If he doesn't get the nomination, should Edwards be a VP?

[Cascadian]

Poll question: If he doesn't get the nomination, should Edwards be a VP?

I think we can all agree that if Edwards does not get the nomination, he should be seriously considered as a running mate. Do you agree? If the nomination goes to Kerry, then he will need a Southerner to gain support down there. Do you agree?

[cheezus]

1. It'd ruin his career

Unless our guy has a great 8 years and the gop doesn't invent a scandal. Maybe AG. Try again in 8 or 12

[rucky]

30. I think you may be right

He could do more as AG - and stay more visible.

But a Spitzer AG position & an Edwards as VP would be VERY strong - and that's what it's shaping up to become.

[ChiefJoseph]

2. Yes

His Senate term is expiring and he's not running again. It would be stupid for him to turn down the Vice Presidency. Where else is he going to go?

[arewethereyet]

5. he can go back to lawyerin' at triple the rates

he has nothing but options. Its understandable that one would feel that a ploititian has no other career save politics. Most are in that boat. Edwards was a success before and he'll be a success after.

As president.

[Gadave]

23. Thats what Governor is for

Governor is a better position to run from. When does NC elect their next Governor?

[Dookus]

3. If it's Kerry

Edwards is a poor choice. Two senators running on the same ticket wouldn't be helpful.

Kerry/Clark

Clark/Edwards

Edwards/Clark

Clark/Graham

all better combinations than Kerry/Edwards. If not Clark, then Kerry would do well with Richardson of New Mexico.

[arewethereyet]

4. no benefit for him or the nominee, bad idea

He can only win southern states if he's on top. We can't win without them so he becomes the albatross who sunk the campaign of Candidate X. Those are unrealistic expectations that even he can't fulfill.

No, he goes and finds another challenge and his amazing story continues.

[Bucky]

6. November 2004 is no time for egos. Remember what the Gep said...

We will win because we have to. John Edwards will sell the case in a debate against Cheney. We need him. I don't believe he'd let us down. I do agree his story is amazing.

[arewethereyet]

8. lots of people can be a polititian and match wits with Cheney

If its to be Kerry then there is no room for error on securing the most non-southern states. He must find someone who can help him there. The south is a forgone conclusion unless Edwards is at the top of the ticket.

This is not about ego, this is about strategy in an unnecessarily constricted race.

Gephardt was right, we must win but the people are speaking and if they speak Kerry, Edwards cannot help on the ticket.

[AntiCoup2K4]

7. 2 senators on the same ticket? Not going to happen.

Not even DLC dirty tricks can pull that off.

[bigtree]

17. They said two southerners couldn't sell . . .

ABB
:yourock:

[yellowdawgdem]

9. Southerner icing on the cake

But only if he or she can help win in some of the swing states.
Other factors to consider: class background, ethnicity, gender, outsider status, and charisma... in short, anything that would draw voters to the polls. Even though vp's aren't usually selected from the nominee pool, there's no law saying you can't do that.
Just looking at that pool, several people seem ok: Clark, Mosely-Braun, Edwards, Gephardt.. but I really think Dean would be the best balance for Kerry's vp. I'd like seeing Kerry (saying he won the primaries) run with a vp who is a bit looser, has a good sense of humor, and can get him to shorten his responses. Dean could easily do that. But if he can find a southerner who has all that, yes, that'd be good.

[starroute]

13. JFK and LBJ were both candidates in 1960 and both senators

And it worked out ok for them.

[JPJones]

10. Kerry said today

that Edwards wouldn't be able to deliver his home state in the GE.

[arewethereyet]

11. he's right

assuming that Kerry is on top of the ticket otherwise it is, at a minimum, debatable.

[Beaker]

12. He'd be the Democratic Dan Quayle-

the pretty-boy at the bottom of the ticket.
as a 1-term senator with no other electoral/public sevice/national security background, what substance does he bring to the ticket, besides a smile that photographs well?

[Leilani]

20. Actually, Quayle had a lot more experience

Quayle served 2 terms in the House, & was in his 2nd term in the
Senate when he was selected for Veep.

So he had a lot more experience than Edwards.

[spooky3]

26. Edwards has, oh, only about 100 more IQ points than Quayle.

and a lifetime of self-made success, as opposed to benefiting from a family that grew rich publishing right wing rags such as the Indianapolis Star (which has since been improved).

As for Senate experience, it's a judgment call about what "a lot more" means. Quayle completed one term and was in his second year of his second term when asked to run as VP with Bush senior. Edwards is in his 6th year as Senator, having fought hard to win against a RW machine in a red state, whereas the conservative Quayle easily pleased the voters of an even redder one.

There is no comparison between the two.

[Beaker]

28. and Quayle had about 100 more points than the lil'dictator...

what's that got to do with anything?

experience counts, and Edwards has very very little...he's got a photogenic smile and that's about it.

[trogdor]

29. I remember Dan Quayle...

...Dan Quayle was the source of much mirth and joke-making when he was Vice President. Dan Quayle nearly makes George W. Bush look smart. John Edwards is definitely no Dan Quayle.

[BurtWorm]

14. I don't agree.

I'd appreciate a little thought going into the VP selection process.

[GreenArrow]

15. No way

offer him a cabinet post, if necessary, or better yet, let him go back into the private sector and do what he wants there.

[bigtree]

16. Absolute!

It will be a springboard to national greatness. (Assuming he's not the nominee)

[Skip Intro]

18. I just can't accept Edwards' coninuing support for the invasion of Iraq.

I can get over the vote, if he'd say it was a mistake, but in the last debate he tried to justify it, even now.

How can we condemn bush for now saying the invasion was right reguardless of wmds (remember "what's the difference?") yet support a Dem who basically sez the same thing?

I can't do it.

[yellowdawgdem]

19. jfk and lbj worked out great

Well, yes, and that really was a balanced ticket imo. I do feel that a southerner would be helpful to Kerry, it's just I'm not sure abt Edwards. Maybe I'm down on him because I did hear some interviews with South Carolinians who said that he was self-serving as their senator. And JK is doing well enough on his own in the swing states like Tenn., Va, etc.
It is possible that Kerry has already basically picked Cleland, whom I don't think would be the worst choice, just not the best. He already has military background, and doesn't need more of that. Although Clark wouldn't at all be a bad choice. Especially considering security concerns these days. I can see why Edwards would be considered, but Clark even gave JE a good fight in his own home state.

I think that, if you look at Kerry's achille's heel(s), being seen as wealthy, a Northeastern liberal,and a Washington insider are at the top of that list, and I won't even mention the skull and bones thing. Under normal circumstances, choosing a woman running mate would make sense. But these aren't really 'normal' times, for sure. I think Kerry will try to pick up votes from republicans who are abb. And he won't want to alienate them, at 15%.

[anti-bush]

21. Huh?

interviews with South Carolinians who said that he was self-serving as their senator.

He is the Senator from North Carolina. And the major complaint that anybody who is complaining has is that he is running for president, rather than staying on as their Senator.

but Clark even gave JE a good fight in his own home state.

Not his home state (it's his birth state) and Edwards took 45% compared to Clark's 7% . I think a 38 pt. drubbing is not a good fight.

[Beaker]

24. Cleland would be a BAD choice.

military heroism aside, and I'm not trying to be insensitive, but a triple amputee would be a hard sell- even as VP- after all, it's a "heartbeat away from the presidency..."
FDR even knew better than to allow himself to be photographed in his wheelchair- it puts the wrong image in people's minds.
No disrespect to Max, but it would be a bad choice.

[yellowdawgdem]

22. Ok, Edwards won by wider margin

Ok, North Carolinians, then. But no, actually they had lots of complaints about him beyond what you mentioned. They felt that he abandoned them during a natural disaster, and mentioned several instances of him letting them down. Anyway, look, politicians always get knocked about for choices they make. The reason I paid some attn to this, is because I remember before Bush ran, some Texans were writing articles or speaking about stuff that bothered them. I think one thing was how he forced a guy to sell his land, because he wanted it for a baseball park- was it Texas Rangers- yeah. And, nobody paid any attn to these things. I'm not comparing Edwards to Bush, but somehow I like to watch for signs, since we don't get that much real information anymore.

[spooky3]

25. that makes sense but a couple of other points

We just don't know what the majority feels and why it feels that way. Individual stories may or may not reflect what the majority thinks. As you say, politicians always get knocked about for the choices they make, and people with negative things to say are often more motivated to voice them (or post them). We do know from 2003 polls that the majority of NCer's approve of JE's run for the presidency, and that this % is 93% among Democrats. While this isn't the same as approving of his work as Senator (and I have not seen any polls on this since 2002)--if anyone has this I'd love to see it-- I have a hard time interpreting this as a negative about how they view him in general.

It's important to remember that NC is a red state and Democrats are outnumbered, so there is going to be a large number of people who will disapprove of any Democrat because s/he's not doing what those people will want on many issues.

Finally, JE did say he was not going to run for re-election, which eliminated uncertainty, and enabled the Dems to find a good Senate candidate who could give it his best shot.

[Cuban_Liberal]

27. Not sure it's a good idea.

If one is looking for 'depth', then I think there are better senatorial choices, like John Breaux or Bob Graham. I further believe that a prominent governor would be better choice, frankly.

[loudsue]

31. No way! He's a lousy senator...and he's waaay too DLC.

Edwards is a "face". I live in North Carolina, and I worked on his campaign for senator. Not one of the people that truly helped him get elected has even gotten the time of day from Edwards since then.

First, he uses people and discards them.

Second, he didn't serve his constituents -- let alone his supporters. As a senator, his office never responded to anyone I've ever known that approached him for anything, unless they represented a large potential donor (corporations and/or powerful people.)

Third, the people I've talked to in the communities around here don't like him either...they think he's just a pretty face, and they don't trust him. They think he's waaay too inexperienced. Hell, we send someone to Washington, and that's the last we hear from him until his next election.

Remember Jesse Helms? That neocon dinosaur that retired when Libby Dole got elected in 2002? Well, say what you will about his politics, but there was a really good reason he kept getting elected in this state, generation after generation: no matter how far down someone was on the totem pole, Jesse Helms office would respond to EVERY request, in some way. He and his staff did whatever they could for their constituents.

I never voted for him, but I had to call his office a few times, and ALWAYS got some kind of help with my concerns. Edward's office is TOTALLY unresponsive. Even Libby Dole has been better. You can't keep getting people elected when they IGNORE their constituents!!! If he doesn't do anything as senator, what makes anyone think he'd do better as VP????

Actually, I'm going to be a tiny bit surprised if he carries N.C. in the primary. He may have the big bucks to campaign here, but that will be the only thing that gets him this state...people who haven't had to deal with him may turn out heavily. He won't get my vote in the primary, and he can count on it.

North Carolinians haven't seen the man's face since we elected him, except on television, trying to make a name for himself. That doesn't fly around here.

I want someone of who cares about people in the VP slot...and ESPECIALLY in the Presidential candidate's slot. Edwards isn't even on the short list.

:kick: