from Kuwait
Stopping Haitians from drowning enroute to freedom
First to visit South Africa
First to make a determined effort to help the African continent come together and grow together
Taxing top 1.2% of very wealthy to get Zoom Zoom Boom economy
Stopping Republicans in the House from raiding Medicare of 181 Billion
Stopping Republicans raid on Medicaid
Stopping Republicans raid on education
Stopping Republicans attack on environment
Largest increase in Education funding since GI Bill
Increased funding for Head Start
Nafta.. A success until the Peso went south
Submitting 8 budgets close to rate of inflation
Brady Bill
Gaat
Assault Weapons Ban
Telling Japan "You take our auto parts or we will apply tariffs on you
California Desert Protection
Forest Management Plan for Northwest
Restoration of Florida Everglades
Preservation of land in Utah
Major increase in funding for homeless
Motor Voter Act
Lobbying Reform Effort. Handshake with Newt who reneged
Pressure to get Campaign Finance Reform.
National Export Strategy. Unbelievable success.
Over 250 Trade pacts
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Pact
Summit of Americas
Super 301
Chemical Weapons Ban Treaty.
Bottom Up Review of Military
Agreement with Cuba to stop flow of immigrants to USA.
Ameri-Corps
Reduced Nuclear Threat Around the World
Community Banking Act
FEMA used as an active participant and a leader in disaster relief
Tax on well off social security beneficiaries
100,000 new teachers effort
5,000 new classroom effort
50% of classes thru K-12 on internet
Fourth Graders improvement on world tests
Lifetime Learning Opportunity Program
Controls on Spending and Borrowing
Pension Protection Act of 1994
Record high consumer confidence
Very, very, very low Misery Index
National Agenda on Racial Prejudices
First to get African-American unemployment under 10%
Balanced Budget
Record Corporate profits
Record Bank profits
Record Savings and Loan profits
Never whining despite non-sop smears and attacks
Not having a Mean Bone in his body per Historian David Maraniss
Not knowing how to hate
Classing others as "opponents" not "enemies"
Inviting your attackers to the White House functions
Inviting your defeated opponent Bob Dole to visit troops at Christmas
A national attack on hate crimes
Fighting to protect "legal" immigrants from Republicans in the House.
Fighting hard for Fast Track legislation
Kennedy and Kassenbaum Portability of Insurance
Lowest interest rates in 30 years
Allowing millions of homeowners to refinance home loans at lower (much) rates
Lowest unemployment in 25 years
Lowest inflation in 25 years
Lowest welfare rolls in 27 years
Lowest crime Rates in 25 years
First balanced budget sent to Congress in 29 years
Protecting worker pensions (repeat?)
Opposed ban on "Late Term Abortions"
A stock market which passed a 1,000 mark six times
Greatest growth in federal revenues in history
Played Saxophone and Smoked Peace Pipe, instead of beating War Drums like____.
One of History's all time workers for Peace
President in a year when Fortune Magazine classified it as "Greatest Economy in the History of the world"
Popularity jump in the midst of a scandal.
President with highest peacetime popularity in Asia, Africa, Russia and Europe.
Highest popularity of any president at end of fifth year in office
One of the most highly regarded First Lady in History.
One of the most highly regarded Vice-President in History

[ShaneGR]

29. Care to provide a link for that claim?

Clinton said we needed a nominee with foreign policy experience, which we have. He made no such comments about VP.

[paulk]

8. It's going to depend on whether we make a play for the south

or go for a western/Midwestern strategy.

There's also a trade off between Edwards' campaigning skills and his relative lack of experience in government.

[katieforeman]

16. I think Edwards would be the best choice either way.

Edwards has already demonstrated appeal to moderate Republicans and independents in the Midwest. He won these groups in OH and WI. Bayh's appeal is a complete unknown outside IN. I'm from OH and spend a lot of time there. All my family is there and I can tell you I have heard from all parts of the political spectrum that they like Edwards. None of them are more likely to vote for Kerry becuase his VP is from IN.

People don't vote for VP. They vote for President. The VP is important because the VP is the person whose name will be linked most closely with Kerry's and becaue the VP will be out there selling Kerry everyday. The VP also sends a message to voters about Kerry's values and vision for the country.

It's wrong to assume that Bayh's ability to win ticket splitters in IN as a governor or Senator from a well known political family will translate into votes for Kerry in the rest of the Midwest. Bayh had the advantage of name recogniton when he first ran for secreatary of state, and then governor. He had the advantage of incumbency after that.

Voting for a Senator or Governor is different than voting for a President. Being a popular governor is more about good management than leadership. Being a popular senator is about representing your state well in the Senate. Being able to win votes for a ticket as VP is about selling people on Kerry. Becaue when people step into that voting booth, they will be deciding who they trust to lead the country for the next four years, and whose whose vision they want to follow. In my opinion, Edwards is the person best able to sell Kerry's values and vision.

Furthermore, a Kerry/Edwards brand is much fresher than a Kerry/Bayh ticket. A Kerry/Edwards ticket evokes energy, vision, hope, change. A Kerry/Bayh ticket evokes policy wonks and professional politicians.

Furthermore, I think the CW about geography is wrong. You don't have to be from the Midwest to appeal in the Midwest. Edwards beat Gephardt in Ia, Gephardt's backyard. Home state advantage isn't what it used to be becuase of the national media and the fact that people move more frequently now. Gore lost TN in 2000. Edwards did better in exit polls in FL for vp than Graham. A St. Petersburg Times Poll showed Kerry/Edwards doing as well as Kerry/Graham in Fl.

Furthermore, a Midwestern/Western strategy means you have to appeal to moderates without sending people running to Nader. OR, NM, WI, NH and MN were 5 of the most closely contested states in 2000. Nader recieved 4 or 5% of the votes in those states, well above his national average. If you select a VP from the DLC, you are giving the Deaniacs and other liberal voters who were upset with the party a slap in the face. Drive enough of them to Nader and we lose more electoral votes than we gain with Bayh.

Edwards is the unique candidate with proven appeal to Independents and Repubs in the Midwest and would-be Nader voters alike. Even Ralph Nader likes John Edwards.

This is shaping up to be a nasty campaign. With nothing but attacks and negative ads, people will tune out and either not show up or vote for Nader. Edwards adds some idealism, optimism and positive energy to the ticket. That will win us more votes in all of the battleground states than Bayh's record as a fiscal conservative.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Crunchy Frog]

13. It may very well happen.

If it does, I will be exceedingly disappointed, but certainly not for the first time in my life.

That being said, Kerry could make a much worse choice, and may very well do so. Unfortunately there's not much we can do about it.

[JI7]

14. i like Edwards, but the national security issue

what many clark supporters are saying about experience, especially concerning national security is true. for some reason polls show bush high in the polls on the area of national security. so if kerry picks the vp based on that then edwards has close to no chance of being chosen.

but i do think in terms of chemistry, kerry and edwards are probably the best. both of them together have a great presentation in terms of image. looking at a picture of them together, it just looks right, like they belong together. i think it's one reason the polls show large numbers supporting edwards more than others for vp. this is a good thing, but i guess kerry will have to decide if this would help more or getting someone with national security experience will help more.

i personally think for now if it's between clark and edwards kerry would pick clark just based on the attacks on kerry on national security. but since he will be picking a vp later on i don't think he will end up picking clark or edwards. if he can succeed in showing he IS strong on national security, i think edwards has more of a chance of being chosen.

another thing is the cspan discussion on the democratic primary with representatives of various candidates had the kerry guy discuss vp issue a bit. he said it's something most in the campaign are not involved in. the issue is very much left to kerry and that guy he hired to work on vp selections. many on the top don't even know what is going on there. if this is true than the media speculations are not really anything, it could be like those stories which kept coming up about hillary running. it will be interesting to find out who kerry picks and look back on some of the things that were said in the media about it to see how right they were.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[katieforeman]

17. You are probably right that it's a very high level

decision with very few people in the know. However, I have a really bad feeling that it's going to be Bayh or a Midwestern gov. Kerry already tipped his hand a little when he made that remark about winning without the South. He seems to be really focusing on OH, and Bayh has more of the policy wonkish qualifications Kerry seems to put a premium on.

It won't surprise you that I agree with what you said about the appeal of Kerry/Edwards but disagree about Clark. The main line of attack against Kerry is not that he's inexperienced, it's that he flip-flops and lacks the leadership and resolve to make the tough choices. The fact that Clark is on record saying he wouldn't have voted for the IWR in it's final form and the fact that Kerry did actually vote for it only makes the attacks on Kerry more believable. Bush's jokes that the ticket is for the war and against it etc. will just gain moe traction.

Furthermore, the video of Clark praising Bush and his team undermines his attacks on Bush/Cheney and only adds to Kerry's credibility problems.

In my opinion, saying more experience on the ticket will instill more trust in voters for Kerry on defense, is like saying Max Cleland would have won if only he'd lost all 4 limbs in Vietnam instead of just 3. Reagan was considred strong on defense and he never served and had no fp experience when elected, but Reagan was perceived to have had resolve and people knew where he stood. Experience does not equal credibility. Throwing more fp or military exeperience on the ticket will only focus more of the national debate on defense issues without solving our real problem on defense.

[JI7]

23. those are some good points

especially the max cleland part. it shows no matter what the right wing will attack kerry or whoever he picks as being weak. the fact is kerry has a record to show he is strong on defense issues and his goal should be to get america to see it rather than the right wing distortion. i think kerry has a strong look and he speaks in a way that comes across as strong and sure and he needs to use it to get others to see him as strong.heshould focus on himself doing this for the next few weeks or months.

i also can see reasons for picking bayh. do you think kerry wants someone who is young enough that they will run for president after serving as vp ? if kerry's vp wins it would be seen as a sign of success of kerry's time in office. this would also make it more likely bayh would be picked rather than someone like graham or clark.

[katieforeman]

25. Future prsident is another reason I support Edwards for VP.

True. Edwards and Bayh are both young and I think that's one of the reasons they make better choices than Graham. But Edwards is a much better candidate than Bayh-much more charisma, better campaigner. Let's face it Edwards is Clinton minus the scandels. Edwards would have won this nomination process in a walk if he had had more experience. With 8 years as vp under his belt Edwards would be Super Candidate in 2012-invincible. I think Edwards is Kerry's best bet at protecting his legacy. We don't want to have Bayh loose to Jeb Bush in 2012 and undo everything Kerry will accomplish.

[LiberalManiacfromOC]

18. I have a strange feeling thats not gonna happen...

but i really hope it does. thanks for the poll numbers :D

[TomSeaverr]

20. I don't like Bayh

as the guy. This guy can't win his state for the ticket either. he voted for those stupid tax cuts. And he is weak on womens rights

[katieforeman]

22. I don't like him either but I just have a bad feeling about it.

If not Bayh, he may go with a Midwestern gov.

PS Welcome to DU, I just noticced you're fairly new.:-)

[mouse7]

67. Me either

Where some Dems are "connected to the DLC," Bayh IS the DLC.

Edwards is the smartest choice to help Kerry win by the greatest margin, and sweep more Dems into Congress on their coattails. Kerry can win with lots of Dems as his running mate, but we have a chance to win back both houses of Congress with Edwards on the ticket. We can't pass on that opportunity.

[katieforeman]

21. I have that same strange feeling.

I think Kerry is likely to go with Bayh or a Midwestern governor. He tipped his hand when he said he could win without the South. He's focusing on OH. I think he may have made a strategic decision to focus on winning over the middle instead of pleasing the base.


I'm afraid he's making a big mistake, and I'm a little upset at the idea of him ignoring the preferences of the people who voted for him. I think a lot of Democrats want Edwards as President one day and the best way for that to happen is to make Edwards VP now.

[tameszu]

26. I'm not as passionate as you about this

I admire your passion, even if I don't think that your arguments are always on point...in any case, I don't care all that much who gets the VP slot as long as it'll be a winner.

Edwards has strengths and weaknesses as a VP candidate--terrific campaigner, great jobs/econ message, media loves him, left campaign with overwhelmingly good press. However, 2 yrs. on the Senate intel committee foreign policy experience does not make, and he won't be able to deliver either Carolina, which severely reduces his usefulness. Plus, his war position is *at least* as bad as any out there, as he is on record during the primaries as saying that he still supports it, whereas Kerry is almost completely in the opposite direction. It therefore seems clear to me that Clark is closer to Kerry on IWR, since Kerry admits that he wouldn't have voted for it in its final form, if he knew Bush was going to lie about not going in so quickly. I think Clark could also make a good VP, BTW, but that his talents might be wasted if they weren't put to work in a more hands-on foreign policy or security-related position like Secy State.

And I frankly wouldn't mind if it's a midwestern Governor, as long as said governor wasn't too conservative or boring...are there any left?

[katieforeman]

27. I disagree with your geography and experience argument.

The assumption that somebody has to deliver their home state to be on the ticket and the assumption that the person from a battleground state (or one of it's neighbors)is necessarily the best person to deliver that state drive me crazy.

There are many closely contested states this election. I believe there were 18 states in 2000 that were decided by less than 5 % of the vote. A candidate who might deliver their home state but make the ticket less appealing in other states is not necessarily the best choice. For example, Graham is from FL-an important state obviously-that many people still consider winnable. According to a poll which appeared March 7th in the St. Petersburg Times, Kerry/Edwards and Kerry/Graham were both beating Bush Cheney by the same margin. Edwards was the clear favorite over Graham for running-mate acoording to exit polls in FL. It's not clear that Graham would help the ticket more than Edwards would in FL.

Furthermore, Graham lacks the charisma on the campaign trail to help the ticket very much in the other battleground states. Furthermore, Graham voted against the IWRand Kerry voted for it.I think this hurt's Kerry's credibility. Graham has also been a Senator for a long time. The Kerry/Graham ticket would be a ticket of Washington insiders, career politicians. Not to mention the fact that there would be two very olng voting records to provide ammo to Rove. Graham is someone from a winnable, important state. However, there is no evidence he would help the ticket more in Fl and he might even hurt the ticket in other states. Edwards is a better choice who can help deliver more elctoral votes even though he might not deliver his home state.

Another example might be Gephardt in IA. Being from MO, Gephardt should have had an advantage there. Yet Edwards beat Gephardt in his own backyard. Al Gore lost TN in 2000. I think what state a candidate is from may still be important. But its not as simple a calculation, as a running-mate has to be from a winnable state.

Edwards is the only vp choice with proven vote getting ability of swing-voters in OH and WI. He may not be from OH, but people really like him. The intangibles Edwards ads give the ticket a lift in many states.

As for experience, Kerry has plenty of experience on fp. Inexperience is not Kerry's problem there. Saying the ticket needs more experieince to be strong on defense is like saying if only Cleland had lost 4 limbs instead of just 3 in Vietnam mayby he would have won. Adding more experience to the ticket doesn't solve Kerry's credibility problems and it only focuses more of the debate on fp.

[spooky3]

30. Your argument is excellent, and the evidence supports you, Katie.

As someone who lived in OH for 17 years and in Indiana many years before that, I will reiterate what many people have said here many times (but which some people apparently refuse to consider): Ohioans, and midwesterners in general, do NOT care where a person is from. That is NOT an important factor in their voting decisions for president. They care about whether they "like" the candidate and whether they agree with voting positions that are important to them personally.

It's the burden of anyone making the argument to provide EVIDENCE, not just one's opinion that a governor like Bayh could "deliver" a neighboring state where he is unknown, and because he is a "local" politician, not a Senator or Rep. whose actions have national impact.

Kerry needs someone who is smart and likable, who can appeal to swing voters and base voters alike, and motivate them to get out and vote, without being a loose cannon who can hurt the ticket with ill-considered comments. Edwards is that person. Kerry does not need a Kerry clone or a Kerry opposite--personality, policy or geography-wise.

[DaveSZ]

31. Please pick Edwards

Everyone in my family likes him (we're from the South).

He could help in W. Virginia, and the Midwest.

Also R. Nader endorsed him (pretty much) on Meet the Press.

[katieforeman]

40. www.draftkerryedwards.com

You and your family and friends can sign a petition. Let's send Kerry a message.

[katieforeman]

38. Thank you Spooky.

I grew up in a great big OH focus group. People there really like Edwards. This idea that they would be more likely to vote Kerry because he has a fiscally conservative Midwestern vp is just so out of touch with how real voters think.

[Darkamber]

39. it's not just OH or the Midwest...

Those are not the only areas that like Edwards. Even out here in Washington there is a great deal of support for Edwards as VP. When I was at causus here after I stood up in the room and made my presentation for Edwards there was amount of clapping and then as I walked back the Kerry supporters were saying..."Kerry/Edwards, Kerry/Edwards."

What you don't want in two career politicians. That will turn off the independent voters. And I disagree that the military is the key factor. Some look at that and some look at vision. We have the joint chiefs of staff and the secretary of defense...ect. as the experts in that area. What we need in a VP is someone who compliments the President...and I'd like to see a change to a more positive approach. This negative...bash...bash...bash...that is going on right now is getting real old real quick.

[katieforeman]

42. Exactly.

If this nastiness contiues until November, people will just tune out disgusted with both candidates. More people will go to Nader because amidst the barage of negativity it will be harder for them to see the difference between the two candidates and many people just won't vote at all. If voter turn out is low, this election will be the battle of the bases of each party and if Kerry pisses off our base with a conservative vp we might loose.

Kerry/Edwards is a more hopeful ticket that gives people a reason to go out and vote.

[tameszu]

41. Again, I am agnostic on the specific issue of who would make the best VP

Although I am not yet convinced that Edwards would make the best choice. I'm not convinced that he *wouldn't* make the best choice either.

But, regarding the battleground states--geographic influence is *proven* to be important, because of the strength of infrastructure and local connections. I'm not so sure about Edwards' "proven" ability to garner votes in OH and WI in the general. What's more accurate is that he could hit the mid-30s in percentage points when the race was effectively effectively reduced to 2 candidates on the strength of media momentum. On that argument, Kerry has demonstrated "proven" ability to garner votes in the south. I don't think so.

As for intangibles, we actually agree a lot on this, although you have chosen straw men examples. Do I ever agree that charisma has a lot to do with it--Gephardt would be a disaster in my book (and he wouldn't even be able to deliver MO). I am somewhat more charitable to Graham. As with Edwards, he makes a much stronger VP candidate than a Pres candidate. In any case, I didn't argue for either Graham or Gep.

Second, my argument isn't that foreign policy is the be-all and end-all. But Kerry is not sterling on foreign policy. He just has a lot compared to Edwards, as well as very good ideas. But adding someone like Richardson, Clark, or Holbrooke could not hurt.

Your Cleland argument has rhetorical power, but is a straw man. I am not saying, as you seem to attribute to me, that foreign policy experience is a necessary condition, thus disqualifying Edwards, or a sufficient condition, thus automatically selecting someone else. I am just saying, first, that you cannot claim that Edwards has foriegn policy experience, and, second, that foreign policy has weight. And are you saying that Cleland would have won if had tried even harder to shift the debate and if he had done EVEN LESS to try to counter the Osama ads? I don't think so--Cleland lost because he didn't use his comparative patriotic advantage ENOUGH. I think the lessons Dems should take from that race (and, indeed, that Kerry has taken) is that Cleland would have won if he had rolled himself in front of a camera and seriously b*tch-slapped Chambliss with his 3 stumps for being a dishonest and craven coward.

Furthermore, as the Spain attacks demonstrated, it will not be a winning strategy to attempt to steer the debate away from FP. As the past 3 years have shown, Americans will seem to accept any amount of stupidity from a leader as long as he can demonstrably "show strength." We need to reclaim this ground--we need to demonstrate that Bush is doing a horrible job of fighting terrorism by starting an unnecessary as exactly as they would like.

Again, I am not saying that it is necessary to have a FP strong VP to do this job. Appointing folks like Zinni and Clark to "shadow cabinet" positions would do the trick. But it wouldn't hurt, and this is a hole that Edwards cannot fill. I'm not saying that Edwards doesn't have other strengths, but you cannot claim that he has no comparative downsides either. There is no perfect candidate.

[katieforeman]

43. Edwards is the closest thing to a perfect running mate we have.

1.)I don't think home state advantage is as important in national elections anymore, especially a vp's home state. True there may be a local infrastructure advantage. However, the national media coverage probably swamps that effect in this day and age. More people even in a candidates home state are going to be persuaded more by what they hear on the news and what they read in the papers and what they hear on Leno and Letterman and the Daily show than by the workings of the local Democratic party. If you have two identical candidates and one of them has home-state advantage but the other doesn't- by all means go with the homestate advantage. However, home state advantage never automatically trumps the other qualities that are important to winning elections.

2.) My Gephardt and Graham arguments were not straw men. They were just examples that prove home-state advantage may be swamped by other more powerful forces.

3.)Edwards did win among Independents and Republicans in these two Midwestern states, OH and WI. There's more evidence that Edwards appeals in OH than that Bayh or Vilsak do.

4.)"And are you saying that Cleland would have won if had tried even harder to shift the debate and if he had done EVEN LESS to try to counter the Osama ads?" No, thats not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that Claland's problem was not his experience or his record or his lack of patriotism. There's not much he could have done to improve on those qualities. Clelend needed to counter the Republican attacks with more effective communication, not by becoming more qualified. Similarly, Kerry's problem is not lack of experience or patriotism. It's credibility. Just adding more experience to the ticket doesn't solve that problem. Just like Cleland loosing another limb would not have solved his problems.

5.)"But adding someone like Richardson, Clark, or Holbrooke could not hurt." Actually, they could hurt a lot if they are terrible out on the campaign trail or damage Kerry's credibility. I'm not arguing that they would but Clark's on the record comments praising Bush and his team could very well undermine the tickets ability to attack Bush on national security. Holbrook- does not seem all that likeable as a politician and a kerry/Holbrook might be pretty unappealing to voters.

6.) Edwards does have FP experience-more than Clinton, Reagan, or Carter when they were elcted. He was winning in national polls by about 10 points, about the same as Kerry at the time. That wouldn't be true if people perceived him to be unqualified.

The main point I've been trying to make in my posts is that rules like: we need a candidate who will deliver his home state don't really work. The other point is that more experience on the ticket doesn't necessarily help Kerry on defense.

I think I'm really arguing these points more at the world than at you specifically. I'm on my way out the door so I didn't have time to read your posts or taylor my arguments to them as carefully as I would have liked.

Anyway, I think we both agree there are many important considerations to be weighed when considering a vp and that we both are hoping Kerry picks a winner.

[tameszu]

44. I definitely have my doubts

Katie,

"5.)"But adding someone like Richardson, Clark, or Holbrooke could not hurt." Actually, they could hurt a lot if they are terrible out on the campaign trail or damage Kerry's credibility. I'm not arguing that they would but Clark's on the record comments praising Bush and his team could very well undermine the tickets ability to attack Bush on national security."

As much as Edwards' continued support for the war? Or trying to say the opposite of what DOMA is? Look, I think it is clear that Clark would likely help Kerry on FP as much as Edwards would help with domestic policy.

And if we're going to talk downsides, then Edwards' trial lawyer connections/connotations would also be a liability. As someone who is about to go to law school, I'm well aware that lawyers are among the professions Americans least trust and like.

I still think you are seriously underestimating homestate advantage. Kerry and his aides themselves have been saying that this is a big factor in their--with Kerry reportedly sounding doubtful about Edwards because of this.

(You are not helping your cause by taking these shots, by the way.)

"Anyway, I think we both agree there are many important considerations to be weighed when considering a vp and that we both are hoping Kerry picks a winner."

Yes, we agree on this.

[TomSeaverr]

45. Edwards doesn't give

you extra electoral votes. Unless he can deliver NC or SC. He is no help just a liability

[katieforeman]

50. Edwards delivers extra electoral votes if he makes the ticket

more appealing in swing states like OH. There are many swing states. If a runningmate gives a slight advantage in his or her home state, but doesn't help the ticket or hurts the ticket in other states that running mate might be a bad choice. A running mate who can't deliver his or her home state but helps the ticket in other key states may deliver more elctoral votes and be a better choice.

Furthermore, there is no gaurentee that any candidate can deliver his or her home state. Gore lost TN in 2000. Gephardt lost in IA, his own backyard. Exit polls showed Edwards was preferred to Bob Graham for vp by a wide margin in FL. Edwards was also preferred to Landrieu in LA.

[katieforeman]

52. Quite frankly I think your responses are a "little off point."

The points I have been making still stand. A simplistic calcualtion like "a running mate must deliver his home state" is not a good strategy for sellecting a vp. I gave examples and evidence of why I think this is true. You have failed to offer convincing evidence or examples to refute this.

" Look, I think it is clear that Clark would likely help Kerry on FP as much as Edwards would help with domestic policy."
Again where is your supporting evidence? "I think it is clear", won't help you much in a court of law. Furthermore, my point was not to bring up negatives but to point out that a candidate who adds fp experience does not necessarily help the ticket and that it's possible a candidate with fp experience could hurt the ticket-not becuase of their fp experience but because of their other failings as a running mate.

In terms of differences on Iraq. The fact that Kerry voted for the IWR and Clark said he wouldn't have is an unambiguous difference. My understanding is that Kerry and Edwards both criticized Bush for failing to exhaust diplomatic efforts and for failing to bring more allies on board, but that they both supported the effort to enforce the security resolutions and disarm Saddam. There may be differences in language. But that can be fudeged over.

As for being a trial lawyer, Edwards won a Senate seat in NC as a Democratic trial lawyer. Most people know he was trial lawyer but he was still beating Bush by about 10 points in national polls.

"(You are not helping your cause by taking these shots, by the way.)" What do you mean taking shots? What shots and at whom? I'm just trying to discuss the pros and cons of the various names being mentioned as candidates in the general election. I like and respect all of them and would gladly vote for any of them. However, I'm a Democrat and, unfortunately, I am not in the majority. Public perceptions are an important consideration in vp selection and discussing these perceptions is not the same as taking a shot at someone.

[tameszu]

53. I sorely tempted to deliver a Gore-like sigh =P

"A simplistic calcualtion like "a running mate must deliver his home state" is not a good strategy for sellecting a vp. I gave examples and evidence of why I think this is true. You have failed to offer convincing evidence or examples to refute this."

Straw man. I have no interest in refuting your point because it attacks an assertion that I never made. What I am saying is that home state is much more important than you think it is. But it is not always decisive. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a big potential factor. Clearly, it was a much bigger factor for Clinton/Gore than it was for Bush/Cheney. Evidence: look at the electoral vote chart. Look at what has come out of Kerry's own mouth. Go ask a political science prof. (I'm surrounded by a ton of them). One reason I think it's a big factor, though, is because the prez soaks up so much more of the spotlight that the veep's the "intangible" Q-factor tends to be suppressed, and so "tangible" material homestate organizational advantages move forward. Example: Quayle was an idiot and labelled one by the press and got his butt kicked good in the debate by Bentsen. Probably the single biggest KO punch in a debate in the last 2 decades. Yet Dukakis still got utterly rocked on the gravitas factor.

"Again where is your supporting evidence? "I think it is clear", won't help you much in a court of law."

Where is your evidence that Edwards is "nearly perfect?" If we each held one another up to strict scrutiny in evidence, then we'd never have anything to discuss. If you want some proof of Clark's foreign policy strength, I can point to primary exit polls indicating that Clark captured a huge number of foreign policy swing voters, as well as his effectiveness in speaking on this issue since leaving the race as a surrogate.

"In terms of differences on Iraq. The fact that Kerry voted for the IWR and Clark said he wouldn't have is an unambiguous difference. My understanding is that Kerry and Edwards both criticized Bush for failing to exhaust diplomatic efforts and for failing to bring more allies on board, but that they both supported the effort to enforce the security resolutions and disarm Saddam. There may be differences in language. But that can be fudeged over."

No. You seem to have misunderstood Kerry's, Edwards', and Clark's positions on the war. Kerry now says that although he supported a resolution to put pressure on Iraq and the UN for disarmament, he would not have voted for the IWR if he knew what Bush would have gone to war without coming back to Congress. Kerry's quote on this is "if you think I would have invaded Iraq as President, don't vote for me." Edwards *still* says he supports invading Iraq and does not regret his IWR vote (like Gephardt and Lieberman). Clark, as we know, famously tried to say that he might have voted for *some* sort of resolution to put pressure on the UN to disarm Iraq, but then "clarified," saying that he now realizes that giving Bush a blank check would have been irresponsible.

Basically, the long and the short of it is that Clark has the same position as Kerry, except Clark, like Dean, had the luxury of not having to decide how to vote on IWR when it came up.

"What do you mean taking shots? What shots and at whom?"

At Clark. You are recycling offhand/CW smears--i.e. "he praised Bush and Cheney." Clark supporters have *thoroughly* answered such charges--they clearly have no substance or are unlikely to be further liabilities, or else Kerry would not be using Clark so promenently as a surrogate. Using these shots only raises the animosity level and makes me eye Edwards supporters suspiciously. If you want to support Edwards, fine. But if you think you are going to win support from undecideds at DU by recycling old smears against other candidates, think again.

[katieforeman]

60. Gore like sighs don't help your case.

1.)"Go ask a political science prof. "
James Carville said Edwards was his top choice for running mate. Edwards's was also one of Begala's top choices. Presumably, they have a good working knowledge of the electoral college and don't seem to place the same importance on delivering a home state as you or your political science profs.

2.)Where is my evidence?
I've been making logical arguments supported by empirical evidence such as polls. I have also given examples.

3.) Clark is on video tape praising Bush and his team. I am not saying that to smear Clark. I am simply pointing out a weakness of Clark as a running mate.

4.)Clark said outright that he would not have voted for the IWR in it's final form. Kerry did. Either Kerry or Clark would have to admit they were mistaken to reconcile these two on the record facts. Your quote from Kerry does not change that fact or even support your characterization of Kerry's position. The Kerry quote you gave is perfectly consisistent with my characterization of Kerry's and Edwards' positions criticizing Bush for failing to exhaust all diplomatic options and failing to bring more allies on board.

[tameszu]

68. I know--that's why I didn't decide to ultimately issue one

Even if I was sorely tempted. Although at this point, the only case I am trying to make is to encourage you to argue correctly and charitably, instead of clumsily and annoyingly. I started agnostic to the idea of Edwards being VP (as I don't really think Clark would be a good fit for the job); all you have accomplished is to push me away from the idea. Anyway:

1) This point was meant to address your question "where does the idea that Clark has as much foreign policy cred as Edwards' domestic cred come from?" Not to dispute your point that Edwards might make a good running mate. I have several political science profs who agree with your assertion that Edwards would be a good VP pick, and bunch more who don't.

2) Your evidence is no better than mine. That's all I'm saying. I have effectively done the same as you in making counterpoints. However, *I* happen to be in the argumentively less onerous position of not trying to prove any particular point, whereas you happen to be in the much more difficult position (because the burden of proof is on you) of trying to prove a very strong claim: that "Edwards is close to perfect as a running mate." I don't think you've come close to doing this.

3) "Clark is on video tape praising Bush and his team. I am not saying that to smear Clark. I am simply pointing out a weakness of Clark as a running mate."

To Clark supporters, it sure looks like you are trying to smear Clark--especially since we have pointed out that the spin you are putting on these remarks is (a) a smear-job claim that is only embraced by his enemies; and (b) the context for them has been debunked and dismissed. And again, doing so can only be negative for your cause around here.

4)"Clark said outright that he would not have voted for the IWR in it's final form. Kerry did. Either Kerry or Clark would have to admit they were mistaken to reconcile these two on the record facts. Your quote from Kerry does not change that fact or even support your characterization of Kerry's position. The Kerry quote you gave is perfectly consisistent with my characterization of Kerry's and Edwards' positions criticizing Bush for failing to exhaust all diplomatic options and failing to bring more allies on board."

OK, now I have to give in--sigh.

Basically, Kerry now admits that he was mistaken in having voted for the IWR in its final form, because he now says that he would not have voted for it if he had known that Bush was lying about WMD and would have gone to war so quickly. To wit:

"'This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career,' Kerry said. 'I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That’s what I voted for.'

'The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time,' continued Kerry, 'I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn’t yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You’re God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake.'"

http://www.liberalslant.com/wrp121003.htm

In contrast, Edwards says that he supported the invasion of Iraq, even if Bush didn't do it in an effective manner and with allies. Edwards' position is very close to Lieberman's and Gephardt's. Kerry's is much closer to Clark's.

I hope this makes things clear.

[katieforeman]

69. Thanks, but no thanks to your help with my arguments.

"I know--that's why I didn't decide to ultimately issue one Even if I was sorely tempted. Although at this point, the only case I am trying to make is to encourage you to argue correctly and charitably, instead of clumsily and annoyingly."

I am tempted to say these are the most arrogant comments I have ever seen posted at DU. However, I'm only tempted to say this. I am not actually saying this. Do you understand the point I am making here?

1.) "This point was meant to address your question "where does the idea that Clark has as much foreign policy cred as Edwards' domestic cred come from?" Not to dispute your point that Edwards might make a good running mate. I have several political science profs who agree with your assertion that Edwards would be a good VP pick, and bunch more who don't."

It's interesting that you now assert your point, "go ask a political science prof." was in reference to Clark's foreign policy credentials because that's not how it sounded when you made this statement. Here's your original comment:

"What I am saying is that home state is much more important than you think it is. But it is not always decisive. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a big potential factor. Clearly, it was a much bigger factor for Clinton/Gore than it was for Bush/Cheney. Evidence: look at the electoral vote chart. Look at what has come out of Kerry's own mouth. Go ask a political science prof."

Just about anyone reading that paragraph would assume that your "go ask a political science prof." point was in reference to the importance of home state advantage, not about Clark's fp credentials.

2.)I have two problems with your point #2. First, your statement, "I happen to be in the less onerous position of not trying to prove any particular point." Shame on me for wasting my time debating someone who is "not trying to prove any particular point." No wonder this exchange has been so frustrating for both of us.

Secondly, when you use quotation marks, it implies you are giving an exact quote. You misquoted me. I never said, "Edwards is close to perfect as a running mate." What I actually said was,"Edwards is the closest thing to a perfect running mate we have." If you don't understand the difference between those two statements, you are in for a tough time in law school.

3.)Pointing out that Clark is on video praising Bush and his team at a Republican gathering is no more of a smear than your pointing out that Edwards was a trial lawyer. These are facts that are relevant to the candidates' potential weaknesses as running mates. I never smeared general Clark. I was just pointing out what Tim Russert pointed out on Meet the Press on 11-16-03.

MR. RUSSERT: That sounds like a ringing endorsement of the president. I can see President Bush using those bites in commercials if he runs against you.

4.)I said, "Either Kerry or Clark would have to admit they were mistaken to reconcile these two on the record facts." Your finding a quote that shows Kerry admitting a mistake does not change that.

Furthermore, on Meet the Press on 11-16-03:

Clark: I even said on the 16th of September on CNN, "Don't give the president a blank check." The resolution I would have supported is a resolution that required the president to return to the United States Congress before he took any military action. I supported a resolution that would have given him leverage with the United Nations but not a resolution that would have authorized war at that time.

I happen to agree with General Clark, but statements like these are difficult to reconcile with Kerry's position because Kerry did sign that "blank check." Kerry is ultimately reponsible for voting for a resolution that gave so much power to Bush. Clark's being on the ticket would just focus more attention on that uncomfortable fact.

[cosmokramer]

47. Kerry won' t choose a Senator with only legislative experience.

It will not happen.

ADD: Also, check this out--

"""In light of Edwards' repeated vows he won't make a bid to retain his Senate seat, some analysts believe he is pinning his hopes on a vice presidency under John Kerry, the Washington Times reports.

Brad Crone, a Democratic consultant in Raleigh, said he doubts, however, Kerry will pick Edwards for his vice presidential nominee because, among other reasons, "I don't think he can win (North Carolina) for Kerry."

"He's running for attorney general more than he's running for vice-president," Crone said."""

[TomSeaverr]

48. No Suprise

there. Like I have said all along its more likely Breaux is the pick over Edwards. There is no way he picks Bayh. The Womens Rights folks don't like him

[katieforeman]

49. Why Breaux?

If we put him on the ticket we drive people directly into the arms of Nader. This could cause us to loose OR, NM and other closely contested battleground states where Nader did very well. Breaux does not have Edwards gifts as a campaigner. He has a voting record as long or longer than Kerry's. Didn't he vote for Bush's first tax cut? I'm not sure but I think he might have.

This year there are many closely contested states. Simple rules like the running mate must deliver his or her home state just don't cut it. It's not that simple.

[cosmokramer]

56. Don't worry, it won't be Breaux...

...but it also will not be Bayh or Edwards, though at least Bayh was once a Governor (still, no chance--he can't deliver Indiana).

I do believe the simply rules still apply--but it isn't just the simple rule of winning one's home state. It is the simple rule that you don't have a double legislature only ticket--there MUST be significant executive experience in there (and Kerry's two years as Lt. Gov don't cut it). So discount Breaux and Edwards, and Bayh just because it would be political suicide.

[katieforeman]

61. I agree, Breaux not likely.

However, I disagree about needing executive and legislative experience on a ticket. I just don't think real voters think that way. Do you know anyone who really thinks like that when they vote?

It is unusual for two Senators to emerge from the primary process. In fact, McGovern may have been the last sitting Senator to win the nomination for either party. However, the lack of recent historical precedent doesn't mean 2 Senators can't win. Kennedy and Johnson won despite their complete lack of executive experience.

[cosmokramer]

64. To a certain extent, you are correct...

...the average voter doesn't think this way. HOWEVER, the Bush/Cheney team will make it an issue by pointed to the legislative record and saying there is no 'executive' experience on the ticket.


Kennedy and Johnson were 44 years ago. Campaigning has drastically changed, and the world itself is so different. I won't happen.

[julialnyc]

51. Boo

[surfermaw]

54. You got that right

People did think, Edwards and Kerry would be the ticket. I still say it is cut and dired, with Edwards as VP and the others in the cabinet.Edwards is young and some say the most promising democrat, it for sure he isn't going to be kicked aside...Wes Clark,Sec. of State, Dean in the cabinet to help with health care, Gep..Labor..Sharpton Press Secretary....

Bill Clinton was elected president because of the economy tanking and health care, he promised a health care program, and that is today the most important issues, health care..economy, and bringing the blue collar kids home from Iraq...The blue collars, and white collars have been hurt and they are going to vote this election, I predict the white collar to deliver the office to Kerry.

Edwards, is the less likely one of the bunch to not get his foot tangled in his mouth...

Hard Core democrats aren't going to vote for Clark, Gep. has had his day and isn't as enthused as Edwards.
Dennis, I truly like, but he is too liberal for the average Joe
Dean is intelligent, but would be more inclined to get his foot in his mouth, but he is wonderful in getting the words out that are needed out there, he is quick to the point and can deliver the jest quicker.

Please don't split off and cause us to have to liver under Bush for 4 more years.

[katieforeman]

62. I would never split off or vote for anyone other than Kerry.

I'm just trying to make the case for Edwards because I believe Kerry/Edwards would beat Bush.

[robbedvoter]

55. So are your hopes that kerry will tank, and "JRE" will replace him

Here's a terrified look at Edwards' blog from an outsider:

Just went over to the Edwards blog - curious to see what they were saying about the VP issue.  I lasted about 5 minutes and left very very afraid.........
Of course, the VP thing is all over the place - one blogger was wondering why Clark and Dean were all over the news shows while Edwards was not - to which another blogger replied it meant Edwards was the VP candidate and the Kerry campaign was keeping him "safe." They also think Edwards would be the perfect

And, they're all in love with Peggy Noonan (Neocon Noonan)!  They think she has a crush on JRE (as they call him) - and they love how she praises him all the time. These people are even stupider than I thought!
But here's the scary stuff.....there's a thread where some people are telling others that Kerry's poll numbers are tanking - that he's ready to implode and he better pick Edwards as VP quick. One person said "Kerry should be finished by the end of June - if his poll numbers aren't down the toilet by then, then the dems will have to come up with some filth to make sure Kerry steps down before the convention."  They reiterated their "hope that Kerry picks Edwards as a back-up or the situation could get a little complicated in Boston."  They went on to say, "That's our hope - that Kerry implodes before the convention so that he withdraws and Edwards steps in his place." These people are seriously deranged!
That was it for me!  I skulked away.

[cosmokramer]

57. OMG...it sounds more like the BFA than ...

...the Edwards blog. Have they infiltrated? Or is there a subplot where Kerry gets in to trouble, Edwards steps in, the Deanies convince Edwards that he needs to switch and let Dean have the nomination in exchange for making Edwards VP?

Yea, let me take Vegas odds on that one...NOT!

[katieforeman]

59. No! Why do you feel the need to smear Edwards' supporters?

My post was about the very real expectations by many primary voters that Kerry will pick Edwards as his running mate. Of course I don't want Kerry to "tank" and I can't stand Peggy Noonan.

If these are in fact real quotes in your post-they are most likely posted by anonomous trolls. Next time you post such inflammatory smears at least provide a link so readers can judge for themselves or better yet just stop posting inflammatory smears against fellow Democrats.

[Clyyyde]

63. And th winner is.......

The envelope please.................................shuffle, shuffle...........Mr. Graham of Florida!!!

[DjTj]

65. There are many on the Edwards blog...

...that still harbor some disdain for Kerry, and a good number of the regular posters were people who voted for Bush in 2000 and were only pulled to our side because of Edwards. There were a LOT of posters who had almost no prior experience with politics and have no idea who Peggy Noonan is.

Some people just really fell in love with Edwards as a candidate and want to do whatever they can to see him succeed. I see nothing terrifying about this at all - I see great passion for a candidate, which is a wonderful thing to find in politics.

[Layman]

66. Who's Peggy Noonan!?

Peggy Noonan is the legendary Repugthug speechwriter that compared Ronald Reagan to a float in the Macy's parade. I think it was Superman she had in mind but Bullwinkel is more like it.

[robbedvoter]

70. real - yes. realistic - no.

Have you guys heard of one Richard Clarke? Did you notice that Iraq WAS NOT PART OF THE WAR ON TERRORISM?
You think kerry should start to educate "JRE" on this after he "corrected him in the SC debate?

"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

And would Hugh Shelton - who smacked O-Neil for saying the same stuff allow Edwards to change his mind? Does what Edwards thinks about stuff matters at all to his entitlement or it's decided by the mediawhores?

[katieforeman]

71. You have a problem with Edwards' statement here?

The threat of terrorism is very real. That threat is not an exageration. The exagerations involved the linkage of Iraq to terrorism. Edwards was just making the point that terrorism is a very real threat against which we need to protect ourselves. I don't know many people who would disagree with that.

Earlier in the debate, Edwards did acknowledge that the Iraq threat wasn't what we had been told:

Edwards: The American people, we, need to get to the bottom of this, with an independent commission that looks at -- that will have credibility and that the American people will trust, about why there is this discrepancy about what we were told and what's actually been found there.