Was John Edwards the right choice for VP in 2004?

[cestpaspossible]

Poll question: Was John Edwards the right choice for VP in 2004?

[Dover]

1. Before I answer that.......are you operating on the premise that the

'election' was legit?

[tritsofme]

2. Not at all

He was a one term senator who spent half of his term running for president, who probably couldn't even be reelected to NC if he wanted to.

He didn't bring anything to the table, and did not even eat away at Bush's margin of victory in NC over 2000.

And if he thinks he gets another shot at the nomination because he's running a PAC or some other such nonsense, he's got another thing coming.

[ChiciB1]

3. Sorry, You're Assuming The Election Was Fair...

IMO I have yet to concede that the election was WON by the "corrupt ones" so for me this is a moot question.

I'm a BIG Edwards supporter, and that coming from a lefty liberal says a lot.

[wyldwolf]

4. A more interesting question: If not Edwards, then who?

Let me go ahead and guess...

Dean?
Nader?
Clark?
Kucinich?

You will most assuredly get more "no" answers on your poll than "yes" answers because DU was so divided on who should have been the nominee to begin with.

[ihelpu2see]

14. I would say Clark or Dean.... But because Dean was also from New England

not a viable choice..

[wakeme2008]

5. Well didn't the Kerry/Edwards ticket really win in 2004...

If you think they really did then the answer is YES.

IMHO... The really bad choice for VP was made by Gore... IMHO.. Sen. Bob Graham (FL) would have brought 50,000+ more votes to Gore in Florida. And in 2000, Florida was pre-Touchscreen......

[tavalon]

6. Sure

He wasn't the John who was the mistake.

[demnan]

7. I say yes for the classic reason

that he was from the south and also was of the "common people" two things Kerry lacked. I just wish Kerry had stood up to those vile creatures who defamed his war record. Not only for himself, but for all the Vietnam vets like my brother who were routing for him.

Why he didn't is still a mystery to me. Perhaps he felt that they were beneath his contempt, which is probably true, but you must stoop to contemptibility when you are in politics.

[OneTwentyoNine]

8. Was Diebold the right choice for voting machines in 2004?

Jesus H. Christ running as VP couldn't beat a machine that was rigged in Bush's favor from the start.

[mtnsnake]

11. Machines can't be blamed for Edwards's disappearance or Kerry's

horrible campaign decisions. The entire campaign was a bust, mschines or no machines.

Edwards, who showed such promise in the primaries, was pretty much invisible during the campaign, so in retrospect of course I think he was a very poor choice of VP.

Kerry's campaign managers, advisors, image makers, etc were BRUTAL during the campaign. Machines had nothing to do with all their decisions either.

[Township75]

9. I voted "no", but only with 20/20 hindsight.

I can't blame Kerry for picking him, and I thought Edwards would bring a lot to the ticket, but I was wrong and so was Kerry.

Edwards flat out sucked. NC wasn't even close, and we didn't pick-up one southern state. He did piss poor against Cheney in the debates as well.

[Yupster]

16. Same here Township

Looking back, maybe Gephardt wuld have gotten him Missouri and Iowa?

Edwards didn't get Kerry nuthin.

[spooky3]

17. How many trips to the South did the campaign have Edwards take?

You have to evaluate him on the basis of what the campaign had Edwards do, not on the basis of irrelevant criteria. If you don't like the decision the campaign made, fine, but that is a completely different matter.

He spent his time in the rural midwest. The campaign managers and Kerry made a conscious decision to give up on the south and concentrate on the midwestern swing states, most of which they did win.

Did we do better in most of these areas than Kerry would have done without Edwards? I think the answer is yes.

[Township75]

37. Do you believe...

they took Edwards knowing he wouldn't get one state in the south? I recall one reason he was chosen as hope that he could get NC, FL or maybe LA to switch to the blue.

He spent a lot of time in the midwest, but would the campaign put him there if they felt he could make an impact in a southern state? They put him in the midwest b/c he had no impact in the south.

Did we do better in south b/c of Edwards? I don't know, but I would guess yes...but we might have won Iowa or Missouri or OH with Gephardt or someone else.

Let's remember the question in the OP was whether Edwards was a good choice...in retrospect, I believe he wasn't.

[GreenArrow]

21. Clark would have done equally well in the South

and actively helped in the SW -- Nevada, and New Mexico, Colorado. Edwards brought nothing, and was trounced by Cheney in the debate. Sure big Dick lied his ass off, but Edwards looked like a spastic little kid next to him.

[smartvoter]

28. And he was awful in the debate w/ Cheney and he did not even attempt to

match Cheney toe to toe in the shots from the campaign trail.

The moment it became clear for me was when Cheney stuck him on stage, with the "this is the first time I've met you" line and he sat like a deer in the headlights.

I was all for him being the VP candidate and the end he was a disappointment.

That said, it appears that Kerry-Edwards actually won the election, so I wouldn't go so far as to say he is the reason B/C remain in power.

[GreenArrow]

30. yeah, Cheney just skinned him alive in that debate;

it was pitiful.

[depakid]

10. I'm not a big Edwards fan- but he was the right choice

the way things played out- and it wasn't his fault Kerry laid down like Dukakis or affirmed Bush's war.

True- he couldn't carry his own state- and he wasn't all that great in the debate with Cheney, but I'm not sure that mattered in the end.

[Adelante]

36. There is another thing, though

Kerry and Edwards both voted for IWR. I understand the reasons and how it happened, so I don't criticize either one for it. But the ticket might have been stronger with at least one candidate who didn't, I think. That candidate would have been positioned to explain Kerry's vote and to blast Bush on the war and on national security.

That's another reason I thought Graham would have been way more help than Edwards could ever have been. We needed clarity on this and we couldn't get it since they both had voted the way they had.

Let me say, I think Kerry would have made a brilliant president and a great leader. Bad advice hurt him, but he did his best to turn that around. It was too late, but with a different running partner, it might not have been too late.

[Snivi Yllom]

12. A better poll would be was Kerry the right candidate for P in 2004?

that is all

[Catchawave]

13. Yes.

Though Edwards/Kerry would have been the winning ticket. IMHO :)

[Adelante]

15. I always thought Bob Graham would have been a better choice

The country, as the voters made clear, voted for the ticket they thought would protect America. They were wrong, but that was the basis, once they were inside the voting booth, for their votes. In national elections that's how people vote, on a big idea, a big-picture vision of America. In these times, national security and foreign policy have to be a major part of any party's agenda. It's just the fact of the matter. For too long Dems only project ableness on domestic issues. Since 9/11, it won't work at the GE ballot box.

Edwards' vision, while it is important, has never been remotely about national security, although he seems to have learned since that no president will be elected in this country without it and is trying to build his portfolio. Kerry clearly had the vision thing, but he was harrassed throughout by the GPO mean machine machine, and the voting public at large were diverted. Edwards just didn't add anything except verbal skill.

The VP candidate needed to be a person of stature and deep experience who could assure voters the Democratic ticket had their safety at heart. I think it was one of the biggest mistakes Kerry made, going for the glitz instead of the substance in his VP choice. It surprised the hell out of me, I know. I still can't figure it out. Kerry is just too smart for it, but it happened for whatever reasons he had in his mind and he must have believed it was the way to go.

Bob Graham would have overwhelmed any vote tampering in Florida, for one thing, and he would have brought a substantial Southern vote from other states. There is no doubt in my mind, anyway, about this. If not Graham, the VP needed to be proven in security and foreign affairs. Edwards just didn't have it.

[burythehatchet]

18. I reall like John

but he truly is a snowflake

[Fluffdaddy]

19. If we was trying to steal a Southern State JE was a weak choice

[GreenArrow]

20. NO. Clark would have been better.

Or even Gephardt.

[cobaindrain]

27. clark wasn't even in the running

he didn't even make it on Kerry's short list for VP candidates after his horrible primary performance. Democrats preferred Edwards to clark 2-1

[GreenArrow]

29. Clark would have been more effective where it counted

but it's moot anyway; Edwards was the pick. Valid or not, at least Clark had an anti-war postition, was a Washington "outsider", was a Southerner, and had military experience, among other things. Edwards was a Southerner with a toothy smile and shiny hair, and that's about it.

[Jai4WKC08]

32. You don't know any of that

Why do some people state as fact what they only wish were true?
:eyes:

None of us knows for sure what was going on in Kerry's head as far as his "short list" but there is every indication Clark was in the running. And it's pretty obvious that Kerry didn't think Clark's "performance" was "horrible" or else he wouldn't have put him up on the stump so many times to such large audiences.

As for whom Democrats preferred... we really didn't need to win over any Democrats, did we? Wish I had a nickle for every indie and Repub who asked me, why on earth did Kerry pick a light-weight like Edwards?

All that said, I'm not sure it really mattered in the long run. With election fraud, and failing to slam down the swiftboaters, or to answer all the other lies, not to mention how little the VP usually means to the ticket... altho winning one more state might have done the trick... well, it's just hard to say, and probably pretty pointless to argue about.

[Adelante]

35. Do you have proof?

"he didn't even make it on Kerry's short list for VP candidates"

I agree that Democrats preferred Edwards, and Democrats were wrong, imo, but where do you get that Clark wasn't on Kerry's short list? Do you have the list? Show it.

[Darkamber]

22. Yes he was the right choice and the best choice...

The problem wasn't Edwards. There was nothing he could do counter Kerry's record's or the Vets hate against Kerry and there was nothing he or Elizabeth could do to change people's minds about Teresa.

He worked his heart out and we almost had it. Quite frankly, I think we might have won as Ohio was still in question. And for the 100th time, Edwards was not brought on to win the South, he was there to win the Midwest and industrial states.

He continues to fight for the poor and the working man. HE will continue that theme even if the GOP want to talk about such important issues as Gay marriage and Anti-abortion issues. And don't let them call it, 'right to life'. It is Anti-abortion.

[nickshepDEM]

23. Bob Graham or Dick Gephardt.

[quinnox]

24. No

I agree with a previous response, that Gephardt would have been better. And that Edwards looked like a good pick at the time but it turned out to be a bad choice.

[JHBowden]

25. In hindsight, Gephardt would have been best.

Though during the time it would have pissed me off, given the Rose Garden stunt Gephardt pulled, in addition to Gephardt's Osama ad against another Democratic candidate.

[Jai4WKC08]

34. I still don't think Gephardt could have delivered MO

I like the Gepster, altho I sure don't like everything he's done.

I live in KS, but about a half mile from the MO border, in a semi-rural area. Gephardt just doesn't draw that well outside of St Louis, Kansas City and maybe Columbia (college town). Kerry got a lot of votes in those areas anyway. Maybe he could have got more with Gephardt on the ticket, but enough? I doubt it.

Graham would have had a better chance of delivering FL. Or Clark several smaller states--Arkansas and those in the mid/southwest where the military vote counts more and he was (and is) very popular.

[vickie]

26. No. He couldn't carry his own state. That is a basic requirement

in my book.

[wallwriter]

31. The real mistake was Kerry

[renaissanceguy]

33. I'd have to agree, esp. with

the Ohio fraud. Edwards wanted to fight, Kerry backed down. Who knows, had Edwards won the nomination, he'd be President today.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/428793

[pdxmike]

38. the veep candidate doesn't choose his/her role

Edwards was a good soldier. He did what he was told. Kerry or Shrum or Cahill or whoever defined his role for the campaign. I doubt that Edwards would have wanted to see the campaign, and his role in it, play out the way it did. I don't think it's fair to blame Edwards for 2004.
I think that the only person that could have brought more to the table is Clark.

[AntiCoup2K4]

39. Edwards as VP would have been better on a Dean/Edwards ticket.

Yes, it was the top of the ticket that was the problem. Diebold machines aside, Kerry was a weak candidate. Not because he lacked experience (which he certainly didn't) but because he didn't fight back.

Didn't fight the warmongers, didn't fight the Swift Boat Liars, and worst of all, didn't fight the election thieves after he had taken a pledge that he would do EXACTLY that. And we now know for a fact that Ohio was stolen.

[chieftain]

40. I voted no. We would have been better served with Gephardt.

We tried to make a Mid West strategy work with a Southerner and it came up short. I have never been a Gephardt fan, but I saw him give a speech about the destruction of the middle class from stupid trade deals. It was quite impressive and would have resonated in the industrial heart of America.
What I do not understand is how did Edwards make such a small impact. During the Primaries, he was the center of attention with a strong message that everyone believed was delivered better than any other . What happened during the General? Did he choke, did Kerry purposely sidetrack him, or did the MSM bury him? I would love to know, because the hottest political commodity to come along in years almost disappeared from the national scene to our detriment.

[tishaLA]

41. I think he was poorly used

Or poorly covered, at least. He was virtually invisible in the press except for his debate with dick, much to the detriment of the ticket. But I don't really think that's HIS fault as much as it's the fault of a media that was more interested in how deep John Kerry's wounds were.

[VOX]

42. I would have to have seen Edwards at the top of the ticket...

IMO, Kerry did as well as did *because* Edwards was on the ticket. (And for those who think that Kerry was beaten badly, please don't buy into that RW talking point; the election was incredibly close in electoral votes.) Edwards brought warmth and accessibility -- too bad the "liberal" media skirted him. :grr:

And I'm not dissing Kerry by any means -- he is a fine man and would have been a terrific president.

[Moderator]

43. Lock

This was the LAST election. This thread is flamebait.