Is John Edwards the one?

[pscot]

The buzz in the blogosphere seems to be coalescing around Edwards. The other night on Charlie Rose three reporters who are following the Kerry campaign closely seemed to feel Edwards had emerged as the front runner. Edwards has been on call to go wherever the Kerry campaign has needed him. He has alledgedly committed his considerable fund raising clout to Kerry. Teddy Kennedy apparently really likes him. He helps humanize Kerry and it's been suggested that he will be invaluable in regaining control of the Senate. Do we have our vice-president here?

[AlinPA]

1. Edwards would really move the minimum wage increase proposal

that was just announced by Kerry.

[saracat]

2. Chris Heinz

seemed to imply that he had cooled on Edwards.Said he supported him in the Spring, but the Iraq blowups made him reconsider. Gep has a lot of press on this .I hope he isn't the choice!

[RafterMan]

3. But CH was speaking for CH

not for Kerry

[Protected]

4. There's also this buzz...

I also see this "buzz" that Saddam Hussein is linked to Al-Qaeda?

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. Good one, Jonathan Little and Welcome to DU!

:hi: It's nice to have another Clarkie!

[Protected]

6. Thanks!

:)

[chimpymustgo]

7. I hope so! Clearly he is the choice of most Dems.

He and Kerry would make a great team.

[WI_DEM]

8. the buzz keeps changing!! This morning the buzz was about Gep

I think no one really knows what Kerry is going to do.

[JI7]

9. supporters of various candidates are doing it i think

you have unions trying to put out the buzz on gephardt. and you have the senators on edwards. and the clark fans on clark . there is even some things about dean. but since kerry wont confirm or deny anything specific we wont know for sure until he announces. i believe the mccain thing was put out by the democrats who want a kerry/mccain ticket.

[venus]

14. Kerry/McCain was real because it was reported

they both admitted it when McCain demurred.

[Doosh]

10. yes he is!

He's the overwhelming choice of Democrats in Washington and across America, Kerry NOT choosing him will be a great let down and damage his chances.

[cosmokramer]

11. Complete bullshit.

[Doosh]

12. we'll never get through to guys like you

I just hope you don't bail on the party when Clark isn't the VP.

[cosmokramer]

13. You'll never get through to guys like me?

I sure as hell hope not. I like being a sane person.

[venus]

16. Clarkies have more sense than to abandon the party over

a V.P. pick. Hope Edwards supporters do the same. Where is this vitriol coming from anyway.

[Scoopie]

19. Venus, I confess

As an Independent... I won't be voting for Kerry/Edwards or Bush/Cheney, as much as I know what's at stake.
To me, what I get is pap and smear in those choices.


Ewww... that was yucky, wasn't it!? :P

I guess I can respect someone voting a party line, I just don't understand it. I would have hoped you guys would pick your best from your party - even if they're newcomers - but, I guess I underestimated the media (I would, when I was reporting, I didn't know we had that kind of power!) and overestimated the voting public.

If all else fails, I will still vote for whom I think should run the country - and Edwards, Cheney and Bush won't be anywhere NEAR that ticket.

[MontecitoDem]

25. Scoopie, I get it.

My Dad has expressed some similar thoughts to me. He too is independent and would vote for Kerry if Clark is the VP, but not Edwards.

But those of us who say we'll vote for Kerry/plate of moldy cheese ticket aren't sheep to the dem party - we just feel the stakes are too high and that Kerry and whomever will be so much better for our country than another 4 years of Bush.

Just remember that in previous administrations, where the President was actually able to think for himself, the VP was basically a nothing job. I mean, what did Gore even get to work on? Gore was a smart able politician and was relegated to "streamlining bureaucracy" if I remember correctly. Whomever Kerry chooses won't make a big difference unless Kerry dies in office or is removed from office. Seriously, that is a highly unlikely event. But if informed and articulate people like you stay home, than Bush winning is a highly likely event. Then we're all fucked.

I respect your willingness to put yourself out there as an Independent and what that means. I hope you don't mind my plea for you to reconsider if Kerry makes the wrong choice for VP!

:hi:

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Scoopie]

17. Guess what!

Dems will vote for Kerry ANYWAY.
Why does he need the "clear choice of Democrats"?
I think he needs someone who thinks... well... who thinks.
But, more than that - he needs someone who will drag in us Indies.

[Skwmom]

20. I'll second that.

You generally won't find independents running with the sheeple.

[Scoopie]

22. So, will you bail

when Edwards isn't?

[venus]

15. Kerry "would damage his chances"? Among Dems?

I don't think so. We're all going to support Kerry no matter who he picks as V.P.

[JayS]

18. We might, but will the rest of the Democrats? Will the all-important...

...swing voters swing our way? Right now Kerry is running in a national race with a New England campaign strategy. So far it seems to be working, but the election is a long way off.

[spooky3]

26. Will Democrats come out to the polls if they aren't excited?

In previous elections many of them stay home. They represent a lot of potential votes, just as the swing voters do.

Part of Kerry's task is to appeal to swing voters, but he also should pick a VP nominee who can help him inspire the base to get active and then to vote.

I think Edwards will be the best at doing this.

[cosmokramer]

29. You are neglecting one very important factor....

...DEMOCRATS WILL VOTE FOR ANYONE in order to get Bush out of office...no matter what, DEMOCRATS are not staying home, so your water holds no weight.

[spooky3]

32. You will, and I will, but many Dems will NOT. The empirical evidence

has shown that in every election. People on this board are not representative even of Democrats.

[cosmokramer]

34. That's crap. Democrats HATE Bush, and they will vote in

large, large numbers. Not only do they HATE Bush, they want revenge for the 2000 fiasco in Florida. Prepare yourself for the largest voter turnout of democrats EVER.

Empirical evidence? Yeah, right. You can't take historical data pre-2000 and use that as a basis for your argument...it doesn't hold weight, as we all know the times have drastically changed.

[spooky3]

35. So you're predicting a 100% turnout then. You don't convince me.

Look, find someone else to have lame arguments with.

[cosmokramer]

36. I never said 100% voter turnout...but it will be a record number...

...and the only thing lame about this argument is your utter lack of point or evidence.

Kerry has raised a record amount of cash--democrats are not staying home, so support your candidate with FACTS instead of the ridiculous supposition that democrats will stay home unless Edwards is chosen VP, because that is complete bullshit.

[Darkamber]

23. This is most likely what will happen....

I don't know who Kerry will pick, but if Edwards is not picked, I'm sure that there will pressure from the State Democratic party chairs and the house and senate to make sure that Kerry gives Edwards a position in his administration. I think there is a great deal of backing for him and the party does not want to loose him.

And Venus...I'm glad you are a reasonable Clark supporter. Most of you are and will back Kerry. I know I will if he picks Clark or Gephardt or anyone else. Our future is much too important to allow Bush to have another 4 years.

[fujiyama]

37. I would agree

that there is a preference amongst democrats for Edwards, however, I doubt most would be dissapointed with Clark either.

I myself hope it's either Edwards or Clark, because both bring some excitement to the race. I have a slight preference for Clark, because he's a bit stronger with FP, NS, etc.

That said, either would be fine with me. Edwards does bring a lot of excitement...I think Gephardt would be a bit of a dissapointment however.

21. No - Neo was The One

didn't you see The Matrix?

[armymom]

27. Edwards a lightweight

George Maurer, a retired union attorney from Key West, said the one-term senator's résumé was on the light side.

"Yes, he's cute and he gives one good stump speech and he was a good trial lawyer. Is he qualified to be president of the United States? I don't think so. ... We need somebody with more credentials. If Kerry picks him, he should have his head examined."

[armymom]

28. Charlotte Observer: Edwards investments in pharmaceuticals and defense

Edwards one of wealthiest members of U.S. Senate
Investments in defense contractors, drugmakers attract comments

TIM FUNK
Charlotte Observer - Washington Bureau
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/8933251.htm

WASHINGTON - Thanks in part to investments in defense contractors and drug companies, Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., is among the wealthiest members of the U.S. Senate. And if Erskine Bowles wins the race for Edwards' seat in November, the Charlotte Democrat would take Edwards' place in the ranks of the Senate's multimillionaires.

It's the Tar Heel Democrats, not the state's Republicans allied with business interests, who have the best bottom lines among current and would-be senators, according to Senate financial disclosure reports released this week. That's not to say that Bowles' GOP opponent, Rep. Richard Burr, R-N.C., isn't also well off. Just not nearly as well off.

Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., and her husband, former Sen. Bob Dole, are multimillionaires. She earns a Senate salary of $153,840, and he gives high-priced speeches, doles out advice to corporations and appears on TV shows.

In South Carolina, the three candidates running to succeed Democratic Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings reported holdings in IRAs, real estate and bonds.

The report that's getting the most attention was filed by Edwards, a former presidential candidate on the short list to be Sen. John Kerry's running mate. He reported assets of between $14.3 million and $44.7 million.

According to his 48-page report, Edwards profited from the sale of stock in two defense contractors that was purchased the week before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Lockheed Martin Corp. helps make Patriot missiles; United Technologies Corp. manufactures Black Hawk helicopters through a subsidiary.

Edwards' Senate spokesman, Mike Briggs, said the purchases were made through a blind trust by a financial adviser and that Edwards was not aware of them. "Under the blind trust, he got periodic reports on the bottom line," Briggs said. "He did not tell anybody which stocks to buy or sell, nor did he know which ones were bought or sold."

According to his Senate report, Edwards bought between $15,000 and $50,000 in United Technologies Corp. stock on March 13, 2003. Then, in July, after Edwards had to "unblind" the transactions and report them as part of his presidential disclosures, he sold two blocks of the United Technologies stock, each worth $15,000 to $50,000. The shares had risen more than 32 percent from their purchase on March 13 to their sale on July 22, according to an analysis by Bloomberg News.

Edwards also bought between $1,000 to $15,000 in Lockheed Martin stock on March 12, a week before the war began, and $15,000 to $50,000 in April. Then in September, he sold Lockheed stock worth $100,000 to $250,000, according to the disclosures report. Those shares had risen more than 15 percent from the purchase date, according to Bloomberg.

Lewis Wolfson, a professor emeritus in communication at American University, said he wasn't troubled by the purchases -- as long as Edwards, who voted to authorize the war in Iraq, was truly unaware of them.

"A blind trust is a blind trust," he said.

But Wolfson questioned how Edwards -- an outspoken critic of drug companies while campaigning for president -- could own stock in such pharmaceutical companies as Pfizer and Novartis AG. The value of Edwards' holdings in the two companies total between $200,000 and $500,000, according to his report.

Said Wolfson: "If he really wanted to show his distrust of drug companies, he shouldn't be investing in them."

[wjsander]

31. What's your point?

The man made a fortune from a blind trust and is using it for good. Is this supposed to be his "skechy background"? Not bad, if that's the worst they got on him.

[Pepperbelly]

30. I think the question is ... does Edwards meet Kerry's criteria?

According to Kerry, the first and most important consideration is that his VP be able to immediately assume the Presidency if circumstances dictated. Interestingly enough, that was also the concern of John Kennedy when he chose Johnson in 1960.

Of course, those Texas electoral votes were cool too, though. :D

[spooky3]

33. That's the only criterion he's identified publicly, but he has also

said he is NOT going to reveal much about his thinking on the VP. So none of us really know what he's thinking or what his other considerations/criteria are.