Edwards is the better contrast w/Bush,+ Kerry/Clark/Graham are w/ Cheney

[Bombtrack]

I think that would become very Clear if we were to get a Edwards/'gravitas-guy' ticket and we had the debates against Bush/Cheney.

I think that that would become very Clear if Edwards won the nomination and chose one of those men(you could also add Joe Biden) to be his vp. It would become the big picture about the presidential debate more about values, and the vice-presidential debate more about the wonkish stuff and minutae. About disecting and proving neoconservatism wrong.

That's just my take and I think that people aren't considering how fast the right's "trial lawyer" attack, which we already know is the best they have against Edwards, would wear off and probably back-fire(because it would give Edwards and his camp the opportunity to underhandedly shine a light on the colossal failure of a career that Bush had.

[shawmut]

1. My biggest problem with Edwards is

I'm not sure he would carry his own state.

[AP]

2. Did people say that about Clinton/Ark?

NC and Ark have the same exact voting pattern since 68/72 (?) -- always voting Republican, with the exception of 92/96 for Ark. NC, like many other states (LA, OK, SC) is trending Dem. and running a home town boy there can very possibly put it in the Dem category.

And even if it doesn't, it's 15 EV's make it a prize worth fighting for.

[disenfranchised]

5. I hate that argument.

Edwards can win Kerry's state. So can any other democrat. Edwards can compete in North Carolina and John Kerry cannot compete there.

I wonder what state John Kerry can win that John Edwards cannot win.

Edwards strength is that he is winning votes from Independents and Moderate repub according to the polls. The Democrats should all fall in line behind the nominee so doesn't it make more sense to nominate the guy with the broadest appeal?

Edwards is the candidate with the most potential to make George Bush look like a phony.

[AP]

7. Good point. Dems falling in line behind the guy how gets half of the third

of voters who call themselves Dems. Yet there's another guy who can get most of the middle third and some of the right third. That left third, if they had any sense, would be falling in line behind him -- and that's only if they were voting on who people will fall in line behind.

If they're voting the issues, that's an even better reason to vote for Edwards.

[disenfranchised]

9. That's right.

But, according to the media, people don't vote on the issues.

[abburdlen]

3. Thank-you

Your post makes the point of why I think Edwards shouldn't get the nomination
"if we were to get a Edwards/'gravitas-guy' ticket"

As you see, Edwards is someone other than a 'gravitas-guy'

[AP]

4. Bush was Reagan's gravitas guy. LBJ was JFK's. Clinton-Gore was ...

... free from gravitas (they were all about baby booming and feeling good).

Dukakis and Mondal where the two feel-good free "gravitas" dems from the last 20 years. They lost.

[KC21304]

10. Gore, not gravitas ? you have to be kidding . Too much gravitas.

[Skwmom]

6. He is a personal injury attorney.

The republicans will be attacking him as a personal injury attorney NOT a trial lawyer.

[DjTj]

8. It didn't stick in 1998.

He knows how to fight this line of attack, and he overcame it in a Republican state.

If this is their best line of attack, we will have an easy time.

[AP]

11. They tried that in NC and it took him from 10 pts down to 2 pts up.

I PRAY they try it again.

[Bombtrack]

12. Then they will have to explain why a failed Bussinessman/insider trader

is in any way superior to a "personal injury attourney".

And I don't know why you think they'd use that when they already have shown that "trial lawyer" is their prefurred attack

Edwards will just make the cogent point that Trial Lawyers are the only citizens with the power to hold corporate America acountable other than the the congress

[PurityOfEssence]

13. He's leading man material; crass, yes, but casting counts

John Huston said that ninety percent of directing is casting; he may have underestimated.

I'm not talking about "looks", otherwise Dan Quayle could have been an executive. It's not just the smile, it's the whole package: the ease and commanding--yet low-key--presence, the ringing rhetoric, the willingness to answer questions directly, the warmth, the feeling that he's listening and cares.

He would butcher Junior in a debate.

He's not the reluctant hero like Clark, he's not the stolid tower of rectitude like Kerry and he's not the dazzling firebrand like Dean. He's got true star quality, and he'd be a perfect choice to run against Junior.

There are no infidelity charges to insinuate, there's no money marrying crap to avoid, there's no image of being "eastern intellectual elite" to run from and he's not "old money".

There are many fewer inconvenient votes (voting against the '91 war is going to be a HUGE issue, as well it should) to have to equivocate or rebut.

Edwards is the best debater of the bunch, so much so, that there's really no comparison.

By strictly showman-like criteria, he is unquestionably the best candidate; bearing in mind how facile the broad public is, the conversation is best left at that: we need to win, and win so big that they can't steal it.

[spooky3]

14. well put.