Denied the No. 1 Slot, Edwards Positions Himself for No. 2

[Freddie Stubbs]

By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

Published: March 30, 2004


WASHINGTON, March 29 — Senator John Edwards was fielding questions the other day from a group of fifth graders visiting the capital from his home state, North Carolina, when someone asked, "What was it like running against John Kerry?"

Mr. Edwards quickly corrected the student. "I didn't really run against John Kerry," he said with a smile.

This whimsical attempt to erase any hint of a rivalry with the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee captured Mr. Edwards's delicate pas de deux these days: He is said by friends to yearn for the vice presidency but knows the dance of nonchalance that aspiring to the vice presidency requires.

Mr. Kerry has given no clues about what he is looking for in a running mate or when he might select that person, which leaves Mr. Edwards and all the other potential picks in a state of suspended animation.

more: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/30/politics/campaign/30EDWA.html?ex=1081227600&en=c937960054ef4739&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

[JohnLocke]

1. Go, Edwards, go!

[vi5]

2. My god, I really hope so....

Him or Clark. That would be the bump over the top that I think Kerry is going to need. Picking a safe, regional, non-threatening candidate will only backfire.

[LynzM]

3. Edwards or Clark

I would think would be excellent VPs...

[drumwolf]

4. Edwards should absolutely be VP.

He's a Southerner, the second most successful candidate in the primary and an extremely charismatic and mediagenic person. He would be a great person to help Kerry win, I think he'd be a fine VP, and he would make a great successor to Kerry. The single biggest knock against him that I've heard is his lack of experience, which would be a moot point once he was VP for eight years.

[rocktivity]

12. I think it's vital that the 2004 Dem VP be a viable 2012 successor

It worked for Clinton and Gore, as far as the popular vote went!

:headbang:
rocknation

[JI7]

5. attack dog ?

the article mentions this. that kerry will need a vp who is an effective attack dog. and edwards'campaign was mostly known and complimented for being positive. kerry as the presidential nominee can't go as negative because they are expected to be above it, and he is going up against the idiot anyways so anything kerry does negative will make people feel bad for the idiot and see kerry as picking on a stupid little man. and everyone knows cheney is in charge anyways so he needs to be exposed for the incompetent, ineffective, corrupt ,evil "leader" he is.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. Edwards is a formal trial lawyer

The strategy in the primary was to be Mr. Nice Guy, and it certainly propelled him to nearly the top of the pack. I am sure that he is capable of being an attack dog if the has to.

[spooky3]

22. Being nice to fellow Dems, who share most of your views, is the right

thing to do. (And, he was able to be nice yet get in zingers when appropriate.) But he has no need to restrain himself when it comes to Republicans. He would be fun to watch, and very effective, in going after those liars.

[citizen snips]

7. Check out this article on why Edwards would make a good VP.

While two states could hardly be less similar, the political destinies of North Carolina and Massachusetts have wrapped themselves around each other since at least the middle part of the 20th century.

In 1960, North Carolina's Terry Sanford became the first Southern governor to endorse a one-term U.S. senator from Massachusetts for president. The move virtually assured John F. Kennedy the Democratic nomination.

From 1972 to 2002, the two states represented ideological bookends in the Senate. North Carolina elected the "archconservative" Jesse Helms five times before his retirement in 2002. Ted Kennedy, the "ultra-liberal" of the Senate, still presides as Massachusetts' senior senator. In a twist, the presence of each man in the Senate helped keep the other's campaign coffers full of donations aimed at winning the ideological arms race.

This year, a week before the upstart Carolina Panthers faced the staid New England Patriots in the most exciting Super Bowl in history, the two states again offered our country an historic alliance.

http://www.draftkerryedwards.com/archives/000028.html

[rumguy]

8. Those two just look good together

[Auntie Bush]

13. Kerry and CLARK look much better together.

Edwards is to young and pretty looking and hard to imagine him in the position of Cheney. But I can see Clark just fine in Cheney's place. He is a distinguished officer and a gentleman with a smarp tongue that can kill Bush. I can't see Edwards doing that. He isn't the attack dog type. He didn't win all those trials by attacking (IMHO)...he won them by schmoozing and knowing the law. That's a very different skill than what is needed to be VP. Clark has the necessary skills and knowledge to fight the war on terrorism. That's what Kerry needs now. Kerry has all the necessary executive skills and experience needed and Edwards brings little to the ticket.

[Jai4WKC08]

9. What's up with this?

From the article:

"Mr. Edwards... has declined all requests for interviews since quitting the campaign on March 3."

And also:

"He (Edwards) also plans to start a political action committee to pay for his travel expenses and help make contributions to other Democrats. And his dance card is starting to fill with dates to campaign for his colleagues. He is the keynote speaker at the North Dakota nominating convention on April 3 on behalf of Senator Byron L. Dorgan, and he is to campaign with Senator Patty Murray in Washington State on April 12."

Don't get me wrong--campaigning for Congressional Democrats is a worthy cause. But why not speaking out for Kerry directly? I mean, if he's such an effective campaigner and all.... SO much better than some other former candidates, right?

[DemDogs]

18. He spoke for Kerry today on Wolf Blitzer

I think he probably took some time off, saw a little of his kids, etc.
Reminds me of McCain, who was so sought after by Rs after he lost in 2000.

[JI7]

19. those picked for vp are usually ones who lay low

it might not be in this case, but that has been a pattern when it comes to vp many times. so edwards is smart to just keep doing what he would usually do and not make it seem like he is "campaigning" for vp. i heard some of the guys clinton interviewed during the vp selection process ended up going out in public bragging and other things and their chances of being chosen turned to 0 with that.

[Leilani]

10. This article addresses my major concerns

It questions whether Edwards has the foreign policy credentials, & the heft to sit in the oval office during the war on terrorism.

When I go to war, I want a General.

When I go to court, I want the best lawyer I can find.

These are very different qualifications.

[JI7]

20. especially since he will be up against Cheney

and while most do vote for who is on the top of the ticket. ithink the bush/cheney ticket is an exception because i think most including bush supporters know cheney IS the one really in charge. remember the whole thing in 2000 was,"it's ok if bush isn't all that smart, he has such a great team around him". it was all about that "team" more than bush himself. so we need to show cheney for the evil corrupt bastard he is and take away the "great team" status they have among many voters.

[ronnykmarshall]

11. My mom keeps thinking it's gonna be Gephart.

[no name no slogan]

14. I like Geph, but....

he's got way too much baggage and experience to be a good veep choice. He'd also be giving up a safe seat in congress, as well as a very long and distinguished career as a representative.

Also, Geph would have to subvert himself and his opinions to the will of the Presidential candidate-- which can be very difficult for somebody who's used to being a "leader".

Gephardt is a fairly decent congresscritter, but I don't think he'd make a very good Veep candidate-- or VP for that matter.

[Nicholas_J]

15. Kerry will not make a selection

Until he sees how the poling continues to go regionally. If he dones not appear to be able to do well in more than half of the souther states, he will abandon a win with the south strategy, and Gephardt will be the chouce because Getpardt can deliver much in the mid-west and in the rust-belt. Neither Edwards or Clark can do that.

Right now Kerry is ahead in all of the states that Gore won in 2000, and is ahead in two states that Bush took in 2000. Ohio and Florida.
Thats taking 47 electoral votes away from Bush, and for the present, Bush is not winning in any of the states that Gore won in 2000, nad that is not only remaining firm, but in most cases Kerry is furtther ahead in many states than Gore won them by.

[tishaLA]

16. Kit Seelye can write what she wants

but she's always an idiot.

[citizen snips]

17. I hafta agree.

She is an idiot.

[robbedvoter]

21. Edwards as VP= f* responsibility for 9.11, Iraq wrongheaded war

The only message a pick like this would send would be: "OK, I will lay off 9.11 - please be nice to me". Not unlike Gore's "OK, I'll distance myself from Clinton by picking his basher - please be nice to me". That one worked well....


here's Edwards on the issues of the day:


"Can I just go back a moment ago -- to a question you asked just a moment ago? You asked, I believe, Senator Kerry earlier whether there's an exaggeration of the threat of the war on terrorism.
"It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/debatetranscript29.html
comments MI:
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i2scdebate.htm
That was completely absurd and a huge moment in this debate.  Edwards, whose weakest point already is his lack of gravitas and foreign policy credentials, now said flat out that he is incapable of understanding that, despite the fact that 9/11 occurred, the President could still have lied and exaggerated.
What does one have to do with the other?  The answer is nothing.

[deminflorida]

23. I don't think it's going to be very smart to have two Senators on

the ticket that voted for the Iraq War. Especially Gephardt...not unless Kerry is keen on pissing off his real base so far that some people stay home on election day.

What are they going to say Bush lied and duped both of them??? Let me see....

Bush/Cheney vs Dumb/Dumber

Nope, Gephardt or Edwards would be nothing shy of pissing away the opportunity the voters have given Kerry in sending * back to Crawford.

[JI7]

24. after Kerry, Edwards did the best

most voters wanted kerry and edwards.

[deminflorida]

29. Edwards did no better than Clark, he just stayed in longer....

As a matter of fact, Not being able to crush John Kerry in a state that you were born in says volumes about your capability to deliver at least your geographic area of origin.

The V.P. must have these qualities....

1. Solid on National Security in order to counter the GOP strong against terrorism platorm.

2. Experienced in Forgein Policy, *The running mate must aid in re-building the allied bridges the GOP has burned.

3. Having an in-sight into Economics.

4. Being able to at least deliver your home state or region of residence.

Remember - Eye on the Ball folks or we lose in November......

[Cuban_Liberal]

30. Ummm...

He DID crush Kerry in SC, for one, and for another, he did LOTS better than Wes Clark in thew primaries; yes, he did stay in longer, and do you know why? Because people kept voting for him, and he kept winning delegates AND the money kept coming in.

You can't spin Wes Clark's performance in the primaries as 'just as good' as edwards', because it wasn't.

[jsw_81]

25. But didn't Edwards tell us over and over and over that he didn't want it?

Are we all just supposed to forget that now? :shrug:

[Padraig18]

26. Clark said the exact same thing.

Your point would be what? :shrug:

[jsw_81]

27. That slick politicians like Edwards are full of it?

This guy told us for MONTHS that he wasn't the least bit interested in the vice presidency, but the moment he loses the nomination he's immediately out there trying to get the second slot on the ticket. Call me old fashioned, but I'm sick of these kinds of silly games.

[JI7]

28. oh, come on, lets get real

nobody who is running for president during the primary would say they would accept the vice presidency. it has nothing to do with being "slick". it's just they ARE trying to win the primary and saying they would accept the vp puts them off their game and gives people the perception their presidential run is not serious. even general clark said he would not be vp that he is running for president only. there is nothing wrong with that. it's just the way it's always been.

[Cuban_Liberal]

32. And Clark isn't?

I have as much proof that Clark is 'trying to get second slot opn the ticket' as you do that Edwards is. Your point?

[WI_DEM]

31. Edwards has no place else to go

he is obviously interested in being president and the best route to being president is being vice president so of course he wants it.