Chris Matthews & His Repuglican Freaks Wants Edwards, BADLY

[Dinger]

Thay all say he is the "obvious choice."
The only other one they mentioned was Gephardt.
Give me a godamn break! No mention of Clark. Telling, very telling.

[KissMyAsscroft]

1. Edwards IS the obvious choice...

He had the most votes besides Kerry and would help in the South. Clark could fill a cabinet post of some sort.

[Dinger]

5. "Of Some Sort" Clark doesn't need any bones , thank you

Your response has a hint of disrespect there. Don't get cocky please : )

[KissMyAsscroft]

9. Cocky?

Obviously, I wasn't nominating the guy for dishwasher...he would most likely be Sec of Def....lighten up.

[Jai4WKC08]

20. Can't be Sec of Defense

Clark hasn't been retired from the military for 10 years.

[Dinger]

28. OK, Condescending

[KissMyAsscroft]

34. Condescending?

Are you in love with CLark of something? Did Edwards kick your puppy?....chill out homie.

[Dinger]

41. Kiss My Asscroft . . .

OK, I'll chill out. No hrad feelings (I hope), ok? No, I am definitely not in love with Clark. In fact, Edwards was my guy till Clark came along. I liked ( and still do) a lot of things about Edwards, and his looks and speaking ability were not among them, even though they are good, really good. My favorite thing about him was the way he successfully fought the corporations, and his comfort with "everyday" people. Then Clark came along, after the W-ar got worse, much worse. I looked at his broad range of experience and leadership, and as a result wanted to learn more, whichconvinced me that Clark was the man. The "clincher" for me was the 60 MinutesII interview. I will be thrilled to be proven wrong (I really will), but I think and believe that with Edwards as VP, we lose the election and any chance of Clark being President is forever lost. Peace man, and sorry that I came on so strong. This is really an excellent board, and I'm not just saying that.

[PVnRT]

11. Eh?

Frankly, I think Clark would be better as Secretary of State rather than VP - it would be a chance for him to flex his diplomatic muscles, which are very strong indeed.

As VP, on the other hand he would do.....something, I'm sure. Cast tiebreakers in the Senate and such.

[surfermaw]

52. Edwards four years ago wasn't parising the rep.GWB

That is one reason he is going to be the VP.

[Syrinx]

2. I think I would want Edwards too if I were gay or if I were a woman

;)

[Dinger]

22. I'm Sick Of Hearing About Edwards' "Winning Smile, and great Stump Speakin

We need a helluva lot more than that to beat idiot boy and his war criminal cabinet.

[Scoopie]

43. I'm a woman

and I don't want Edwards.
My gay male friend in the office is Clark-lover, too. :P

[sadiesworld]

3. Of course, they're scared shitless of Clark...

he pushes Kerry into the unbeatable column.

[shraby]

4. If Edwards isn't chosed as v.p.

I'd like to see him as Attorney General!!

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. Now I see possibilities as Attorney General.

I just had a vision of a young and vibrant Robert Kennedy.

[surfermaw]

53. Not to worry there will be a democrat on the VP ticket

Edwards

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DjTj]

8. If Kerry gets his ass kicked...

...it won't have anything to do with the VP choice...

A VP has never swung an election from a landslide one way to another - it can really only make a difference at the margins, especially for this election at this point in time.

...and the truth is, if Kerry loses in a landslide, the Edwards people and many Democrats across the country will say, "Maybe we should have gone with Edwards instead of Kerry."

[The Backlash Cometh]

17. I disagree.

Lieberman's milquetoast performance with regards to the military ballots probably cost Gore at least 532 votes. He allowed the rules to be changed in the middle of an election, and those changes may have cost Gore the election.

[DjTj]

54. 532 votes is not a landslide...

...although the post has now been deleted, the original post was about Kerry getting his "ass kicked."

A VP can certainly make a difference with a small number of voters, but it will not cause a landslide one way or the other.

Except for Johnson in '60, I don't think you can make an argument that the VP ever was an absolute determining factor.

Lieberman's mediocre performance was a tiny factor in a sea of factors that sank Gore, and he definitely isn't the main thing people point to.

[JI7]

56. right, people will vote more based on Kerry

the vp is important more when it's a close race which this may or may not be. if kerry wins or loses in a landslide it will be mostly due to him. if it's a close race then there might be a case made as to how much the vp helped to win or how he could have won with someone else. but in the end it will be mostly about kerry.

[AP]

67. If Johnson made a difference it was because he was so connected.

He was the Senate majority leader and he had connections all over America. He could pull strings, cash in chits, and create votes.

(It's kind of like Bush I, who also had spook and oil connections and could make things happen as VP)

I don't think there's a Democrat in America who could do that this year. Maybe Gephardt with the labor vote, but Labor has lost a few races to shear charisma in recent years (eg, Granholm in the MI primaries in 2002). I think I'd go with Charisma over Power Broker for the VP this year.

[Dinger]

19. This is not like any other election

The VP choise will be extremely important in my opinion.

[AP]

10. Clark doesn't have to be VP to threaten Bush. He just needs to campaign

for Kerry and have some role in the next administration, sort of like Colin Powell (and I don't think Powell even campaigned that much for Bush).

[Crunchy Frog]

7. I always try to stear clear

of candidates that the RW media whores seem to be most enthusiastic about.

I just hope that Kerry understands what side the media is on.

[PVnRT]

12. Great, here we go

The conspiracy has begun... :eyes:

[Dinger]

29. OK, So We All Shut Up, Right?

[PVnRT]

45. Did I say that?

My, we are sensitive. If you are unable to have an opinion of yours mocked and argued against, you really shouldn't be on a message board.

[Jai4WKC08]

32. If you don't think there's a RW media

with an agenda their not shy about promoting, you really need to wake up to reality.

We can argue or discuss how they operate or even what their objectives are, but to deny the "conspiracy" (or try to make the word sound paranoid) is just stupid.

[PVnRT]

44. Ummmm

I have never denied that there is a right-wing media.

It's just that this is the same shit that people were saying during the primaries - they "want" Dean, or they "want" Kerry, or they "want" Edwards, or whatever. It is nothing more than a smear against against one person or the other.

You need to wake up to what everyone around here has been doing and saying for the past six months.

[Jai4WKC08]

49. It's no smear

And calling it that is hardly thoughtful discussion.

Do you think the RW media just sat back and let the primaries unfold? You think they had no interest in who won? Yeah right.

[Cuban_Liberal]

55. Insert favortie 'It's all a conspiracy against Clark' meme here....

:eyes:

[Darkamber]

57. I don't believe this...

From the right all you hear about is the "liberal media". It's all the Liberal media's fault. They are promoting their own agenda.

On the left I hear this "RW Media" promoting their agenda.

The fact of the matter is the media is interested in a story and making money. Whatever story can get you to look at it and keep your attention, then they promote it. Do individuals in the media have political slants? Yes, and some of them, especially in talk radio, stay on because of their appeal to certain groups.

I don't buy into this "RW and LW" media as the cause or the root of all evils in reporting. It's a sad excuse that both sides use and moderates like myself hear it and turn off to it.

And Matthews has slammed Edwards in the past.

[Dinger]

47. One More Thing . . .

I'm sort of thinking out loud right now.... Whenever the Democrats get too close to the truth, this misadministration cries foul by saying there's a conspiracy theory of some kind. I don't really think there is one, not by the Dems anyway.

[Bombtrack]

13. If you didn't notice. There's nothing to indicate Matthews wants Bush to

win. For the last few months he's been alot harder on Bush, at least harder than he is on dems.

He was against the war, and he knows Kerry on a personal friendly basis

[GalleryGod]

14. He called Ray-Guns "Out to Lunch" with McCain yesterday.

It was a pisser!

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. Obvious choice for conservatives, maybe.

The fact that Chris Matthews is endorsing him, is enough for me to take him off the short list.

[Disturbed]

18. J. Kerry /W. Clark

This would be a strong ticket.

Yeah, Twitty was against the Iraq invasion from the start and has no love for W. No matter what he chirps, Twitty is still a Repub.

[Padraig18]

21. "Some times a cigar is just a cigar"

We waste far too much energy looking for ulterior motives underlying EVERY word every journalist utters; on occasion, they still speak the truth, i.e., they report which is common knowledge/obvious. In this case, it is clear that Sen. Edwards is the single-most popular choice for Kerry's running mate among Democrats, though he is not the ONLY choice, or neccessarily even the BEST choice. Whether or not he is the 'best' choice depends on what one perceives to be the most important issues in the minds of the electorate.

[WI_DEM]

23. with all due respect to Clark supporters

Edwards is the obvious choice of Kerry's opponents in the primaries. He did well in the midwest and the south/border states--which is where the election will be decided. He has gotten more votes than Clark has since dropping out as well--showing that he continues to have a strong base of support. Edwards leads independent polls of who democratic voters want as VP--as opposed to organized on-line polls. This is not to say that Clark wouldn't be an effective VP nominee, but except for DU I honestly don't hear many people mentioning Clark as VP.

[Jai4WKC08]

25. "Among democratic voters"

Ummm, excuse me, but I think most democratic voters already plan to vote for Kerry. So I really don't think polls of that group are particularly significant.

For that matter, I doubt any polls are significant. Aside from the polling problems debated ad nauseum, ultimately Kerry will pick who he thinks will help his campaign the most (which goes beyond simple popularity) and be the best VP--he claims the latter is what matters most and I am choosing to believe him.

[WI_DEM]

30. I honestly think

some of you Clark supporters have to get a grip. Wes Clark is a fine man and could be an effective running mate, but he is not the only good choice out there. I do wonder what a few of you will do if Kerry doesn't select him.

[Jai4WKC08]

31. Why do you keep asking that?

Don't you read the answers?

Can't speak for everybody, but with some confidence: some of us will whine and complain, some will cry, most of us will worry about whether Kerry can win in November.

Some will actually be happy because they think Clark is better suited for Sec of State--there's NO doubt that he'll be in the Kerry administration.

But almost to a person, we'll still vote for Kerry, so what's your beef? No one's gonna slit their wrists or anything. Sheesh.

[Dinger]

26. I would like to see a point by point comparison of Clark and Edwards

As far as electibility, diplomatic experience, beginnings, political experience, experience in dealing with terrorism, crossover voter appeal, southern appeal, military experience, experience dealing with corporations, education experience, business experience, intelligence, leadership experience, etc. etc.

[Dinger]

27. OooooWheee, We Sure Don't Want That, Do We?

[in_cog_ni_to]

35. LOL! G-d forbid we should WIN

in Nov., eh? It's funny. If Tweety isn't pimping for Edwards, he's pimping for McCain. Very interesting.

[Bread and Circus]

58. Edwards is the propaganda candidate....

His popularity is RW propaganda.

You'll see.

[AP]

60. Perhaps you haven't seen this:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/polls.html

[MontecitoDem]

24. Another Edwards vs. Clark slugfest

DU is getting tiresome! Just be reading our names it's clear what we are going to say on this question. Same old same old.

We are getting more predictable than Crossfire!
:boring:

[in_cog_ni_to]

33. NONE of the shills ever mention Clark as a VP choice.

Know why? Because they work for the WH and KKKRove FEARS Clark more than any other possible VP. If Edwards is VP, we will lose in Nov. KKKRove knows that. We HAVE to have a VP, like Wes Clark, who has FP experience. Edwards has NONE.

[Scoopie]

46. Which is funny because local papers

mention him all the time and local papers are known to be more in touch with the electorate.

[Jai4WKC08]

50. They do?

Boy, the local paper here (Kansas City Star) attacked Clark big-time. Mostly took it from their parent service, Knight-Ridder, but added some licks of their own. Haven't heard boo about him as a potential VP, or really much of anything since he dropped out. Even when he was the keynote speaker at the Kansas Democratic partu annual dinner (J/J equivalent), they ran an article about Gov Sebelius' endorsement of Kerry, with not a word about Clark.

Fwiw, the Star has been none too kind to Kerry either, altho they do report on him. KC Missouri is fairly heavily Democratic, but all the money is on the Kansas side of the state line, which is mostly Repub, so you can see where their sympathies lie.

[dolstein]

36. Nice try -- but Democrats want Edwards too

NT

[David Dunham]

37. The press will pulverize a Kerry choice of Clark, whom they hate.

[TexasSissy]

39. That may be true. The Press generally disliked Clark.

[in_cog_ni_to]

40. He'll pulverize them right back!

They won't be able to ignore a VP candidate as readily as a presidential primary candidate. They won't be able to ignore a VP debate either. Big difference.

[sadiesworld]

48. Sure they hate Clark.

Just like they hated Clinton for 8 years and hated Gore during the 2000 campaign. They hate anyone who might interfere with their media monopolies and huge tax breaks.

The only reason they have been MARGINALLY reasonable about Kerry lately is that * has been such a screw-up he is difficult to ignore. As the election approaches, the media will hammer Kerry and his VP running mate relentlessly-no matter who he names.

But, for now, they like Edwards b/c he weakens the dem ticket and increases the likelihood of 4 more years of deregulation and tax breaks.

It is not just the "mainstream" media that talk Edwards up, check out some of the RW columnists in the final weeks of the primaries. I can't imagine that Mona Charen cares about ANYTHING except pleasing her RW masters, her "likes" don't enter into the equasion.

[AP]

61. deregulation and tax breaks??? What ARE you smoking?

You really have no idea what Edwards is all about do you?

[Crunchy Frog]

63. Chill out and read the post

I'm pretty sure that the deregulation and tax breaks in the post referred to Bush regime policy and not Edwards.

The poster just believes that the media bigwigs think they're more likely to get another 4 years of Bush with Edwards on the ticket, and that's why they're promoting him.

That's a separate issue and you can get mad about it in it's own right, but the person was not referring to deregulation and tax breaks as Edwards policies.

[AP]

65. With every paragraph packed with uninformed opinion, it was hard to

follow the logic.

Incidentally, I fust googled Charen and couldn't find anything nice she ever said abotu Edwards at any time.

Furthermore, if the Republicans are trying to saddle Dems with Edwards becuase they think he'll take down the ticket, they're crazy. They'd be putting on the ticked the candidate voters are most easily talked into liking. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/polls.html

[Crunchy Frog]

62. My guess is that if Edwards is chosen

the press will very quickly go into pulverize mode. I think that they hate anyone whom they percieve as being a threat to W.

If Edwards is chosen, it will be interesting to see whether or not my prediction comes true. I will not hesitate to point it out if it's the case.

[sadiesworld]

64. Thanks for your help in clarifying my post!

I thought the meaning was pretty clear (Edwards weakens the dem ticket...) but I guess some will resort to anything in order to try and salvage their argument.

:smoke:

[AP]

66. I think Edwards has something that Bush has a little of, but better.

In 2000 Bush was able to make it seem that if you were criticizing him, you were saying something bad about yourself.

He was able to turn the table on criticizm. If you criticized his vocabulary, it made you seem pedantic. If you crowded him on stage (to show people you were taller?) it made you look like an officious jerk.

I think one of the reasons the press ignored Edwards rather than attack him is because he has a little of that for real -- how do you attack a guy who seems like he went into politics partly because his son died in a car accident? How do you attack a guy's career when that careere was about helping people recover for huge damages they suffered from people who were almost ALWAYS liable for those damages?

I think the press is aware that Faircloth was beating Edwards in '98 UNTIL Faircloth decided to attack Edwards. I think they'd much rather ignore him.

I think they also know or sense that the more you know about Edwards, the more you like him: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/polls.html

[Darkamber]

68. This whole RW press stuff is silly....

Look...I think it is sad and pitiful when I hear these Conservative and RW people call radio stations or write editorials about the "Liberal Media" and how it is out to get Bush. I hear it all the time.

Now you say the "press" will attack anyone who is a threat to W.

Just stop falling into the same paranoid mode already. The press out there to find a story and 'Mr. Nice guy perfect" does not sell. They pick up on stuff that might sell. There is no "RW" and "LW" press.

And so what if Chris Mathews mentions Edwards. Jesse Jackson and Arianna Huffington also mention Edwards as the VP pick and they are such RW supporters.

Maybe just maybe the reason why the Press mentions Edwards and not Clark is because when they ask the insiders that is the name they are given.

Clark is a fine man and he's in perfect position for a cabinet position and I think that is exactly the place that Kerry will put him.

[TexasSissy]

38. Matthews hates Clark. Really.

He made no bones about his dislike for Clark during Clark's run for the nominee.

[Jai4WKC08]

42. Tweety does hate Clark

But mostly because Tweety hates Clinton, and he associates Clark with Clinton. And not without reason. Clinton and Clark like and respect each other, and Clinton did support Clark's getting into the race, said some pretty nice things, and helped put him in touch with some fund-raising sources and unemployed campaign staffers (not all of whom worked out so well, but then, the good ones were mostly taken). Clinton didn't endorse Clark, but it would have been inappropriate for him to.

Tweety is gutless, tho. He never gives Clark a hard time face to face. Treats him downright respectfully. I'd expect him to get in a few shots when the announcement is made, but after that? Well, see below (about corporate media).

The media does hate (or rather fears) Clark. But their attacks didn't hurt him much, or not enough, which is why they went into ignore-mode. That's what hurt. But it won't work for Clark as VP--the VP nominee cannot be ignored. That in fact is one of the best arguments for Clark as VP. He has much to say to bring down Bush, much that no one else can say, not with credibility. But unless he's Kerry's running mate, who's really gonna listen?

The right-wing media will of course still attack Clark, but they'd attack anyone. The left-wing media who support Kerry will fall in line, as they would with anyone. The left-wing media who oppose Kerry will attack him, for the most part (Nader has even taken to quoting Clark lately, so maybe not all).

The corporate media? There's the wild card. They hated (and probably still hate) Clark because he couldn't be owned. But if he's working for Kerry? Make no mistake, Clark will do everything to support Kerry, so it's not so much a factor. It can be argued that the corporate media will try to sink Kerry too--Repubs are good for business. But if they focus on Clark instead of Kerry, that's not such a bad thing, is it?

[surfermaw]

51. The country is clamoring for Edwards

It's a done deal, he has been Edwards from day one, Edwards ha visited Ohio on several occasions and Kerry is leading in OHIO. enough said

[Trajan]

59. Clark would be wonderful ...

So would Edwards ...

Let's focus on beating the GOP instead of focusing on our own neediness ...

THAT is telling ...