Edwards for VP-let's think ahead

[katieforeman]

Forget the old models. If we look at the situation today and think ahead John Edwards is hands down the best VP candidate. Here's why:

1.)The Vice Presidency is where we groom our future Presidents. With 8 years experience as VP, John Edwards would be Super Candidate in 2012-invincible.

2.) John Edwards is bar none the best campaigner in the Democratic Party right now. We need him out there everyday if we are goping to win. He would be the most effective for spokesperson for the Democratic message and he would help Kerry frame his message better and sharpen his rhetorical skill.

3.) John Edwards would bring his considerable organization and fundraising capabilities with him. He raised over 1 million dollars in the week before Super Tuesday. Democrats are going to need every dollar they can get to fend off the looming massive assault on Kerry.

4.) Even though Edwards might not deliver many Southern states as VP, he could at least make them contestable and force Bush to spend time and resources there. Furthermore, I think it's a mistake to pick a VP candidate based solely on the assumption that he/she could deliver their homestate. Al Gore lost TN in 2000. Gephart lost the Iowa primary (ok not his home state, but his neighboring state.) In this age of national media, state of origin matters less and less. We need a candidate like Edwards with appeal in every region of the country and in all of the battleground states.

5.) Some people have said we need an attack dog as VP and worry that Edwards is too nice to take on that roll. However, with his years of experience as a trial lawyer, Edwards knows how to attack and defend without looking mean. He is an attack dog whose bite is worse than his bark. In other words, he can do the work of an attack dog without sounding like an attack dog.

6.) Many of the people who voted for John Kerry seemed to be under the impression that they were voting for a Kerry/Edwards ticket. Any other nominee would have a hard time living up to the constant comparisons with Edwards that the media and public would make.
7.) Voters have shown they would be comfortable with John Edwards a heartbeat away from the Presidency. He has more experience on the national stage than Carter, Reagan, or Clinton when they were elected President. Furthermore, Kerry anbd Edwards were both beating Bush by about 10 points in National Polls. This would not be true if voters did not think Edwards could do the job.
8.) Edwards is a disciplined candidate with a short voting record. We should not have to spend a lot of time on damage control with him as VP.
9.) John Edwards has demonstrated appeal to disaffected Republicans and Independents.
10.) John Edwards has been vetted during the primaries and has gained experience and skill at running a national campaign.
Why do you think the conservative pundits have been talking down Edwards' strengths as a VP? They are scared to death of this man.
Sometimes the obvious choice is the best choice.

Please, please Senator Kerry and Democratic establishment, let's win this one. Pick Edwards.

[TruthWins]

1. I agree

Everything you say is true. Edwards on the ticket also is a great contrast to that leering old man Cheney on the other side. With him on the ticket it is even easier to portray the Democrats as the ticket of hope and the Repubs as the party of old boy cronyism and back room dealings, which is exactly what they are.

Edwards not being strong in the South is also not really a true statement. He and Clark no doubt split the vote that would have gone to just one of them in many of the southern states. If there had been no Clark in Virginia, Oklahoma, etc., Edwards fares much better there.

Kerry/Edwards should be the ticket, with Clark penciled in as Secretary of State so we can have him out there campaigning everyday as an integral part of the Kerry camp , too.

Those three together make a very strong case for voting Dem this year. I sure hope that's the way they go.

[katieforeman]

4. Great point about Cheney.

With Clark ar State or Defense and Edwards as VP, we would have a very strong team.

Of course many of the other democratic canididates should be in the administration also. We really did have a strong field of candidates this year.

[cosmokramer]

10. For heaven's sake...

...if I have said it once, I have said it a thousand times:

Clark cannot be Sec. of Defense. You must be out of the military for 10 years before your qualify.

Also, he isn't looking to be SOS. He is competing for VP, just like your man, and he shouldn't be pigeon holed in to FP only positions...he is so much more than that.

[jmoss]

12. I don't think there will be any position for Wes Clark with any visability

We're not going to have another General as Sec. Of State, in 2 consecutive administrations. And not enough people supported Wes Clark at the polls for him to be of any interest as VP.

[cosmokramer]

13. Do you not recall?

Excuse me, but you are WRONG! And your reasons are WEAK.

General Clark dropped out on Feb 10th. At the point of Feb 3rd, he finished AHEAD of Edwards in the placing in states. Ahead of Edwards in NH. 1st in Oklahoma (it wasn't a tie by the way). 2nd in NM, AZ, and ND. And on Feb 10th, close to Edwards in TN. All the while Edwards was the media darling--Clark still forged ahead, and did extremely well.

He dropped, and to say he didn't garner enough support to earn a VP or SOS slot is ridiculous. Since when is how someone finished in a primary race the criteria for being VP? The only reason Edwards is 2nd is because everyone else dropped. You must be very young to believe that how someone finishes in a Primary is the pre-cursor to being VP. It isn't.

Factually, KERRY SMOKED HIM!

Why? Because he has no foreign policy experience or plans. AND THE KERRY TEAM stated that they would choose a VP with foreign policy experience. That ain't Edwards. And they might not choose Clark. But it will definitely not be Edwards.

Sounds just like sour grapes from a Edwardian.

[democratreformed]

18. Cosmokramer

You are wasting your time. Some people never let an opportunity pass to make this statement. My patience is sorely tried by this repeated crap. Presenting them with facts does not work b/c they insist upon repeating over and over how much of a failure the Clark campaign was. I cringe every time I see a new thread with "Clark" and "VP" in the title b/c I know I will be treated to this same slime spewing forth from someone's keyboard.

[cosmokramer]

19. Some children are unwilling to learn

Neophites, for sure.

:-)
Thanks for the heads up!

[atre]

105. I don't mean to be rude, your "children" ad hominem smacks of projection

Every thread, you try to incite people by accusing them of being children. How old are you? Once again- I don't mean to be rude- but several things (spelling, grammar, quick temper) point to you being a child.

Cosmo, how about slowing down a bit here and treating other people with more respect. Not everyone likes Clark as a national ticket candidate. They are entitled to have that opinion without being personally attacked by you.

[jmoss]

31. DemocratReformed: I mean no ill will towards General Clark

Please respect the reality that Edwards supporters feel just as pationately about his political future as you & Clark-supporters do about that of the General.

You must understand that although I curse the media everytime they make early election predictions, or have a panel of bumbling right-wing extremists on TV, I have accepted promise over these past two weeks by how strongly the media has been calling for a Kerry-Edwards ticket. It was the driving force, in some respects, behind my, and my wife's perserverence in supporting the Senator however we could.

Whether General Clark ends up as the VP-candidate or not, will not affect me from puling the lever for John Kerry, and campaigning however I can in my ridiculously conservative State.

I think Edwards WOULD help in North Carolina, perhaps (not a lock--I know) swinging NC to the blue for once.

[democratreformed]

49. Neither would NOT have Clark on the ticket make a difference to me

Actually, I am pretty doubtful that he will be. I am prepared for that. What I was not prepared for was the continued marginalization of a very good man by many people who should not even care. I do not understand why he cannot be seen as having accomplished SOMETHING. No, he was not perfect. Maybe he didn't live up to some people's expectations. As for me, he EXCEEDED mine. I don't expect him to be VP. I would appreciate not having to read "dismal showing" as an excuse for why he will not be. He had a great showing for one absolutely new to politics and especially for one who was ridiculed by Democrats and Republicans alike.

There are many GOOD arguments about why he should NOT be VP without having to pretend that he accomplished nothing. That is what is fraying on my nerves and causing my patience to wear thin. I DO NOT CARE if John Edwards is chosen as VP. I do not see whay I have to constantly look at crap about my candidate by people who WANT him to be.

[cosmokramer]

50. Exactly.

...the sour-graped Edwards folks are just being nasty, and completely lacking judgement and reason.

After they Hugh Shelton'ed General Clark, they just continue.

[katieforeman]

60. reality check. Please go back and read the original post

and the first posts in this thread. Where are the insults to Clark. The first posts were actually complimentary to Clark. Somehow you managed to take offense that the compliments were not strong enough.

[democratreformed]

65. My reply was not to the original post or the first post

It was to the one that said the voting showed that Clark never had much support. I'm truly sorry if you thought it was directed at your original words as it was not.

[katieforeman]

59. Please read the original post and first posts in this thread.

I listed the reasons I thought Edwards would be the best VP. If you look back earlier in this thread I said Clark would be a good secratery of state or defense (although he appearantly can't be secratery of defense)

The idea that someone could support Clark for a mere cabinet position and Edwards for VP was appearantly enough to incite the rage of some Clark supporters.

This did not start out as an attack on Clark.

This was a post that began by supporting Edwards for VP and Clark for a cabinet position. It's the Clark supporters who felt the need to denigrate Edwards not the other way around.

We're all on the same side here. Kerry won the nomination fair and square. He has the right to pick his VP as he sees fit. I don't understand how the mere suggestion of someone other than Clark can incite so much vitriol.

Please go back and read the posts at the beginning of this thread. I said we had a strong field of candidates this year who could make significant contributions to the new administration.

[cosmokramer]

61. A strong field, except for Edwards.

The only one weaker is Dean.

[jenk]

98. edwards did better than clark in the primaries

and is younger, and is better on the stump. So that would make Clark the weaker VP pick.

[jenk]

97. he lashed out against edwards in replying to my post as well

sounds like he has some sort of vendetta against edwards, and I didn't even mention clark in my post.

[jmoss]

28. Age remarks are not appropriate forms of debate

If 27 is younger than you, then yes--I am young. But I am pretty sure, last time I counted, Edwards had always had more delegates than Wes Clark (since we're splitting hairs). And by no means should anyone minimize the effect of Edwards being a "darling" to our nation. People across this country told me time and time again how much they "really like that John Edwards..he's just a little young, and so I'll vote for Kerry". And just in case you want to accuse me of making this up, I campaigned out of my home, and out of an edwards office, calling New Hampshire, Tennessee & Wisconsin.

I have admired Geberal Clark ever since his candidacy was announced. He may make a fine politician someday.

The nation (though not you, or many left-wing DU'ers)essentially is ready for John Edwards to be their Vice President. He makes as much sense as Al Gore did in 1992.

[cosmokramer]

33. Give it up...

...you have neither the experience or your pulse on the democratic base.

Edwards will not get the VP bid. It might not be Clark either, but I know FOR CERTAIN it will not be Edwards.

I will keep letting you dream though. There is no point arguing with someone who doesn't understand how the system works--and Edwards was not the 'darling' of the nation. He was the 'darling' of the media. BIG DIFFERENCE.

BTW: I am MUCH older than you; I worked Carter campaign, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, and Gore. Experience matters.

[spooky3]

86. I'm older than you are and I disagree with you.

Does my age make my argument better than yours?

Jmoss has provided good points. You disagree with him. Fine, but you are showing the weakness of your argument by pulling "the age card" which is of no relevance in this conversation.

[katieforeman]

34. Why did Clark drop out?

Because he wasn't getting enough votes.

Clark was a frontrunner the day he anounced. It was his race to lose and he did. Clark's poll numbers went down from the day he anounced. Edwards went from single digits in the national polls to being the only one left with a shot of defeating Kerry.

Clark beat Edwards in NH by something like 300 votes even though Clark had skipped Ia and camped out in NH for weeks ahead of time. OK was a neighboring state to clarks own state and he didn't have a very high margin ov victory.

You must be really young to think somehow that where someone finishes in the primary is completely irrelevant and fp experience is the main determinent of vp selection.

Furthermore, Edwards has more FP experience than Reagan, Carter or Clinton when they were elected President.

[cosmokramer]

40. Neophite.

Dream on, Katie, dream on.

Your arguements make no sense whatsoever.

Kerry's rise took votes from Clark, not Edwards. And we all know that if Clark had campaigned in Iowa, Clark would be the nominee. Hindsight is 20/20.

And yes, how someone finishes in the primary is NOT relevant to selecting a VP...this day and age, FP is. And you clearly are too young to understand that simple fact.

[katieforeman]

42. Thanks for assuming I am so young.

A someone older, you should know that name-calling doesn't win arguments.

No we don't all know Clark would be the nominee if he had campaigned in IA. Clark didn't campaign in IA we have no way of knowing what would have happened if he did.

[cosmokramer]

46. As someone much older...

...I should no better than to try to talk sense into someone unwilling to listen or be objective.

Goodnight, Katie!

[jmoss]

67. someone older should know that....

..know, is spelled k-n-o-w, not no---as long as this senseless mud-slinging and age discrimination is being thrown at Katie and me. I see some people are suspending all decency, and claiming it's validity is based on maturity & knowledge.
Signed,
"George Costanza"

P.S. One does not need to have their finger on the "pulse" of the democratic party to feel strongly about wanting John Edwards to be their next vice-president. And I don't understand why some people, especially Clark supporters, feel the need to personally attack Edwards supporters, when they bring up the notion of Edwards for VP.

Furthermore, I find "cosomokramer's" remarks to be rude, ill-willed, and surprising for someone supposedly so "democratic" that they worked in the campaigns of our last 2 Democratic Presidents, and in the campaigns of the other 3 Democrats who ran against Reagan, Bush, Sr. & GE. It's uncalled for, and I would have to imagine that this person feels nothing more than "sour grapes", as was wrongly accused of myself.

[jmoss]

81. kick.

:kick:

[northernsoul]

21. In a debate, Edwards will beat Cheney like a rented mule

and be as charming as ever while he does it. Hell, Cheney would have to actually drop dead on stage to get any sympathy.

[katieforeman]

43. I can't think of two more polar opposite figures than

Cheney and Edwards. I'd love to see that debate.

[cosmokramer]

51. He can't debate foreign policy...

...with Cheney. He would get smoked.

Did you see him on MTP and Hardball? The guy can't effectively debate FP AT ALL. Cheney would eat him alive.

[katieforeman]

54. No- Edwards would be well prepared for that debate.

As an attorney he became an expert in medical issues. He learned enough about medicine to successfullly cross-examine experienced doctors.

Lawyers must become experts in the subject matter of their cases. A good trial attorney has a sharp analytical mind and the ability to absorb lots if information on any given subject.

[SangamonTaylor]

55. Debating Dick on FP is easy.

Just read up on PNAC and you've got all of his talking points.

Plus, people don't care about policy in debates, they care about charisma, the ability to think quickly, and the ability to effectively communicate (see Nixon/Kennedy).

Now we'll be hearing "Edwards doesn't have the foreign policy experience for VP" yadda yadda yadda. Foreign policy means nothing for a VP. Absolutely nothing. Unless, you want your VP running the foreign policy behind the scenes (see current administration).

[KittyWampus]

70. Well, Edwards Seems To Agree With PNAC "Talking Points"

and is happy to link 9/11 with Iraq.

Edwards basically has little to no experience in ANYTHING other than being a Trial Lawyer.

[katieforeman]

74. good point

[rocktivity]

78. Originally posted by SangamonTaylor

Now we'll be hearing "Edwards doesn't have the foreign policy experience for VP" yadda yadda yadda. Foreign policy means nothing for a VP. Absolutely nothing. Unless, you want your VP running the foreign policy behind the scenes (see current administration).

Exactly. All Edwards has to do is put Cheney's foreign policy experience "on trial"--it isn't as though it's worth its weight in gold. Besides, Edwards will have eight years to learn! We wouldn't have time to turn a Vilsak or a Richardson into a household name even if the mainstream media were on our side. Edwards would give us an invincible-looking, high-profile winning ticket now--AND eight years from now.

:headbang:
rocknation

[katieforeman]

83. Exactly!

[jmoss]

89. kick to you!

:kick:

[jenk]

99. i've alerted the moderator

about cosmokramer, he seems to like to pick fights.

[rocktivity]

2. I really don't know who can fill the bill better--any suggestions?

By being Southern, youthful, and dynamic, he balances the ticket perfectly, plus he can "keep the seat warm" for eight years without upstaging Kerry. The last thing we need is some low-profile no-name. PLEASE, John, don't blow it now!!!!

:headbang:
rocknation

[AP]

3. Here's how I see this playing out:

Edwards is the VP nominee. Goes head to head with Cheney in VP debates. Edwards has been spun as a hick without FP experience. Low expectations means Cheney barely prepares. Edwards comes out guns a blazing in debates, showing that good values can also make good FP, and that he has a total grasp of FP and national security issues, which have been hiding beneath the surface of oft-repeated, limited mantras so far. Clearly wins the debate.

[katieforeman]

6. I would enjoy that debate almost as much as Edwards vs Bush

This is where I think Edwards experience as an attorney could help as well. In Four Trials, Edwards described how he would treat the defendent politely, but not let him get away with an untrue statement. He would then let the defendent hang himself with his own arrogance. Who has more arrogant rope to hang himself with than Dick Cheney? (ok mayby Bush or Rumsfeld)

[On the Road]

5. This One is Important:

"5.) Some people have said we need an attack dog as VP and worry that Edwards is too nice to take on that roll. However, with his years of experience as a trial lawyer, Edwards knows how to attack and defend without looking mean. He is an attack dog whose bite is worse than his bark. In other words, he can do the work of an attack dog without sounding like an attack dog. "

That's what Clinton can do. It's very effective for people who have the ability.

[katieforeman]

7. Absolutelely, JRE wasn't the most feared plaintiff's

attorney in NC for nothing.

[cosmokramer]

8. No. He isn't the best choice for one of many simple reasons...

HE HAS NO FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Kerry will choose someone with FP/Military/Diplomatic experience.

Period.

Look for Richardson, Clark, or Vilsack (sic).

And it won't be a Senator or other legislator. It will be someone outside the legislative branch of government.

Two senators on a ticket would be suicide.

[jmoss]

11. I disagree with premise that 2 Senators would be suicide

"...And it won't be a Senator or other legislator. It will be someone outside the legislative branch of government.
Two senators on a ticket would be suicide...."

I would have to disagree.

Case in point. The last Senator to win the Presidential General Election was from Massachessetts, and selected a civil rights activist Senator from the South (granted it was Texas, and LBJ had much more experience than Kennedy--none the less, Edwards).

In this case, it wouldn't even be as close an election as Kennedy vs. Nixon. The man at the top of the Dem. ticket has been in Government, and has more foreign relations experience than the incumbant President. And so Kennedy & Johnson, had about as much combined experience as Kerry & Edwards.

Furthermore, looking ahead, Edwards would be a lock for the nomination in 2012, at the perfect age of 59: 6 years as Senator, 4 to 8 years as Vice President!

[cosmokramer]

14. Not going to happen.

I guarantee it.

The Kerry campaign said they would absolutely require their VP pick to have foreign policy experience.

That ain't Edwards.

[atre]

29. Cite?

I see this everywhere on this board... It just now struck me that every single time I've seen that posted, it's been by you!

Please back that statement up.

[cosmokramer]

32. CNN, MSNBC

Olberman last night on MSNBC.

CNN several weeks ago on Inside Politics.

Harold Ford of TN in an interview on one of the cable news channels a few weeks ago.

And the State of Ohio chair for the Kerry campaign (who is a personal friend).

That enough for ya?

[jmoss]

37. I agree it's a long shot, but based on JK's recent speeches

...in all honesty, is there anyway the tide could be changing--to where Edwards could end up back on the "list".

The "list" a Raleigh NBC-affiliate ran last night was as follows:


Evan Bayh
Wesley Clark
John Edwards
Dick Gephardt
Bob Graham
Hillary Clinton
Bill Richardson

Any thoughts (if not Clark or Edwards)...?

[cosmokramer]

44. Unless Edwards can pull FP policy exp. out of his...

...resume, he won't be back on 'the list'.

The campaign also won't pick another current Senator or current Congressperson...it would leave an unbalanced ticket.

For those reasons, knock off Bayh (who wouldn't win his own state anyway--Indiana is about as red as Utah), Hilary, Gephardt. Graham was a Governor, so he still has a chance to be VP--though I love him dearly, I don't think he can add any other state than possibly Florida...and with Jeb there, Florida is no guarantee. Think Black Box Voting>

Richardson has the BEST chance, honestly. He is a Gov (executive experience), has FP credentials, has STRONG appeal in the southwest, will make NM a lock, CA a lock, and possibly tilt Arizona to the Dems. Hell, he might even tilt Texas (depends on how pissed off Texans are toward Bush, and how much hispanic population votes).

Perhaps the Gov of Iowa would work, too. Doubtful, though.

Max Cleland is a possibility as well. Though the general sheeple out there may be uncomfortable with his physical disabilities (stupid sheeple).

And there are others I am sure no one has thought of. Eliot Spitzer of NY comes to mind, but Kerry won't pick another New Englander, and I don't believe Spitzer has FP experience.

THINK South/Southwest/Midwest non-legislative candidate with Foreign Policy/Diplomatic/Military Experience able to jump in and take over should the need arise. That ain't Edwards, Gep, or Bayh.

[jmoss]

69. NY State AG for VP, reall?!!

He's on record as being tough on New Paltz mayor, but " looking into" the constitutionality of same-sex marriage in NY. As a born & raised New Yorker, I would be amused, but not many people know of other State's political players.

I have to agree that Gov. Richardson is a strong possibility. He has been on record as saying he wants to remain Gov. of NM. Do you believe that is just a show of gratitude towards his constituents, or a hard-lined stance.

(P.S. I defended myself against your "age & maturity" remarks in another thread. I would like you to please consider my remarks with an open mind.)

[katieforeman]

72. The reason I don't think it should be Richardson

is the baggage he brings with him from his tenure at the Department of Energy. The Republicans beat him up pretty bad over the spying scandels and we don't need to have to defend that again in a campaign that's shaping up around national security.

I really like Bill Richardson, but think he would be best in a cabinet position. It's a shame he was the fall guy at the department of energy for things I don't believe were his fault.

[katieforeman]

45. some thoughts on the others

Gephart- We have to defend Kerry's 19 years of votes. Do we want to have to defend Gephart's even longer record? I'm from OH and think Edwards helps Democrats more in Midwest than Gephart.

Bayh or Nunn- the most charasmatically challenged ticket ever. bayh wouldn't help in OH as much as Edwards would.

Clark- toog prone to gaffs and he doesn't seem to have a vice-presidential mindset.

Richardson- Republicans love beating up on him. The scandels that ocurred during his tenure at the department of energy could really hurt during a campaign about national Security.

Hillary Clinton- we don't need to excite the right -wing base or make our ticket seem more liberal in the minds of swing voters.

[cosmokramer]

62. I am from Ohio...

...and part of the party here.

Edwards isn't as loved as you think. He couldn't even get a union hall to give him space for a rally and had to have it in the airport! LOL

Your contentions are not based in good, sound reason and are clouded by your love affair with Edwards.

Edwards was toast in Ohio--Gephardt on the ticket here would mean Ohio goes Dem 100%--Gephardt is a God here. Edwards is not.

Have fun playing your 'I love Edwards' game...it isn't going to last much longer.

[katieforeman]

73. I grew up in Dayton, OH

and spend at least a couple of months there every year. Most of my family still lives there. Everyone I know there either voted for Edwards or voted for Kerry because they Kerry was more electable. The ones who thought Kerry was more electable wanted Edwards for VP.

Sure Gephart would get %100 of the Democratic vote if he were on the ticket but he wouldn't be as successful with Independents or Moderate Republicans in my opinion.

[atre]

102. No, that's not enough

Not a single one is verifiable in any way. They are all sufficiently vague that they could not be checked over even with a Lexis-Nexis search.

Do you not understand the purpose of providing citations?

[Carolina]

35. Kerry better wise up

and choose someone dynamic and outspoken like Clark or Edwards. No unknowns, no mealy-mouthed conservative Dem from a single state in hopes of securing that state, no Senate wimpocrats (e.g. Lieberman, Landrieu, Breaux, Bayh)...!

This is do or die and people do not vote for the bottom of the ticket; they vote for the top and then the whole package. People also do not vote for resumes (does Gore v Bush bring back any nightmares); they vote for the person, for likeability.

I was for Clark and think he'd be great in any position in a Kerry administration but I am leaning toward a Kerry-Edwards ticket because Edwards has more national recognition added to a charisma/charm factor, a fast-on-his-feet factor and a smoothness/cut-to-the-chase with words factor that will shore up Kerry and absolutely clean Cheney's clock.

[katieforeman]

41. I think another advantage of Edwards is that he

has more experience running a national campaign now. Furthermore, Clark despite his obvious intelligence and acheivements tends to make too many gaffs out there on the campaign trail. Clark should be in the administration, but we need Edwards campaigning skills to help us win.

[Carolina]

64. hi katie

:hi: I totally agree

[katieforeman]

76. Hey Carolina

Great minds think alike.:toast:

[katieforeman]

38. When Carter was running did you say....

that a governor from a small state can't be President?

Afterall, I can't hink of any governors of small states that became President before Carter (mayby there were some before WWII- but there was no recent precednet for Carter winning the Presidency when he was elected.

Historicism is not the way to go here. Let's look at the situation to today and thonk ahead. Then Edwards is hands down the best choice.

[jmoss]

9. This is a letter I've sent to Jom Johnson (search committee)

March 3, 2004

Dear Senator Kerry,

I am a born & raised New Yorker (Bethpage, NY), who graduated from UNC-Chapel Hill, and now lives in North Carolina with my wife of 2years. Senator Edwards' announcement as a presidential candidate, emergence as a contender, and subsequent solidification as an eloquent, powerful, national-public figure has meant so very much to my family and me.

I support your campaign 100%. My entire family and I, both here and in New York, WILL be voting for you--regardless of whom you ask to be your running mate.

The reality, however, is that the Tar Heel State, for reasons unbeknownst to me, has traditionally voted democratic for Governor, but GOP for President.

I am writing to you, with my heart on the table, asking you to strongly consider selecting Senator Edwards to run for Vice President, along side you in this campaign.

Granted he only "won" 1 Primary. But I hope and pray that you consider the unexpected success he generated, and the buzz that has been created about him, particularly in key swing States as TN, GA & OH. And all else equal to the outcomes of the 2000 election, is that if the Honorable John Kerry & the Honorable John Edwards were to run in NC, together, THIS could become an unexpected "blue" State come November. That would have been enough “swing” for Vice President Gore, and could win you the White House!

Beyond the data you and your advisors consult on such decisions, rest assured--John Edwards is "very" popular down here. I won't quantify that for you--yet, just ask that you consider this as fact.

In closing, I want to pass on our deepest congratulations on a fantastic campaign. The only other person I ever wanted to win the nomination besides Sen. Edwards was you! J

Sincerely,
J Moss
-Special Ed. Teacher, age 27

[katieforeman]

47. Great letter J

My Dad's a special ed teacher in OH and he voted Edwards too.

How did you get the address for writing your letter?

[jmoss]

71. Actuslly, I just emailed copies to:

Kerry HQ
Jim Johnson's consulting firm
& Senate offices.

I'll keep trying to find better addresses. I urge anyone to send letters, and email the Kerry campaign, or John Kerry himself.

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[DjTj]

15. Erskine Bowles, Brad Carson, and Inez Tenenbaum...

Edwards could help us win back the Senate.

[Carolina]

36. abso--friggin--lutely

because what good is a Dem president against almost 60 repuke senators!

[elsiesummers]

16. As an Edwards supporter, I see two, possibly three, VP contenders.

First is Edwards - and I agree with the overall points - I think it is his campaign skills that make him a great choice. If Edwards - then they need to target NC and VA with a vengence.

Second is Gephardt. I think Gephardt's skills have been underrated, he also is from working class roots, and he might bring Missouri. Downside - does not set party up for 2012 and not as charismatic as Edwards - might look like an all Dole sort of ticket.

Third is Richardson - although he most recently has said he made a promise to stay in NM. Hispanic vote - could be a plus - but how many prejudiced yellow dog middle of the road Dems might be turned off by a Latino? I know this is awful (the same sort of question asked of Lieberman) but there it is.

Gov. Ed Rendell - good campaigner and Penn and Ohio potential - strong Dem credentials - maybe a bit DLC. I'd like to see him take down Cheney, too.

After these four, I really think the list goes down hill.

Bayh is a good speaker/campaigner - but he only adds to the elitist DLC charge, and there is doubt that he could bring Indiana. So, won't excite base but might bring mushy middle. He has a big war chest right now. Has a history of caving to corporate types and taking lots of Accounting firm donations. He would set Dem party up for 2012, like Edwards.
Also - we would lose another Senate seat with Bayh out.

Clark - great resumé but does not set up game board for 2012, and doesn't have a firm handle on domestic policy. If I thought Clarks skills as a campaigner would be improved, he would rank higher on my list because of military creds and good looks. I'm afraid he'll say something really dammaging and the whole campaign might be about controlling the Clark dammage.

Dean - too dammaged by media and too much venom between Kerry and Dean - and doesn't help with a new region - but could excite the left of the base. I wish that Dean were a more strategic choice because I really would like to put him in the number two slot, behind Edwards.

Breaux, if he could bring Louisiana (and maybe other Southern states), might be the biggest ticket help, strategically - but he is pro-life so probably not a palatable choice for the Dem party (and I have problems with him for this reason - a huge compromise).

Graham - way too uncharismatic and a bit odd sometimes (diaries for example) - but worse yet, I don't think he can or will pull Fla - Gore tried the Fla strategy last time with Jeb as Governor - let's not go though that again.

Here is a wild card - how about Gary Hart? Colorado would be helpful and he might provide some newsworthyness - and helps on Homeland Security.

Wild card #2 - McCain - problem with him having actually campaigned for Bush - recently. Could really work strategically and I think he could be surprisingly palatable to many Dems.

[AP]

20. Edwards as Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State would be funny as...

...hell.

[kentuck]

17. Edwards would be the logical choice...

and an excellent choice also, in my opinion.

[citizen snips]

22. I saw Edwards at Broughton High School .

He did not say what his future will be but I am sure he will run for president in the future.

[jmoss]

26. I was there too, MattMan-

I almost got shut out, but a nice woman let me in with "staff and family". I was standing off to John Edwards' left-center. It was great to see him in person!

:yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock:

[citizen snips]

52. I was standing on the stage.

I was standing on the right side of the stage near Erskin Bowles.

[katieforeman]

57. Awesome!

Hopefully, one day you'll be able to sayy you were at his inauguration.

[citizen snips]

58. Yup.

I can't wait until Edwards runs again.

[littlejoe]

23. There's only one problem. Edwards is a senator, and we need

all the senators we can get our hands on.

I haven't quite figured it out, but to me, a senator is out of the question.

Governor? Yes.

Congressman? Yes.

[citizen snips]

24. We have Erskine Bowles.

He is fully capable for retaining Edward's seat.

[jmoss]

75. come to think of it, I do remember seeing Mr. Bowles there.

He was standing with two African-American gentlemen, off to Edwards' right. I saw you, but just don't remember exactly--sorry!

[elsiesummers]

25. Edwards is retiring from the Senate. That ship has sailed.n/t

[littlejoe]

39. You mean he's one and done, so to speak?

[atre]

27. Well, he's not even running for re-election as Senator

So having him as the VP candidate does absolutely nothing to hinder our chances of retaking the Senate.

[BruinAlum]

30. I don't think so, only because I think Edwards isn't the kind of guy that

wants to sit on the sidelines and wait for 8 years to play quarterback. Just a hunch.

[katieforeman]

53. I bet he doesn't want to sit on the sidelines for one

of the most important elections in our country's history.

VP now is his best shot at President in the future.

[katieforeman]

56. I just remembered.

The NYTimes article about the supposed Kerry-Edwards tiff mentioned Kerry and Edwards having dinner together to comiserate about being passed up for VP by Al Gore. He was willing to play second fiddle before. Hopefully, he hasn't changed on that count.

[JohnKleeb]

48. I would love Edwards as VP

Kerry-Edwards is my dream ticket well other than Kucinich and somebody.

[jmoss]

68. kick.

I second that!

:kick: :kick: :pals:

[w4rma]

63. I agree. (n/t)

[elsiesummers]

66. This thread is too long but Edwards is the best choice. Need a new thread.

[spooky3]

77. Excellent post, Katie. May I borrow from it in writing

to Kerry's selection committee?

[katieforeman]

79. absolutely Sppoky

I'll be doing the same thing. The more people they hear it from the better.

However, I am going to be sure to change #2 to be more complimentary toward Kerry.

I'm also posting on other blogs and plan on writing letters to the editor. We need to make sure Edwards is on the ticket.

You can also go to www.draftkerryedwards.com to sign a petition there.

[spooky3]

84. Thanks, Katie. Jmoss has been kind enough to PM me

with this info so I am rarin' to go!

[nator311]

80. bad for the ticket

He was a trial attorney, meaning Bush will bring up the issue of lawsuit abuse. People overwhelmingly agree with Bush on this issue. Even though I consider myself to be a strong democrat, I have been convinced that lawsuits are contributing to the healthcare crisis that we are having now. I would like to see Bill Nelson (the Florida Nelson) to be the runningmate. He has the whole astronaut thing going, works in a bi-partisan matter, fairly good speaker, and from an important state. He has changed his views on abortion over time, but so did Gore. Another example is Hubert Humphery. He totally switched his position on the Vietnam War near the end of the 1968 campaign, and gained like 20 points in the polls.

[katieforeman]

82. Some fair points- but disagree

Most people who know the name John Edwards also know he was a trial lawyer, yet he and Kerry were both beating Bush by about 10 points in national polls. Furthermore, Faircloth tried to attack Edwards for this in NC Senate race and it didn't work. Despite being a trial lawyer in a very conservaitve state, Edwards managed to unseat an incumbent Republican Senator. It's very difficult to attack Edwards for being a trial lawyer without attacking his very sympathetic clients.

I like Nelson and you make some good points in his favor. However, the help he might give us in FL could be outwiehged by the votes he might cost us in other key battleground states due to his change in positions on abortion. The main Republican line of attack against Kerry is to use his voting record to portray him as a flip-flopper who can't be trusted because he doesn't really believe in anything. We can't have a VP who is vulnerable to the same line of attack due to his changing abortion views. This is not 1968 and abortion is not Vietnam. We need to avoid having a ticket that can be labelled as panderers or flip-floppers.

Also, we really need Nelson in the Senate. Edwards has already retired his Senate seat so we might as well make use of his extraordinary campaigning skills.

[spooky3]

85. In addition, JRE has written a short, brilliant piece

that takes apart the arguments often used to promote "tort reform" and proposes better alternatives for solving real problems.

"Let's Keep Doctors in Business"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13116-2003May19?language=printer

[katieforeman]

88. Spooky, thanks for posting this great link.

[spooky3]

94. You're welcome. This article was what turned the tide for me last summer.

[Carolina]

87. right again, katie

I cannot understand why so many DUers want to diminish our Senate numbers by choosing a sitting senator who has not announced retiremnet. If Kerry wins, he would be completely impotent should the Senate swing even more repuke with an almost veto proof number of 60. If Kerry tapped Nelson, imagine who Jebbie would appoint to replace him ... :evilfrown:

Selecting a dry person from one state in hopes of garnering that state's electoral votes is not a winning strategy. Kerry needs someone with broad, not merely local, appeal. We don't have time, money or energy to spend introducing someone new to the general public for the GE. Edwards is already primed and ready; he is already known and has demonstrated his vote getting ability. People vote for a person (and likeability) not a resume. Edwards has enough of a resume (without too many Washington years to damn him) and plenty of charm.

He's the one.

[julialnyc]

90. I do not agree!

I really don't agree. Edwards has the same experience as Kerry, just less of it. In Kerry's VP choice he needs to fill in holes in his campaign. Edwards has zip on National Security (the main theme that Bush is running on and will attack Kerry on), he helped write the Patriot Act, and is another senator (legislative vs executive). I think Wesley Clark, Bill Richardson, or someone like that is much better.
Edwards may be a great campaigner, but he is not running for President anymore and I don't think he helps in a supporting role. I think he would be a great Attorney General, and will probably make a great President in the future.

[katieforeman]

91. disagree

-People don't go into the voting booth and say "we need a President , vice-presidential team with legislative and executive experience." I'm sorry but I really don't think anyone votes like that.

-Edwards does not have zip national security experience. He has more national security experience than Reagan, Clinton, Carter or Bush 1 when they were elected President. He has been a member of the Senate Intelligence Community. He was one of the first Senators to travel to Afghanistan and meet with Musharif and other leaders in this very critical region. Bush couldn't name the leader of Pakistan in 2000? How can they possibly attack him for his inexperience and maintain that Bush did a good job as Presdient despite his initial inexperience.

-Clark accentuates Kerry's largest negative. Republicans are going to try to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper who can't be trusted. They will use Clark's comments etc to amplify this belief about the Democratic ticket. I have nothing against Clark personally but this what they will attack the ticket on- Clark used to be a Republican-now he's a democrat, Clark said he was against the war and then said he would have voted for the Iraq War Resolution, He flip-flopped on abortion, he's quoted saying nice things about Bush admin at Republican fundraiser and then he's on the campaign trail attacking them. Adding Clark will only hurt Kerry's crdibility-his biggest vulnerability. Clark is obviously very intelligent but he is too prone to gaffs to put out on the campaign trail everyday.

-Richardson was head of the Department of Energy when we had the spy scandels. This would hurt us on National Security.

[julialnyc]

95. Clark won't hurt Kerry

Clark only said nice things about the administration because it was right after 9/11. He never flip flopped on the war. Matt Drudge took an piece of a long speech where he said we needed to go into Iraq (that was the part the media ran wit), but that they wouldn't be a threat for another 5 years, and he went on to predict the chaos that happened after the war (again stating a reason not to go right now. On abortion he simply said that he personally doesn't believe in abortion, but he believes it is every woman's choice to choose.
I also think the fact that Clark voted republican in the past is not a bad thing. All democrats are going to vote democrat, the votes that we need are the independents and the fed-up republicans. I think Clark proves you don't have to pick a party, you need to pick the best leader. Kerry will win this election by bringing in people that voted for Bush last time around. Clark used to be the Supreme Commander of NATO, that is very good for the independents who are frightened by Bush, but think Kerry is weak on defense.

[katieforeman]

92. Kerry and Edwards were both beating Bush in National Polls

by about 10 points. That would not have been the case if people did not trust Edwards on National Security.

[citizen snips]

93. Bingo!

n/t

[GreenInNC]

96. Look at the Electoral Votes

NC is tied for the 9th most EC votes with 15. I don't think any of the other VP candidates have that many in their home states except maybe Bob Graham

[jenk]

100. Edwards is a rising star in the Democratic party

adding him to the ticket to balance out kerry would be perfect. He's a great campaigner with a great message, plus we can look forward to having a strong candidate in 2012, he'll only be 58 by then, other suggestions would already be in there late 60's

[citizen snips]

101. Edwards will be back.

Edwards has the charisma to draw crowds. Edwards has done great things for the Democratic party. He will definitely be running for president in the future.

[Hippo_Tron]

103. My problem with Edwards...

He won't deliver his home state and probably won't deliver us any states that Kerry didn't already have. The ideal VP would be the popular democratic governor of Ohio but since he/she doesn't exist we do need to find an alternative.

[atre]

104. Nominating a Veep to carry a state rarely ever works...

A VP should be someone who fits in with the image that the presidential nominee wants to send. This is traditionally how they've been selected.

Look at Bush/Cheney. Cheney was from Texas, but he made many people think that the neophyte who didn't know the name of any foreign head of state had some foreign policy credibility. Reagan/Bush and Bush/Quayle were VP selections for the purpose of creating a "balance image." The conservative ideologue chose a moderate, and when the moderate had his chance, he selected a conservative ideologue as VP. Clinton/Gore was also a balance ticket, but it was more to achieve outsider/insider balance.

In the television age, probably the most important thing is visual image and telegenics. Neither Graham nor Clark pass that test. Graham doesn't pass the looks test, and Clark can't give a three-minute speech without looking straight down at his notecards every fifteen seconds.

[katieforeman]

106. We need to consider all of the battleground states and the Senate

and house.

Edwards could at least make some Southern states contestable and help Democrats hold onto more congressional seats there.

Furthermore, it's better to have a vp that helps in all of the battleground states. Choosing a vp based solely on the assumption that he/ she would casrry their home state is a mistake. In the first place they might not carry their home state. In the second place, if they bring enough negatives to the ticket a vp might deliver his/her home state but cost us several other battleground states.

For example, assuming Gephart could carry MO, his 30 plus years in Congress would exacerbate Kerry's greatest vulnerability. Can you imagine how many tax increases the two of them most have voted for? Also, the main line of attack against Kerry is that he flip-flops and follows rather than leads public opinion. Gephart and Kerry voted differently on the 87 billion. It would be even more difficult for Kerry to explain his votes if his running-mate was explaining why he voted exactly the opposite.

Edwards brings few if any negatives and his superior campaigning skills would be an asset in all of the battleground states.

[DemDogs]

107. Edwards reaches voters in South and rural areas

better than Kerry can, and it is clear from listening to Edwards in Raleigh that he can use his skills to sell Kerry to voters who might be predisposed to dislike him.
Edwards will not have to explain away a bunch of votes that vary from Kerry's because there are just not that many of them -- like there were for Gore and Lieberman.
Most all Edwards is the fighter Kerry needs in his corner.

[katieforeman]

108. Edwards reaching rural voters is another good point.

Many of the battleground states have large rural populations.