I think Edwards is an unfavorable candidate for VP

[Bread and Circus]

Here are the reasons I think so. I have a right
to these opinions. You may choose to disagree.

1.) Edwards has very little (if any) significant
foreign policy experience or leadership experience
in an international role.

2.) Edwards is/was a trial lawyer. It is potentially an
admirable profession, but the position is often abused
to serve the ends of greed and avarice.
It can be exploited as a political liabilty. Why risk four more
years of Bush?

3.) This is less fact but more straight up opinion, but I
think Edwards is the current "media darling" but his appeal is
really puffed up with little beneath the surface. His appeal
would be easily deflated (like a house of cards) once the
RW media/crime machine goes into effect.

4.) Edwards is a Neophyte Legislator. He lacks "experience".
We are a nation in crisis. "Experience" is important. Wherever
you look, "Experience" is not Edwards' strong point.

---

My last thread was locked, I hope this is more appropriate.

[BurtWorm]

1. I think choosing Edwards would be another signal

that Kerry is risk-averse. Others may like that quality in him. I don't.

[cosmokramer]

2. It makes absolutely ZERO sense to choose Edwards.

...for all the reasons you stated and more.

[chimpymustgo]

11. What's with the need to knock Edwards?

Talk up your own guy - but there really is no need for all these posts by Clark supporters trying to tear Edwards down.

Al Franken, Bill Press, 43% of Dems polled, Senators, state party leaders - a lot of people want Edwards on the ticket. The persistant smears aren't going to change that.

I really don't think Wes would approve.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[Bread and Circus]

13. Franken and Press do not impress me.

Franken makes me laugh but I couldn't care less what
he thinks about who should be VP.

Franken needs to get the Freeper Dittohead off of his
show before I listen to him again.

Press is pablum. He's a media "personality". Big deal.

[in_cog_ni_to]

33. Franken was on Hardball

and Tweety said the Vp's are down to three. Pick one. Franken said..."Oh, I don't know. ANY of the three would be good." Then Tweety said..."Pick One...Pick One...Pick One"...so he did. He said Edwards, but only after he was forced to choose by Tweety. :eyes:

[venus]

43. Where's the tear down? n/t

[demnan]

3. Edwards still has more experience working in government

than Clark, or for that matter, Bush.

[cosmokramer]

7. Who said anything about Clark?

You automatically assume the poster wants Clark?

I can name at least four dozen people who are more qualified to be Vice President than Edwards, Clark of which is certainly one of them, but for you to openly state something about Clark when he wasn't mentioned at all in the original post is just going to make this a Clark vs. Edwards flame thread.

[Jai4WKC08]

15. You've got to be joking

Clark has 34 years "working in government." There's not ONE function of government he has been involved in managing in those 34 years. Health care, education, environmental protection, public works, infrastructure, equal opportunity, budgeting, coordinating with legislative bodies for all of the above, judicial policy, and any others you care to name. He's been there, done that. The ONLY difference is he was appointed to office instead of elected.

Altho, even at that, a military commander is sort of "elected" by his/her troops. Every day they "vote" by how they respond to the commander's orders and guidance. Without their support, his leadership is ineffective and he doesn't go on to higher command.

I bet there would be no concern at all if Kerry were considering a career professional from some non-military government agency. I know there have been some names floated here that fit that description. Heck, there have even been some names mentioned from the private sector. No one said the lack of elective office was a disqualifier.

[Cheswick2.0]

34. military serves the government. It is not the government

It is not even an arm of the government. God forbid.

[venus]

42. Give me a break. Edwards barely

made three years before he announced his run for President. Since then what has he done - the Patriot Act and voted for the war.

[On the Road]

4. Edwards is Inspiring, Youthful, and Southern

He also chose to concentrate on economic and employment issues in his campaign. Those positives are not to be trifled with. Look how Reagan inspired people with sunny optimism and unshakeable confidence.

At the same time, Edwards does not seem ready (to me) to step into the role of president if required. (Of course, many VP possibilities don't.) And his hawkish position on Iraq reduces his appeal to me as VP.

[BurtWorm]

6. It would be most unfortunate if the Dems put two Iraq hawks on the ticket.

It would be a slap in the face to those of us who have been energized to depose Bush from the beginning.

[Jai4WKC08]

17. Yeah, except for one little detail

CLARK OPPOSED THE WAR!

Geez....

[BurtWorm]

19. But Edwards did not.

:wtf:

Weren't we talking about Edwards here?

[Jai4WKC08]

32. Oops

You're right of course. I had just responded to another post and sort of lost track of who I was talking to.

That said, I wouldn't catagorize Kerry as a "warhawk" and maybe not Edwards exactly. Certainly, before his own campaign ended (or rather, before the sucking up to Kerry started... somewhat before) Edwards was a lot hotter to go to war than any of the canidates except Lieberman.

But I think of a warhawk as someone who looks for reasons to go to war, who thinks war is a first answer to every international problem, instead of the last resort. I tend to think Edwards just suffers from a lack of experience and judgement on that score.

Otoh, there's really nothing in his background that shows otherwise (at least Kerry honestly worked to end the Vietnam war), and he's never served in the military, which sort of puts him into a catagory worse than warhawk--chickenhawk.

[TexasSissy]

9. And he's so cute!

Not that I'd vote for anyone on that basis (nah, noway, wouldn't happen, nah)

Clark's cute, too.

And Kerry has great hair. And so tall and slim, but not skinny.


All in all, more eye candy than the Repubs have (from a female's point of view)

[jtb33]

5. Agreed, and...

Generally, having two Senators on a ticket for Pres/VP, is a no-no. I can't remember the last time that two current Senators were running for President/Vice President and won.

[Padraig18]

23. 1960: JFK and LBJ. n/t

[punpirate]

8. Okay, in order....

1) As a failed entrepreneur and governor of Texas, and with only a couple of brief trips outside the country in his lifetime, Bush had no foreign policy experience, but he's president. Point destroyed. In fact, most presidents come to office without any foreign policy experience. Reagan had none. Carter had none. Clinton had none. Nixon had little--well, except for being splattered by vegetables in central America in 1956.

2) Being a trial lawyer can only be exploited by people who have never had any need of a trial lawyer. Bush is currently consulting a DC trial lawyer to protect him from potential prosecution for things of which he may be charged. Point not taken on evidence.

3) Your opinion. Nothing to address, except perhaps that it is true that RW media/crime machine would go after him. Is that not true of any of the Democratic VP candidates, or Kerry, himself. They'd do it no matter who's chosen. Point moot.

4) "lacks 'experience.'" So did Bush upon entering office, and he wasn't the VP. See item 1. Domestically, Edwards has roughly the same amount of experience in office as did Bush when he sought the presidency. Point destroyed.

Methinks you don't like the man because you're a doctor, and he's a trial lawyer, which you see as your antithesis. Hmmm?

[Bread and Circus]

10. touche'

But no, I don't dislike him because of the doctor-lawyer
thing.

I just think, and have always thought, this is not the
right time for a guy like Edwards.

Edwards is Clinton Redux.

However, this is not 1992.

We have a fascist RW self-righteous fundie in office. We are
in an assymetrical war with other religious and cultural extremists.
The Mayberry Machiavelli's have taken over the village.
And finally, our position in the world is probably at its
most challenged since Vietnam, if not longer

The biggest biggest immediate problems we face have to
do with War, Terrorism, foreign policy, diplomacy, and Foreign
Relations.

Edwards is not the best candidate to meet those challenges.

My brother is in Iraq right now and I want the best choice to
help get him home safely.

[punpirate]

18. In my heart, I hope your brother returns to relative safety...

... but I think neither Bush nor Kerry will allow him to return any time soon.

Both are hawks.

In truth, none of the VP candidates will have any final say about the date on which the troops will leave Iraq. None of them, so how does that improve your brother's odds?

The VP choice, right now, has only to do with how the public votes. Of all the possible choices available to Kerry, it seems to me he will choose the most hawkish-appearing running mate to counter Bush's militarism. I think that's why there's been so much talk, scurrilous and otherwise, about McCain, who is very hawkish, indeed.

Still, we have a slightly better chance of getting troops out with Kerry, than with Bush. Given the mood of the country right now, someone who is not a hawk as VP might give the country hope that troops would be withdrawn sooner than later.

Kerry will not pick the obvious non-hawks, such as Kucinich, unless backed into a corner at the convention. That leaves people like Edwards, and Wesley Clark, and no other major contenders. Of them, I'd take Edwards to be the one to nudge Kerry away from a prolonged stay in Iraq. I simply don't think a soldier such as Clark will be inclined to do the same, without at least the appearance of victory.

Kerry is already making statements that he won't withdraw troops anytime soon, and that will only cause continued bloodshed on both sides, for no good reason. For the sake of the election, and the aftermath, the country needs someone who is much less aggressive about war. Kucinich would be an ideal in that regard, but neither Kerry nor the electorate will take him seriously.

If Kerry chooses Clark, Kerry will continue to pursue a military solution too long after that option has disappeared. In fact, it already has, because the "liberators" have been for too long an occupying force--nothing less than their removal will satisfy the Iraqis.

Of the few choices, I'm afraid to say, Edwards is about the only one who might push Kerry toward abandoning Bush's bad wars and finding an interim diplomatic solution. For all of Clark's complaints about the war being wrong, I don't see him making clear statements that we need to get out and leave the international community to straightening out the mess the Bushies have made of Iraq--and Afghanistan (although I might have missed any recent statements of his to that effect).

But, one thing is for sure--maintaining a US military presence in Iraq will continue to inflame the Iraqis, who have virtually no trust in the US now to do the right thing--and Kerry should be picking the person who can help him extricate our troops from Iraq as quickly and as gracefully as possible.

If you have a better candidate than Edwards for that task, be sure to let Kerry know.

Cheers.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[TexasSissy]

14. These points aren't "the" point, though.

People keep talking about why so and so would or would not make a great VP for Kerry. That's not the point.

The point IS: What votes would so and so bring to the ticket, that Kerry doesn't already have?

I listed in another post several reasons I thought Clark would not bring anything to the ticket. Edwards is better, but I'm not sure he'd reel in many votes (although I like him). But here are some possibilities:

1. He appeals to younger voters more so than Kerry.
2. He is more inspiring and enthusiastic and impromptu than Kerry (thus appealing to the folks who are looking to be persuaded)
3. Southern (this may make a difference to some southern folks)
4. He is not military (Kerry already has the military vote, to the extent the Dems are going to get it)
5. Good debater
6. Although not very experienced politician, he proved up to snuff in the fast-on-your-feet category when dealing with the media and public.
7. He has a good relationship and deals well with the media. They seem to like him.
8. He is a likeable guy (don't underestimate this factor - it's one of Kerry's problem areas...he's not dislikeable, but he's not overly likeable)

Are there others who'd bring more to the ticket than these things? I don't know. I don't know enough about Bayh and Vilsack and Graham. But Edwards would definitely bring SOMETHING to the ticket; I just don't know if he'd bring enough.

[Bread and Circus]

16. I guess I see the "swing voters" in the "swing states" differently...

than you do.

I guess that may be the "point" of contention here.

Perhaps I give them too much credit in really looking at
the candidates?

You seem to think the "fluff factor" will win the day, I
think it comes down to real and perceived experience regarding
our wartime status.

I really think Edwards, despite his great smile, is a dawg
that won't hunt (for votes).

[julialnyc]

20. I don't want another war profiting VP

he June 15, 2004, NY Times is reporting:

...Mr. Edwards, of North Carolina, a former trial lawyer and presidential candidate who reported assets of $14.3 million to $44.7 million. His disclosure forms also show that he and his wife - who kept their assets in a blind trust - benefited from buying the stock of several military contractors in the days before the United States invaded Iraq...

http://tinyurl.com/2cng6

[cosmokramer]

21. And that is just one of many reasons...

[leyton]

30. *ahem* Blind trust means...

that Edwards did not know where his investment was... Therefore, he's only a "war profiteer" by accident.

[ibegurpard]

22. Number one rule when picking a VP:

First, do no wrong.
I just can't see that there's anything about Edwards that would be a deal-breaker. I'm not sure I believe his sincerity and he's a little too "slick" for me but I don't find him offensive. Same thing with Clark.
Gephardt, on the other hand, has earned my undying emnity for his backstabbing during the Iraq War lead-up and his total ineffectiveness as House majority leader during the debacle that was the Clinton healthcare plan. McCain is a Republican, enough said. These two would be deal-breakers for me.

[cosmokramer]

25. The deal breaker for me with

Edwards is that he has absolutely no foreign policy experience. That, to me, would disqualify him from VP consideration according to Kerry's own words.

[mrboba1]

24. trial lawyer impact overplayed

Do you not think that this was tried in NC when he ran for Senate? Do you think Jesse and his boys would have ignored that?

They tried before, and here was the result:

He won a statewide election as a trial lawyer as a Democrat against the moneys of Jesse Helms (even though Jesse wasn't the opponent), and won by several points as well.

[Cheswick2.0]

35. you have to look at the swing states

Him being a trial lawyer will hurt the ticket here in Pa, in MI, In WV etc... in any of the states where the healthcare crisis is driving doctors out business. Edwards will be a big liability in Pa.

[Auntie Bush]

26. As far as I'm concerned...Edwards brings absolutely nothing

to the table that Clark doesn't bring! Clark is the main dish plus dessert!

[Cheswick2.0]

36. I agree about Edwards...but what does Clark bring?

Kerry has the miltary thing covered.

[BootinUp]

39. What do mean by covered though?

Kerry still looses to Bush head to head when polls ask about who do you trust more to lead the WOT, or Foreign policy/National Security.

This is the one area we can still do the most damage to Bush on. Kerry already leads on economic issues.

[Darkamber]

27. Your four points...

1. Edwards is on the Senate Intelligence committee. He has meet with various international leaders. But we are talking about VP here. How many times can you recall that the VP has set the stage for Foreign policy? Meet with other leaders and was the President's main spokesman? To me this kind of background is more important for the President, Sec. of State and Sec. of Defense, but not the VP.

2. As far as I know Edwards is the only candidate that offered a clear plan to deal with the problem of frivolous lawsuits and the rising cost of malpractice insurance. His 3 strikes you are out plan. His plan is aimed against bad lawyers and will stop them from being able to practice law for 10 years if they make 3 infractions. He was asked if his plan would upset the Trial Lawyers and he said it would.
However, it is a fair plan that protects the justice system while removing the bad apples that cause problems for all. Anyone who attacks him, he can simply ask them what their plan is. If they say caps, then ask if the insurance companies have promised to lower malpractice insurance rates if caps are put into place. I'd make a bet that the insurance companies would make no such promise. Also, if you want to make your case before the American public that you are the best option for President, then hire the best trial lawyer you can find to make your case. And Edwards is very good at what he did.

3. It's pretty much your view, but any VP candidate will get the once over. Edwards recently got the once over when he ran for Senate and came out just fine. And the polls that were done showed that the more people got to know and listen to Edwards then the more they liked him. His youth next to Kerry's elderly sober vision is a good combination. They balance each other.

4. Vision is as important as experience. We have all the Experience and then some we need in Kerry. Be will bring more men with experience to the table in cabinet position. Edwards knows what it feels like to loose a child and he will never forget that pain as we deal with the situation in the war. His children are very important to him and he will do whatever is needed to help Kerry and keep America safe.

I'd also like to bring up something that hasn't been brought up that much regarding why Edwards is a good pick. The younger vote. Do you have any ideal how few college students even bother to vote? When I was in college voting was important and exciting even during the Reagan age. But now they feel their vote doesn't matter. That was why Dean was so important. He inspired this younger vote for the first time in a long time. I think this younger vote can be more inspired by and relate to Edwards who went to a State University just like them and worked while he went to college just like them. Who seems..not so distant but more connected to them and younger even if he is 51, he looks like he's in his 40's. Send Edwards into the Universities. Let him bring Kerry's message to these kids. If we could get these guys registered and get them to vote then we really could change America.

[mgm]

28. Comparing Edwards to Bush

It is simply hilarious that anyone here would use Bush's inexperience to tout Edward's VP potential, since Edwards has a similar lack: as in "Bush had no experience either." It is precisely this lack of experience which has brought to pass the dangerous situation we are in today. The Presidency of the U.S. is not a job-in-training. Voters made the terrible mistake of choosing a novice leader once; let us pray they do not make it again.

[Darkamber]

29. Actually the voters picked Gore...

The experience issues was already dealt with in the primaries and that is why we have Kerry as our nominee. However, there were many voters who also felt that their Head was with Kerry but their heart was with Edwards and they wanted the team of Kerry/Edwards.

Edwards is quite up to the task of VP. And the question becomes which voters are you trying to reach? Independents? Swing Republicans, Rural, higher middle class suburban, youth vote? Which of these groups does Kerry need and who can bring them to the party and get them to vote for Kerry. Who is the best messenger to put Kerry's case forward? I think the answer is obvious...the best trial lawyer you can find...John Edwards.

[cosmokramer]

31. He isn't up to task...

...he didn't even know who Itzak Rabin was. He is as grossly unprepared to be President or Vice President as George Bush. He hasn't a minute of foreign policy/diplomatic experience.

[Darkamber]

37. I disagree and so do many others...

Just look at how many people voted for Edwards in the Primaries. All of them felt he was quite prepared to be President. I even wanted an Edwards/Clark ticket.

I find it sad when I see supporters of a man that I hold great respect for coming up with such low and petty attacks against Edwards. Even the GOP wouldn't pull this attack out. That supposed statement was made over six years ago if it was made at all because it comes from a second hand source.

Kerry will pick who he will pick and the best he that he can do is to include Edwards and Clark on his team. And to date there has been no poll evidence that I have seen that shows Edwards hurting Kerry in any manner if he is in the VP position.

[Darkamber]

38. I disagree and so do many others...

Just look at how many people voted for Edwards in the Primaries. All of them felt he was quite prepared to be President. I even wanted an Edwards/Clark ticket.

I find it sad when I see supporters of a man that I hold great respect for coming up with such low and petty attacks against Edwards. Even the GOP wouldn't pull this attack out. That supposed statement was made over six years ago if it was made at all because it comes from a second hand source.

Kerry will pick who he will pick and the best he that he can do is to include Edwards and Clark on his team. And to date there has been no poll evidence that I have seen that shows Edwards hurting Kerry in any manner if he is in the VP position.

[Nicholas_J]

40. I do not think that Edwards would not be a good choice.

I like him a lot. I think that the current political environment, and other conditions make him a less than optimal strategic choice, as a number of political commentators, and high level members of the Democratic Party have noted. Given Bush's sinking poll numbers and the situation in Iraq, most party memebers with the most experience are recommendin that Kerry make a safe choice, from the personal hstory aspect, as well as a safe choice from the political experience angle. Under both conditions, Edwards does not fit, and netther does Clark. Different times and conditions simply call for different choices. If one looks at history, most of the time, the candidate running for the presidency generally surprises the public by selecting someone that no one is expecting.

The author is correct, we are a nation in crisis, and so Kerry is likely to pick someone who could quickly get up to speed is they had to take ofver the office of the presidency. Someone who has a large number of contacts and relationships on both sides of the aisle in both houses, plus someone who has links to the various large organizations that support Democratic platforms, like unions, Planned Parenthood, various environmental organizations and can show that they have had those contacts and relationships for a good many years.

Edwards would be an excellent choice if there were no serious problems faced on both the international and domestic scene.

[Awsi Dooger]

41. Same old flawed rationale

Edwards' so-called weaknesses cannot be exploited because he can out-talk and out-charm anyone who tries. He even taps into that media benefit of a doubt given to candidates who look good and speak better. Doesn't anyone on DU have a sociology background or expertise?

It's absolutely hysterical when posters fear Edwards was given a free pass during the primaries and will be disemboweled by the Republican attack machine. The right wing fears of Edwards were legit and well-founded. Unfortunately, they continue to be superior handicappers to Democrats.

And this election will hinge much more on domestic issues than foreign, as always. If we discount that certainty, we're doomed to lose and almost deserve it.

[venus]

45. How would Edwards measure up against Cheney one on one? Or McCain?

Be honest.

[Protected]

46. That's what I'm wondering, too...

Oohkay... So you say that Edwards can out-talk anybody... What happens when Iraq or the Patriot Act comes up? How does he differentiate himself from the Republicans on these two issues?

[Zorra]

47. It's John Kerry's choice, but I disagree with your rationale.

"1.) Edwards has very little (if any) significant
foreign policy experience or leadership experience
in an international role."

And Gen. Clark has no experience as a legislator or Senator. It is my understanding that a principle responsibility of the VP is to preside over the Senate. VP's also often meet with Heads of State as needed as representatives of/for the President in many non-critical matters, are administration policy spokespersons, and general advisers to the President. Foreign policy experience is an asset to a VP, but not, IMO, essential.

Foreign Policy experience is critically important for a Secretary of State, and the SoS is (generally) the principle adviser to the President regarding foreign affairs and foreign policy.

"2.) Edwards is/was a trial lawyer. It is potentially an
admirable profession, but the position is often abused
to serve the ends of greed and avarice.
It can be exploited as a political liabilty. Why risk four more
years of Bush?"

Given the rabid attacks on Gen. Clark by both Democrats and republicans during the primaries, it seems to me that Edwards has little to worry about compared to what Gen. Clark may get hit with.

3.) This is less fact but more straight up opinion, but I
think Edwards is the current "media darling" but his appeal is
really puffed up with little beneath the surface. His appeal
would be easily deflated (like a house of cards) once the
RW media/crime machine goes into effect.

Edwards, I believe, was named by People Magazine as the nations "sexiest politician" in 2000, so he has been at least somewhat of a media darling for quite awhile. Again, the RW attack machine seems to have gone after Gen. Clark pretty hard already, and given the dirt already dug, they may have more to attack Clark on than they do John Edwards. (I'll grant this, it is also possibly because the RW sees him as a major threat to Bu$h's re-selection).

"4.) Edwards is a Neophyte Legislator. He lacks "experience".
We are a nation in crisis. "Experience" is important. Wherever
you look, "Experience" is not Edwards' strong point."

Gen. Clark is a non-legislator. He has never held political office. He lacks experience in domestic politics and a hands on knowledge of the legislative process. Yes, we are a nation in crisis, both foreign and domestic. Gen. Clark is an intelligent man and is very experienced in foreign policy related to military, and some political, matters. John Edwards is an intelligent man and has experience as a trial lawyer as a civilian, and in domestic politics as a Senator. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

I'm only disputing your rationale, as there are two sides to the issues you have addressed. Personally, I wish Gen. Clark could be Secretary of State, because it seems to me that he is ideally suited for this position.

I see no reason for us to disparage any possible VP choice at this time, (unless it is a republican, and JK is not going to choose a republican).

Whoever John Kerry chooses for VP is his decision, and I am sure he will carefully select a VP most suitable to the needs of his administration. IMO, we need to support him regardless of who he picks for VP.