I think Edwards would be the perfect running mate

[Ridley Park 704]

He's got that winning smile and JFK charisma, and he's a good campaigner. Plus that pleasant accent of his plays well in the South.

Personally, I think he'd be great. The guy just has that something that makes people like him. He's enough to make a midwestern swing voter or ex-Bush supporter come over to our side.

I remember watching Cspan and Edwards was in New Hampshire at some diner, and a man who claimed to be "to the right of Atilla the Hun" got up and shook his hand because he respected Edwards, whose personality screams, "I am not a phony."


Reagan picked Bush in 1980, and Republicans didn't go around shaking their heads with comments like "But Bush seems weak on this or that issue, polls say this, polls say that, blah blah," he just picked Bush and they both went out and dropped an anvil on Carter on election day, as expected.

Ironically, pundits say that Edwards would do Kerry better in the midwest (and Ohio) than in the south.

Added bonus, Edwards can be the 45th president in 2012. Clark is good too, but I think JE is a bit better.

[rumguy]

1. I agree

Edwards is the perfect running mate for Kerry. Perfect. IMO.

[richmwill]

2. Exactly

A Kerry/Edwards ticket would be great, for all the reasons you posted above. Maybe he can swing some southern states towards Kerry, too.

[fujiyama]

3. They are both good picks

Clark has some strengths Edwards doesn't, but Edwards beats Clark in some areas.

Edwards is a hell of a campaigner, and I think it would excite many. North Carolina is not quite as strong for Bush as it once was and though I wouldn't call it a swing state, I'd say there is a posibility, albeit a slim one, that we could actually carry the state with Edwards as VP.

I would be satisfied with either Edwards or Clark. Gep however, would be a dissapointment.

[Kremer]

4. I 2nd that! Gep would be EXTREME dissapointment.

He's a great statesman (Gep), but there is too much at stake this election! Clark or Edwards both are great. I love the general and Bushco seem to piss their pants around him. I think Bushco fear Clark has Big Dog/Hillary behind him and they don't want to tango w/ the Fmr Prez and the most popular woman in America!!

[MI Cherie]

5. Edwards ...

... could certainly get some female voters motivated ...

:loveya:

[Crunchy Frog]

6. I have to respectfully disagree.

I think that Wes Clark would be by far the best VP choice. We simply can't afford to ignore the geopolitical reality and the fact that we're at war.

Plus, I think that Clark has many of the same positive attributes that Edwards has, ie, Southern, articulate, handsome, charismatic.

By choosing him Kerry would be telling the American people that he is really serious about getting us out of the Iraq quagmire and repairing our badly damaged international relations.

I hope I haven't offended anyone with this post.

[chimpymustgo]

7. Edwards has a dynamism and likeability that will win MANY votes.

He comes across as warm and caring - and exciting. He and Kerry - together - are a match made in heaven.

I think we should run on optimism about the future - not put forward a "military team" to fight war, terror and fear.

Clark has a great resume, but beyond this board, does not generate the massive excitement that will bring the votes we need. Edwards has proven it - coming in second to Kerry in the primaries - and STILL garnering huge vote tallies in the primaries - even though he's out campaigning for Kerry.

Every poll - except in our little DU world - shows Edwards the overwhelming favorite amongs Dems. In the primaries, he got huge support from Independents, swing voters and Republican crossover votes.

He is Bobby to Kerry's JFK. And he is the future.

Kerry/Edwards '2004. And beyond...

[Crunchy Frog]

8. As I said before

I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it. I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this particular issue.:)

[Crunchy Frog]

9. deleted

duplicate message.

[Psst_Im_Not_Here]

46. Optimism and Hope ARE the answer

I'm new, so forgive me for just jumping in here. I totally agree with chimpymustgo:

"I think we should run on optimism about the future - not put forward a "military team" to fight war, terror and fear."

But I would say "not put forward JUST a "military team" to fight war, terror and fear."

I think a strong position on defense of our country coupled with optimism and hope would be irresistible to most people. I think that this country is starving for hope. Edwards is by far the better speaker with the charisma of Clinton without the skeletons. Don't get me wrong Clark supporters, I too, love Clark. However, he just hasn't found his footing with speaking and getting his message across. He needs some experience in campaigning and we can't afford "on the job training" at this point.

In my opinion, Edwards is the Yin to Kerry's Yang. He brings inspiration, passion and true communication to counter Kerry's sometimes perceived "stuffiness". Not to mention the other variables mentioned in other posts.

My vote: Kerry/Edwards

[KittyWampus]

47. Optimism? You Are Confusing Vapidity With Optimism

edwards 'communication' is empty rhetoric... if his primary appearances are an indiciation he is incapable of addressing any issue in depth.

[chimpymustgo]

52. Most Dems, except a handful of Clark supporters at DU want EDWARDS

Everyone else is quite impressed.

And something else. Why is it necessary to keep denigrating John Edwards with the same Rethug talking points? I sincerely doubt Wesley Clark would approve of this crap.

Kerry/Edwards '04. And Beyond...

[Psst_Im_Not_Here]

61. No confusion here

"Optimism? You Are Confusing Vapidity With Optimism"

Actually, I believe that Edwards is hardly vapid, but, that of course is my opinion. Yours may be different. I actually compare him to Clinton in his ability to inspire people and I certainly would not call Clinton vapid either.

Besides how can you confuse vapidity with optimism?

Merriam-Webster:

Vapid= lacking liveliness, tang, briskness, or force

Optimism= an inclination to put the most favorable construction upon actions and events or to anticipate the best possible outcome

I understand that there are some really die hard Clark people on here, I like Clark, I do. I hate Bush more. If you want Bush out as much as I do, then you have to appeal to the broad base of voters out there. The majority of which do not pay as much attention to what's going on as we do, even during an election. As much as we'd like to have elections decided on just the issues, the reality of it is that the winner will be the politician most liked for his personality, looks and ability to communicate in layman's terms. It's how an imbecile like Bush was elected in the first place. He talked the talk.

Don't get me wrong, Clark is a perfectly good candidate, but, in this case "I" believe that Edwards is better. I don't intend to try to change your mind on who you believe is better, and I'm sure that your case is valid as well. I'm just stating mine. Everything is perspective and I was stating mine. There's certainly no confusion on my part.

[spooky3]

50. welcome to DU, Psst..., and I agree with you.

[Jai4WKC08]

20. Edwards is a lot like Bush

Not much there, but hey, he's the guy people want to go drink a beer with.

Isn't that pretty much what people are saying in this thread? Edwards makes us feel good. Who cares whether he's qualified to govern?

Maybe they're right. If experience, knowledge, and an ability to think thru complex problems counted for more with voters, we'd have President Al Gore in office today.

Well, I'm not gonna give up on defeating Bush, no matter how many voters think he's just a "swell guy." Don't see why I should accept John Edwards on the same basis.

[chimpymustgo]

21. Edwards is the EXACT OPPOSITE of Chimpy - ANOTHER reason

for him to be VP.

He's worked his way up from humble roots, he fought for regular people against big corporations, then took the fight to the Senate. He has detailed proposals to use the tax code to help the poor and middle class, to help all Americans realize the American dream. John Edwards has a fundamental desire to help the disadvantaged in this country - and built his campaign around that. He will continue to fight for "One America."

Edwards' charisma and likeability are icing on the cake - they give him that special, rare star quality that will win even more votes, and turn even more swing states our way.

You may distort and marginalize Edwards, but really, it's getting old. And most Democrats - by huge margins - prefer Edwards as the VP. It's Kerry's decision, and I know he make a good one.

Kerry/Edwards '04. And beyond...

[KittyWampus]

48. No Edwards Is More Like Reagan, Up From Humble Roots

but never really very informed.

Just a pleasant demeanor and close to empty suit to fill with others words and policies.

[AP]

67. Somebody isn't informed, and it isn't Edwards.

[AP]

22. So much like Bush that he had a record of voting against Bush more than

any other senator or congressperson running for president this year?

He is clealry isn't like Bush at all.

He's the opposite of Bush. Cheerleader vs Varsity football, basketball and track.

Self-made vs made by dad.

Got into state law school on merit after attending state college vs couldn't even get into state law school after attending YALE due to utter lack of merit.

Every thing he has touched has turned to gold vs everything he has touched has turned to crap.

Exists to flow power back down to the people so that they can enjoy the same opportunities he had and be rewarded in porportion to the efforts they make vs exists to flow power up to the top of an increasingly narrow and steep power pyramid, with the power and wealth coming from those at the base who are working their asses off for little reward, and who are seeing their opportunities disappear.

Has experienced life the way most Americans do vs has an experience of live almost none do.

Edwards has the same qualifications to be president that some of our best presidents had, including Lincoln, who had been a one term congressman about a decade before becoming president, and was a lawyer in private practice in the interim.

[spooky3]

51. beautiful!

[Leilani]

10. I disagree with your argument

John Edwards has qualities that appeal to people, but your argument is very weak.

#1 John Kennedy & John Edwards are like night & day. JFK was a very sophisticated, urbane, worldly, polished war hero. He seemed much older than JE. He was a product of wealth & it showed. He had served several terms in the House of Representatives, & was on I believe, his 2nd Senate term. He had written several books, While England Slept, & Profiles in Courage. And he was criticized at the time for being too young & inexperienced.

#2 George Bush Sr. was probably the most qualified man to ever be elected Veep. He had been the youngest Navy pilot ever to get his wings, & was a WWII hero. He made millions after starting his own oil business. He served in the House of Representatives, was head of the Republican Party, 1st Ambassador to China after Nixon opened relations. Bush also served as head of the CIA, & I believe he was US Ambassador to the UN.

I think when you look at these resumes, you will see that these men had huge amounts of experience, & were very qualified for Pres. & Veep.

I have nothing against John Edwards, & as a matter of fact, I like him. But we are at a very perilous time in our country, & he does not have the knowledge & background to handle the job of Veep at this time. Having a good personality is a wonderful thing, but it will not help very much in governing, with todays enormous problems.

[spooky3]

11. If I buy your argument, which I don't, I would have to reject Clark also.

Experience in the military is not experience as an elected official nor does Clark have much experience in building a business that creates jobs; there are huge differences in what those jobs require. If these times call for people with vast stores of job related experience, then people like Gephardt or Graham, or an experienced Governor, are better suited.

Further, your citing GHW Bush as example further contradicts your argument. He was elected VP because people liked Reagan and didn't object to Bush, and he did not distinguish himself as a stellar performer as VP. And, if he was so well suited to the VP/Presidency, given his experience, why was he so soundly rejected and why did it take Clinton years to bring us out of the deficits and remedy other problems they created?

[Leilani]

13. I was addressing the post about Edwards

I never once mentioned Clark, did I? It did not have anything to do with Clark

Perhaps you should reread my post. I was answering the point of JE being like JFK.

And the poster was unimpressed with the Bush choice as Veep; I was giving his experience.

And, if Bush Sr was not well liked, why did he destroy Mike Dukakis in their election? People never liked him as they did Reagan, but he was considered very well qualified.

He was very popular after Gulf War I, but the economy sucked, he raised taxes, & Clinton beat him. Some people believe if not for Perot, he would have been reelected. I do not know if this is true.
People really wanted a change after 12 years of Reagan-Bush.

[AP]

25. Good point. Bush proves it's conviction, not experience that matters.

Bush had experience, and a conviction that he would make his friends and family more powerful at the cost of the ordinary Americans. He almost ruined American, and his presidency was a failure.

Bush II has no experience but the same convictions. He isn't ruining America because he lacks experience. He's ruinning America because he's extremely able to do what he has set out to do.

Edwards has incredible conviction, and it's a conviction with which I totally agree.

Clark may have conviction that he knows how to solve the problem of terror. But, to me, the only reason we have terror is because it's part of the RW's attempt to flow power from people who work for a living to people at the top.

Edwards's conviction is about putting a dagger in the heart of that beast. It's about reversing the flow of power from a few crony capitalists and super-large corporations back down to the people.

[KittyWampus]

49. This BULLSHIT About Edwards As Populist Ought To Stop

push came to shove and Edwards agreed with NAFTA.

He freaking LIED about being "son of a millworker"... implying his daddy sweated among the machines in the mills.

[chimpymustgo]

54. Wesley Clark would NOT approve this crap about Edwards.

STOP IT NOW!!!!

Tell us good stuff about Clark, or anybody else. Why are you MAKING SHIT UP???

Edwards did NOT vote for NAFTA - he wasn't in the Senate. His message is the very definition of populism. And his father did work in the mill. They started out, practically as migrant workers, moving from mill town to mill town. After they settled in Robbins, NC, Wallace Edwards did work his way up into management.

You know, Wesley Clark would be appalled by this kind of lies and slander on his behalf. He is a man of integrity, I believe, and would be angry and ashamed.

You should be too.

[AP]

60. What do you think Edwards's position is?

This should be interesting.

Oh, and what do you think his father did?

[no name no slogan]

66. From what I've heard, dad was in management at the mill

But technically he was a mill worker, nonetheless.

I'm sure some purists will argue that being a manager at the mill is not the same as a "worker", but I wouldn't exactly call being in "management" at a textile mill glamourous or highly remunerative work, either.

[AP]

68. Edwards's father worked his way from the floor to LOWER mngt. He got to

train college graduates to do the job that he did, so they could move up to upper management. His father couldn't get promoted because he didn't have a college degree.

Edwards's father worked his ass off to make it that far. His son inherited the same dedication to self-improvement. Because Edwards was enough to grow up a child of FDR only two decades later than his father during a time in America when this nation created a lot of wealth (it was the golden age of American economic development) the scale upon which Edwards could achieve was so much higher.

But it's a lie to say that Edwards grew up with ANY privileges (other than, say, being a white man -- however, it's important to note that the valedictorian of Edwards's law school class was a black man...and that man had a fabulous career, but probably couldn't run for president).

The only privelege (other than gender and race) which Edwards enjoyed was the knowledge that he had a fallback career at the mills. He knew his father could hook him up.

Some privilege. When Edwards's parents visited Edwards at his first job in private practice in TN, they went to the top of the tallest building for dinner. They had never been that high and seen so far in their life. In other words, in their late 40s, they'd never flown in an airplane. So that's some privilege Edwards had knowing that he could get a job working at the will at which his father was in lower management. But at least he had a college degree.

[chimpymustgo]

12. We have to get elected to get to govern. Edwards will bring more votes

than any other VP prospect.

GHWB, for all his experience, didn't address the faltering economy soon enough, and got kicked out after one term. People vote their pocketbooks.

Kerry has the gravitas and experience to handle the international challenges. Edwards has the compassion to contribute to a foreign policy that will lift up people around the world - address the root causes of terrorism. I hope that we will offer the world butter, rather than guns.

Let's shore up our homeland defenses, mend fences with our neighbors world wide. But we, as Democrats don't need to fall into the Rethug trap of a dreary, scary world vision: war, terror and fear.

Let's win this election to restore the shining city on the hill. Fix this economy, bring back jobs. Help people send their kids to college. Offer health insurance.

Happy days are here again! Not war, terror and fear.

Kerry/Edwards '04. And beyond.

[AP]

23. "sophisticated, urbane, worldly, polished" Jeez. I'm glad to disagree with

someone who thinks these are qualities which make a person suitable to be president.

Kennedy didn't even run on these qualities. The middle and working class saw him as the grandson of immigratns, and a catholic who would alwasy be on the outside of the protestant hegemony of the NE power corridor.

Read Sid Blumenthal's The Clinton Wars. He describes what Kenned meant to him as a Jewish kid growing up in Chicago and to all his working class neighbors. They didn't vote for him because they saw him as sophisticated and urbane.

They voted for him because they saw him as one of them, but who made it to the top. Hint. Hint.

John Edwards has the one thing that many other lack and which would make him a great president: CONVICTION.

I know what motivates him. A conviction that the core principles of FDR liberalism are what makes America great: a committement to a public infrastructure which levels the playing field and gives everyone an opportunity to reach their fullest potential, and he knows that American society is its wealthiest, healthiest and happiest when the largest number of people have opportunity -- opportunities like the ones he had grwoing up in the tail end of Roosevelt's America.

[Skwmom]

14. Perfect running mate for Rove and the corporate media.

They are salivating at the idea of discussing the personal injury attorneys (they won't use the term trial lawyer) channeling of an unborn child and how his "defender of the little guy" image is nothing more than a phony image created for this election.

[atre]

15. One positive of an Edwards VP candidacy

It would keep skwmom busy.

[chimpymustgo]

17. ROFLMAO!!! Thanks atre. Go Edwards!

I was close to writing a stern rebuttal - but hell, it's all been addressed HUNDREDS of times.

That was great.

Kerry/Edwards '04. And beyond...

[AP]

24. I repeat and reincorporate my extensive rebuttals to this mantra,

which you never seem willing or able to rebut.

[Padraig18]

26. How many times will you post that particular LIE, Skwmom?

Edwards did NOT 'channel' and unborn cjhild, and you damned well know it, because I have personally informed you of the facts regarding your mis-statement repeatedly! Will you PLEASE quit posting that RNC-inspired fax blast talking point?

:wtf:

[AP]

28. The obsession with this story has reached cult-like status, and it makes

you wonder just whom skwmom is channeling when she keeps repeating it.

[Padraig18]

30. It makes me wonder, frankly.

Why would any Democrat continually and repeatedly post what has been shown/proven to be a LIE about the 'front runner' for VP on our ticket? Inquiring minds would like to know... :shrug:

[DjTj]

34. LOL!

That needs to become the standard response to Skwmom from now on.

[ShaneGR]

62. Ehhhh?

It's gonna be so much fun reading your posts when Edwards gets the nod.

[chimpymustgo]

63. Edwards' supporters have his optimism. I like.

:hi:

[Dinger]

16. He'd Be A Perfect AG, or

a perfect running mate for bu$h/rove... .

Sorry, but I disagree with you. I DO like Edwards, and he idoes have a great smile, charisma, and "something" makes me like him too. As for "Atilla" shaking his had and "respecting" him, doesn't it at least interest you that it's a right winger endorsing him?
No reflection on Edwards, but it seems a lot of "conservative" repiglicans like Edwards, but maybe that's just me.

[seventhson]

18. I AGREE

He has southern appeal and crossover appeal and it would make a hell of an interesting primary in 2012 or even 2008 if Hillary challenges.

Edwards has his strong points and few real weaknesses. If Bush Chgeney and their oil slugdgepile can get elected then I do not see why Edwards career will hurt him when he fought for the little people against the corporations

[Finch]

19. Agree totally...

...Edwards is far and away the best choice for Kerry as a runningmate... I do not mean to offend people but Clark is just a really poor choice for Kerry imho...

My Top four would have to be...

...TOP 4...
Sn.John Edwards (D-NC)
Gov.Mark Warner (D-VA)
Sn.Bill Nelson (D-FL)....OR....Sn.Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Sn.Mary Landrieu (D-LA)

But i just can express how far ahead of all the other candidates for the job of Kerry's VP Edwards is...

[Claire Beth]

27. yeah...

but if not Edwards, I prefer Clark.

[Thrill]

29. We need a strong speaker and great campaigner

who is good on the stump to be the running mate. The opposite of Kerry. I think Edwards will be a huge asset to help keep and gain Senate seats in the South. I like Clark but we don't need someone who can't raul up a crowd. And if you ask me he just helps Rove's flip-flop label. They will be quick to call Clark another flip-flop.

[Claire Beth]

31. yeah, you're right! n/t

[Sopianae]

43. Clark IS very good on the stump

He came a long way and anyone who has seen him in person knows how well he works the crowd. It's the media and the Republicans that keep repeating the "Clark is a bad campaigner" meme endlessly. It's total BS.

[Crunchy Frog]

55. Welcome to DU,

That's my impression of Clark as well, having been to one of his rallies in person.

[Sopianae]

58. Thanks!

:-)

[WI_DEM]

32. I like him

but he is not perfect--the perfect VP could deliver his homestate and I don't think that he can do it. But he does have other winning characteristics.

[chimpymustgo]

33. Actually, I think Edwards would put NC very much in play.

There's a hot Senate race (to replace Edwards), which the Dem, Erskine Bowles is leading. Edwards' popularity grew in the state as his Presidential campaign took off. He has very high favorables in the state right now. This will be a very exciting, and winnable campaign there.

As well as many border southern states: Va, TN, Ark, WVa, Ky, La. And Edwards has great appeal with his populism - across the midwest: Hello Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa Missour, Michigan.

Win, win, win.

Kerry/Edwards '04. And beyond...

[sadiesworld]

35. Sorry, Clark is the guy.

Iraq is turning into a national nightmare, Afghanistan is in the crapper, the I/P situation is on a slow road to nowhere, and world opinion is increasingly anti-American.

Clark testified that the Iraq War was unnecessary, has experience with "nation-building" and is widely respected around the world.

The issue in this election is not domestic politics, the majority of Americans agree that dems are better at managing the economy. The issues are foreign policy and the war on terror. These are the areas where * consistently polls higher. Moreover, the October Surprise(s) is coming and it won't involve education. A Kerry/Clark ticket will be ready.

[Finch]

36. You still need to be able to make the case

…effectively that the Dems are better at tackling domestic issues than the GOP... Clark cannot do that, Edwards is great at framing argument even better than Kerry and Edwards does it in an enlivened and entertaining way which Kerry and Clark cannot... Edwards injects some life into the ticket and while he does not immediately help the democrats in the south he boost Kerry with Moderate voters across the Midwest and steel states... where we need to win... Clark does not do this, in addition Edwards would help Democratic Senate candidates in a way that Clark would be unable to...

A previous poster was right to say that Clark could be portrayed as "flip-flopper" and the GOP has already laid the ground work for him being portrayed as "kooky" like Bob Graham, inclined toward conspiracy theories etc... that’s not directly Clark's fault it just that he left him open to it and the GOP took advantage... there is little that the GOP can attack Edwards on really... yeah he was a trial lawyer how about an ad with the families he helped featuring to attest to his impeccable record and disprove any Republican insinuations about his character...

Edwards on TV, in one or two Ads, touring across the country would be great and inspire a great many ordinary voters with renewed sense of optimism about American and the way it could be heading with Edwa…I mean Kerry/Edwards in office… ...Edwards is the only potential VP who both addresses Kerry's weaknesses and brings strength that would give a big boost to the ticket electorally...what electoral boost does Clark bring? None at all… he boosts Kerry in no areas where Edwards would not and in No States where Edwards would not also boost Kerry in a much more tangible way…

...Kerry's only solid chance of winning is with an articulate and charismatic populist like Edwards as his VP, it the only way for Kerry to firmly over come his liberalism and his dullness...

[chimpymustgo]

37. Well said, Finch. Kerry/Edwards!

I think President Kerry should appoint Gen. Clark to a Cabinet level position which will oversee the stabilization of Iraq, so we can get the hell out. That would be absolutely perfect for Clark - and something I think should be announced before the election.

[Finch]

39. Excellent idea...

Richard Holbrooke and Wes Clark would be a great team to lead some kind of “Foreign Policy Advisory board” for the Campaign “doing” the TV networks, perhaps even featuring on the occasional ad concerning defence or foreign policy… that is where Clark should be used if he is willing… imho he would be a really bad pick for VP… but in this role with someone more experienced like Holbrooke as his “twin” he would be great imho… and if its permited (I heard that a military leader cannot hold government office for ten years after leaving the forces) He would be great at Defence or perhaps at the UN or national security advisor… well that my two cents…

PS: I think I heard such a team mention before on DU... so sorry for stealing the idea...but its a darn good one imho... :bounce:

[Padraig18]

38. Good, solid analysis!

I agree with most of what you said, but I must defend General Clark a bit by saying that he has a most impressive resume, and is very telegenic and is charismatic in person. It would be very hard to attack our ticket on national-security issues, if Clark were on it.

on balance, though, I do think Edwards holds the edge in terms of delivering to the ticket what we need in November--- votes from Independents and disgusted, moderate Republicans--- and that means electoral votes.

[Finch]

40. hum...

...you do make a good case... I like Clark as a guy but think he is no where near as good a choice as some potential VPs... However I think the role that i proposed in my post above would be great for him...and i think he would excel in it...

[sadiesworld]

41. Although you ignored the substance of my post entirely, I will address

some of the points made in yours:

Show me the poll that shows where dems lose to pugs on domestic issues? Of course, we still need to be concerned about health care, jobs, etc., but it seems that the VP should help with perceived weaknesses and the polls consistently show there is only one area where pugs do better: WOT/defense.

I find Clark to be incredibly charismatic and I know that others do as well. I would submit that voters are more interested in feeling safe than being entertained. Haven't we had enough of "the guy you want to have a beer with"? (Although I'd still share a bottle of vino w/ the General any day).

I'm not sure where you get the idea that Clark can't help with voting blocs. How about these: The southwest, Hispanics (his daughter-in-law is Latino), blacks (check out pro-affirmative action policies in the military), muslins (Bosnia and Kosovo), Native Americans, & the MILITARY.

"There is little that the GOP can attack Edwards on, really." THAT is ridiculous. I won't get into the channeling thing even though you feel perfectly comfortable throwing around the Clark/conspiracy crap. However, the RW will rip Edward's record as a PI attorney to shreds. They've barely begun. Sure, they threw everything they had at Clark b/c they are/were scared to death of him. And frankly, they didn't have much. And let's face it, slamming ONE MORE member of the military is going to sick in the craws of a lot of people.

[sadiesworld]

42. A last point.

Clark polls better than Edwards with independents. While Edwards polls better with Republicans, I can certainly see where pugs might be playing games w/ the pollsters. I find Independents' preference to be a more accurate indication of crossover/moderate appeal.

[FrenchieCat]

45. Plus....

Clark would be the one to pull in the male vote....that Kerry is having problems with.

"but support from women is not Kerry's biggest problem. Closing the male side of the gender gap is." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4863243 /

Also "Security Moms" (formally Soccer Moms) will not vote Kerry because of Edwards on the ticket.

[Sopianae]

44. Exactly

Good points.

[Gregory Wonderwheel]

53. Both Edwards and Clark would be wrong.

If there isn't an anti-war candidate in the VP spot then kiss the election good bye.

Who ever the candidates are, I'll vote demo just to have the demos pick the supreme court justices.

But if pro-war Kerry has a pro-war VP like Edwards or Clark, then I'm not going to be a registered Democrat any longer.

[Crunchy Frog]

56. Just so you know,

Clark was opposed to the war in Iraq, and has been a constant critic of Bush on it.

He is not against war in all circumstances, but believes that it should only be used as a last resort after all other options have been exhausted.

That's about as close to anti-war as you're going to get in a viable presidential candidate.

[Nicholas_J]

57. More and more political analysts

Are banking on Gephardt or Vilsack. Edwards lacks a lot of the kind of political capital that a running mate brings. If you look at every Vice President back to Kennedy, you dont find personality the quality that you want. YOu find long time party connections nad political connection. Most often in a particular region of the country. Lets see, Al Gore, not too exciting....Dan Quayle....George Herbert Walker Bush...Walter Mondale...Gerry Ford....Spiro Agnew, Hubert Humphrey and LBJ. Not people selected for their charm or charisma but becasue of a lot of political clout and long time party affiliation. Gephardt alone has those qualities. You never select a running mate who may take center stage because of their personality. Ever.

[chimpymustgo]

59. Unless you have confidence in your own stature and gravitas.

As I am sure John Kerry does. That's exactly why he can pick a "star" like Edwards.

[xkenx]

64. WHY KERRY-CLARK

Why General Clark is the best choice for VP:

Polls show Kerry ahead of W on domestic issues, behind on national security. Overall a dead heat. W may creep up domestically as economy improves, so Kerry needs to siphon away some of W's support on security. This election WILL be about national security and terrorism because W will make it that way, and look at the headlines from Iraq dominating the news. Bush has already put Kerry on the defensive questioning Senate votes and the "ribbon-throwing" incident. All Bush has to do is neutralize Kerry on war/terror, and he keeps his lead.
Enter Wes Clark: Clark can stand up and say, "Vietnam was a disaster, but I stayed in the military afterwards to build the great all-volunteer Army we have today. Sen. Kerry said "Send me to Vietnam" and served with great courage and honor in that war. Sen Kerry criticized that war afterwards, and I consider that dissent an act of patriotism, for he had the nation's best interests at heart. Sen. Kerry backed up that service by serving his country for these many years in the Senate, including not forgetting Vietnam as he worked with Sen.McCain for years to retrieve our POW's. I am proud to stand with Sen. Kerry, a man I consider to be one of the great patriots of our time". (As he wraps himself in the flag and talks about winning the only war NATO ever fought, this man who is one of the most decorated military heroes in U.S. history). This man can bring in military and ex-military votes which NO other VP candidate can do,and he is"squeaky-clean."
There are many other areas where Clark complements Kerry:
1.Ability to step into the Presidency if necessary. Clark has a career of military and diplomatic leadership unparalled. Yet he was responsible for the everyday lives (schools, healthcare, safety, career advencement, etc.) of those under his command.

2. Agreement on issues: Kerry and Clark are very closely in agreementon Foreign Affairs / Homeland Security issues as well as on Free
Trade, and most domestic issues.

3. Campaigning against Bush: Clark has demonstrated, both during his campaign and since endorsing Kerry, that he is both loyal to Kerry and is a tireless campaigner against Bush. Clark has "fire in his belly" on defeating Bush. Clark can take on Bush on all issues, especially the issues
where Bush would like to think he is strongest.

4. Helping to win Electoral Votes - Clark should help to win all the Swing States that Al Gore just missed winning and retain the Blue States that Bush would like to have. Most candidates are mentioned because they might win one state for Kerry, Clark could help in ALL of the above swing states. This is because he is an Arkansas Southerner who also proved to be popular in the Southwest and among Hispanics and American Indians. In fact, with General Clark's military background and "All American" image he has more popularity than most democrats such as John Kerry in all parts of the country where Republicans tend to be popular. With his Military Supreme Commander status, if he could get just 10% of military families to vote Democratic (who would otherwise vote Republican) this could change the outcome in a number of states. Although Wes is now a very progressive Democrat, his past background still makes people feel secure, like Republican candidates. His comfort with Religion also helps. Both Kerry and Clark have a long history of using guns (despite being pro gun control. Taken together, Arkansas (and Tennessee) can be Democratic again, West Virginia (which lost in 2000 due to NRA campaign), New Mexico and Arizona should go for Kerry (with increase in Latinos) and Florida (with large conservative, military population in Northern Florida). Also Ohio, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Hampshire and some Midwestern Red States should be in play. Pennsylvania should remain Democratic with Clark's appeal to Reagan Democrats. Clark has broad National appeal, which means that he could campaign with success wherever Kerry felt he was needed.

5. Taking on Dick Cheney: There will be a VP debate. Only Clark can face Cheney and cite Pentagon "inside information" about how Cheney decided from the beginning to go to war with Iraq. On all military related issues, Clark will be more believable than Chaney to millions of swing voters.

6. Raising funds for Kerry: This is very important to Kerry since Bush has raised so much money. It was Wes Clark who raised almost $9 million in January alone, pre-matching funds. This was about 2 million more than his closest rival. In the 5 months of his campaign, he raised about as much as Dean as well as with Internet contributions. While Dean started the Internet dominance, Clark continued it with equal success and still has the best web site and Blog Community around. Since Dean isn't suitable as Kerry's VP, Clark is the best choice to attract the "outsider" type people who support Dean. Clark was often the 2nd choice among Dean supporters and their 1st choice for VP under Dean. In summary, with Clark as VP choice, there would be BY FAR the largest fundraising boost to the Kerry campaign as well as a likely union with Howard Dean and his supporters. Lets also remember that Clark was the most popular with the wealthy and powerful Hollywood crowd.

7. Mutual respect: Since Kerry and his VP choice will probably be together for months, getting along with mutual respect is very important. They have to be able to share each other's secrets. As was demonstrated in Wisconsin, their mutual respect for each other's careers is apparent.

8. The Superhero Ticket - Kerry and Clark already have a name for their ticket that no one else can claim. (Or "Two heroes, one mission.)" This alone will be worth millions in free advertising. Undecided voters are easily swayed by these powerful slogans.

9. Bringing Enthusiasm and full Clinton support: Whereas John Kerry is the Party's best choice for President, his supporters are mostly there to defeat Bush. Wes Clark though, has the most loyal supporters, because of Wes, besides the desire to defeat Bush. Kerry could use that enthusiasm. Besides Hollywood support, a Wes Clark as VP pick would bring stronger enthusiastic support from President Bill Clinton (as well as Hillary).

10. Appeal to the Church going Americans and Patriotism-Wes Clark has a background that includes several faiths. He is the "most comfortable" of all the major VP contenders with "God" and "American Patriotism". The Flag really means something to him. This is why he is a danger to Republicans in all parts of the country. He still is Karl Rove's worst Nightmare.

14. Is VP the best position for Clark? : Some would say that Clark should be saved for Secretary of State or National Security Adviser. However, if we waited, it is very possible that Kerry would lose a close election. Additionally, as VP, as long as Kerry respects Clark, he could be used as a 2nd Secretary of State, Defense and Homeland Security. As shown by Cheney, a VP can be very powerful when they are strong and respected in National Security issues.

Please, for the good of the country, select Wes Clark.

Ken

[Crunchy Frog]

69. An excellent post ken.

Welcome to DU.:hi:

[nator311]

65. I disagree

I think that the whole trial attorney thing will be used against him, bringing the campaign down. Clark or Nelson of Florida would be better choices.

[ngGale]

70. Kerry-Edwards a sure win...n/t