Kerry/Edwards - is this our ticket if Kerry is the nominee?

[ringmastery]

What are the pros/cons of having Edwards on the ticket with Kerry? Who would be better? I think about Graham but he has a major charisma deficiency. Edwards is much better on TV. It isn't even a comparison.

[Timefortruth]

1. I can't think of a single con.

Edwards is (or comes across as) a nice guy. Assuming there are no Edwards secrets (which I strongly doubt) he only brings positives to the ticket. Edwards is a real southerner, which is essential to a Kerry ticket. Edwards came up from humble beginnings and is proud of it, he is articulate and crackling smart. There is no draw back that comes to mind.

[WiseMen]

2. The main Con I have heard is that KERRY DOES NOT AGREE.

Kerry strongly believes that one has to be "prepared" for the
presidency and does not believe that Edwards is -- thus not for
the vice presidency either. This may also be his view of Clark,
but he has not indicated -- main critique of Clark, whom he respects
and has worked with, is that he is relatively new to the Democratic Party and perhaps to Dem fundamentals

[NJCher]

3. except

Edwards told The Today Show he wasn't interested in veep.

But then they all say that.


Cher

[HawkerHurricane]

9. Old Mad Magazine joke...

Pol: I am not now, nor ever, interested in becoming the VP!
Reporter1: I don't remember his name being mentioned for VP.
Reporter2: It wasn't; he really wants the job and he's trolling for an offer.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. Pros/Cons

Pros: Very good potential for 16 years of Democrats in the White House.

A very good one-two punch, with Kerry dropping the hammer on Bush while Edwards remains his ultra-optimistic self.

A great Southern influence.

Cons: A guy like Richardson could really energize a lot of voters in the Southwest.

Two Senators. 'Nuff said.

[Walt Starr]

16. We'd only lose one of the seats to a guaranteed Republican

Mitt Romney is the governor of Massachussetts and would definitely replace Kerry with a Republican, perhaps the single best reason Kerry should absolutely not be our nominee.

Michael F. Easley is the governor of North Carolina, and is a Democrat, so Edwards' seat is safe.

[isbister]

5. Graham

His charisma deficiency would not show so much if Dick Cheney was on the other side of the debate floor. I don't think that VP debate would be like Lovefest 2000.

[ringmastery]

6. We might not get Cheney

What if we get Guiliani as VP?

[bowens43]

7. Yes.

[SheilaT]

8. I still don't understand

why so many here are obsessed with the idea that the VP slot must necessarily be filled by one of the guys currently running. Guess what? Not only do most pairings not make sense once you consider the personalities and inclinations of the guys involved, but there are a lot of good potential VP candidates out there who would make more sense, depending entirely on who the nominee is.

Same with assuming the cabinet will be filled by the current candidates. No matter who our nominee turns out to be, and if (please make it when) he's elected, he'll select his cabinet from a much, much broader choice of possibilities than the few men currently still running for President.

[Walt Starr]

17. Because of the bloodletting

This has been a very bloody primary season (in the political sense of the word). One of the candidates should be chosen to stem the flow of blood. It builds unity as evidenced by JFK's choice of LBJ.

[vi5]

10. God, I hope so....I can't deal with another Leiberman-esque pick

I'm sorry, I know there is strategy in every pick. But I just hope it's not geographic strategy and that he doens't pick someone like Graham or Richardson. I like those guys but I think it's more important to go with personality compliment than geographic. Edwards would be a phenomenal pick not only due to his southern roots but also his charm, charisma and youthful exuberance (yes, I know he is 50 and I know this is just perception but it is true).

[kentuck]

11. What if Edwards cannot win his home state of SC ?

How would he help in ohter parts of the South. I think this is a myth that has been accepted as CW...I like Edwards but if Dean or Clark come in second to Kerry, would you no want their supporters and network in your corner?? Would that maybe be a stronger ticket?

[Nicholas_J]

12. SomePolitical Newspaper Editor on C-SPAN

From South Carolina just said that that would be a ticket that could beat Bush in most if not all of the southern states. There are almost a half a million Veterans in South Carolina, and Kerry actually has 17,000 of them working as volunteers for his campaign. A large percentage of them are democrats, and many are black. Kerry has a great deal of support from Veterans, and Edwards has a very large base in other groups.

[Abigail147]

13. That's what it has been from the beginning, yes?

And I do not mean that in a nice way.

[genius]

14. Kucinich on the ticket would bring in the anti-war activists

It would also end any chances of a Green distraction. That would definitely unite the party. Edwards would bring in Southern votes but Johnson won without the South so that may not be necessary. I am personally hoping for a Kucinich/Edwards ticket but that remains to be seen.

[JohnKleeb]

15. that would be neat

but I would think Edwards would be more better for Kerry. Kucinich/Edwards sounds neat though Edwards/Kucinich to most would make more sense.

[Walt Starr]

18. My opinion

This ticket combination is absolutely the only chance Kerry would have of defeating Bush.

The down side is that Kerry's seat gets replaced in the Senate by a Republican.