Edwards is a lame choice for VP.

[Bread and Circus]

Look, I came to DU over a year ago when
Dean was the media darling.

Now it's Edwards.

In case people forget, Edwards has essentially zero
foreign policy experience. I don't care how warm
and fuzzy he can spin an issue, the guy has been a
leader of very little for not very long.

Trial Lawyer.
Neophyte legislator.

That's it.

I think we can do better.

[JohnLocke]

1. What your problem with trial lawyers?

[jus_the_facts]

4. seems a LOT of doctors do....

.....these days. :eyes:

KERRY/EDWARDS '04 :thumbsup:

[chimpymustgo]

5. Edwards rocks. Al Franken likes him. Bill Press likes him.

Many many Dems want him to be VP. Don't be divisive. Let Kerry make his decision. John Edwards is a winner.

[Scoopie]

20. Sorry, but I divide with you

if the unlearned is picked as VP.

Quayle may not yet go down as the most stupid. (Edwards isn't dumb - he just has no world vision. No savior faire. No... well... he's all flash and no camera.)

[JohnLocke]

2. Edwards doesn't need extensive policy experience.

Kerry and those he will appoint will have enough.

[JI7]

6. right, as oliphant said

"the President should be President". which is not the case with bush/cheney.

[Skwmom]

28. Wasn't this the argument for Bush

and look where that got us. The VP is a heartbeat away from filling the role as commander in chief, you know the guy that makes the "final" call. A guy who has spent the majority of his life being a personal injury attorney (and a majority of his first term in the senate not even doing his job) isn't going to cut it.

[bushwakker]

3. JK has forgotten more about nat'l security and foreign affairs

than AWOL will ever know. He does not require a VP with vast foreign policy/defense experience.

[chimpymustgo]

7. Bottom line.

Kerry/Edwards '04. And beyond...

[Scoopie]

17. So I'm gonna be subjected to idiots forever?!

Look, Edwards may can spin a yarn, but I bet he couldn't keep up with the Clark blog on foreign policy and those are just citizens.

I hope to GOD we don't fall into the "he looks good and sounds good" trap in this country. That sucks. Particularly when I could run circles around Edwards on the Middle East - and I'm not even in Congress.

[wjsander]

25. You guys don't agree with my views! Idiots!!

Edwards sux!! Hes not smart choice!! Think about it, dummies!!!

You poopy-pants doodie-heads can't see things MY way! you all idoits!!!111one

[Gloria]

8. But Kerry needs someone who can be clear and concise ....

and whose plans seem to be light years ahead of the pack and have seemed to find there way to Kerry's policy speeches.

And Clark is totally unafraid of going after Bush/Cheney.

PS...Clark also taught economics, had great policy ideas, and was on CNBC today talking about the economy...again...clearly and concisely....

[Scoopie]

19. Actually,

That's a Clark quote.

[NJCher]

9. charisma. You forgot charisma

Edwards is loaded with it. It's vitally important and will add the spark that Kerry badly needs.

Kerry is a bit of a drone. His speaking style is monotonous and pretentious. Edwards is more of a natural speaker.


Cher

[Scoopie]

18. Doesn't work on me

now, does it.

Tough cookies never fall for that crap.

[dogman]

22. Lieberman with charisma.

That's the ticket, just great.

[Auntie Bush]

10. Yes, we can do much better and put someone in office

who knows how the hell we can get out of Iraq with dignity, integrity and respect in this bloody world. The economy is getting better and will snap back after Clark gets the situation in control. Kerry doesn't need Edwards to help him run the senate. He has enough experience of his own. The whole world needs Wes Clark!

[indigobusiness]

11. Better? He is better than the last several VPs combined

on potential alone.

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. Man, you got that right.

Lame is an understatement.

[Rowdyboy]

13. He's not my choice, but its not my choice to make....

Hope Kerry picks Clark, but I'll willingly accept most anyone he wants.

[Zorra]

14. Edwards has some advantages.

He has legislative experience, he is relatively young and attractive, (he would be around 58 or 59 after Kerry's 2 terms, making him a good age to take over as Prez) he is a lifelong Dem, he's from the south, is a good speaker and seems to be squeaky clean.

[OneBlueSky]

15. the VP choice is Kerry's opportunity to do something dynamic . . .

and choosing Edwards doesn't qualify . . . it is lame, and I suppose Kerry looks at it as safe . . . a dynamic move would be choosing someone like Wesley Clark, particularly given the current state of world affairs . . . Clark could be put in charge of getting us out of Iraq and cleaning up the messes in Afghanistan and Guantanamo while Kerry tends to domestic issues and works members of Congress . . . Clark would bring some credibility back to our foreign affairs and, as a military leader, would be the perfect one to oversee the Iraq withdrawel in a way that will lose us the minimum amount of face . . . he'd be a great resource for Kerry and for the country and could bring real meaning to the role of VP . . . jmho, of course . . .

[Skwmom]

27. If Edwards is looked at as a "safe" pick

all I can say is the whole darn Democratic party should just disband and start over from scratch (because you are so far removed from the mainstream and reality that you will never regain power from the Republicans).

Rove wants to use Edwards to help define Kerry (and guess what it's not going to be a pretty definition).

In addition, why in the heck would you pick a running mate that reinforces all of the worst memes about Democrats (just to name a few - weak on defense/national security, phony defenders of the working class, owned by the trial lawyers, lacking in any core convictions or beliefs - the latter seems to be the newest meme they are floating about the Dems).

[Scoopie]

16. Well, of course he is

but that didn't stop Shrub.

People will believe the hype and not look to the reality.

Edwards is a phony.
Period.

[Leilani]

21. I agree we can do better!!

The Blond Ambition tour has turned me off!!!

Why a person who is a first term Senator, with no international experience, no foreign policy credentials, no military expertise, no national security or intelligence knowledge thinks he is ready to be President of the U.S. is mind boggling to me.

When the Shrub ran, everyone said these things did not matter, because he would be surrounded by experts.

Sure, Kerry will be Prez, but Veep is not a position for on-the-job training. Our international situation is too complex today for amateurs.

I believe Kerry will not choose Edwards because of his lack of experience, but if he does, it will disappoint me about Kerry s judgement.

[wjsander]

23. Hey, I GOT AN IDEA!!!

Let's think about this too much and get someone who is 100% qualified to be VP! We're talkin political experience, foreign affairs experience, war experience... the works! Screw popularity and charm, that's for wussies.

We might barely lose the general election, but at least we'll have picked a running mate that was qualified for the VP position they'll never get.

Sounds great.

[Skwmom]

24. They want to use Edwards to define Kerry

and it won't be pretty.

[JNelson6563]

26. I agree for one reason

The VP nom. is traditionally in the role of attack dog. Edwards would have to drop his trademark "kinder, gentler campaign" style which would make it appear to have been insincere & phoney. This would cost him some credibility.

I say pick a Governor or former Governor (exec. exp.) and get busy kicking butt. I hope it is someone who helps me to be enthusiastic about the ticket.

Julie

[wjsander]

30. I think in this election, Kerry is already the attack dog

The VP doesn't have to be.

[mzmolly]

29. Doc in all fairness to Edwards, Kerry has national security experience

we dont need two military men on the ticket. Not that I wouldn't support a Kerry/Clark ticket, but I don't think we need to trump Kerry's experience on that.

[Moderator]

31. Locking.

The opening post is uncivil and inflammatory in nature. Please feel free to repost this using less inflammatory language. Thank you for understanding.

---DU Moderators