A popular argument for picking Kerry over Edwards: "we're at war."

[AP]

I have a couple of questions about that:

1) Are we at war?

2) Have we ever changed horses from an incumb. to a challenger in the middle of a war in the US? I'm afraid that if people are going to make the "we're at war" argument, then we're just creating a mood in which Bush is going to get reelected.

Also, I think if we try to convince people that the, um, 'war' is so much more important thatn carring about people's jobs, that we're going to turn off a lot of voters who are going to wonder why they need to accept less just because of something that's happening on the other side of the world.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Yes we changed presidents a few times over in Viet Nam

That doesn't excuse Edwards near total lack of experience governing.

[AP]

2. I don't think the incumb. ever lost during vietnam.

And what experience does Kerry have that Edwards doesn't have?

And are we at war?

[The Blue Knight]

3. 13 more years in the Senate?

[AP]

5. Doing what? What did Kerry not know after year 6 that he knows now?

What did he know in year one that he didn't know when he graduated from law school?

What EXPERIENCE does he have that really matters?

And, are we really at war?

[SeanQuinn]

6. Are you Kucinich?

I probably misunderstood. But with all the Kucinich banners in your signature and avatar, I'm just curious.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

8. 18 years on Senate Intelligence spanning over a decade

of terror related issues, 6 years on Foreign Relations, serving as a lieutenant governor and actually serving several terms before beginning to campaign for the top slot in the nation.

No...we're not at war...all the people who won't vote for Kerry or Edwards over their IWR votes must be hallucinating (sarcasm on)

[AP]

9. Which adds up to what? An argument that the guy who's president today

should win in November because he has the most experience as president?

Can you make an argument about what Kerry learned in all those years that's so valuable?

[liberalnurse]

18. This can also be viewed as being stuck in a rut......

I really can't find any dynamic actions kerry has ever done......He is complacent in the Senate and his recent voting record was far from the left.

[AP]

22. Kerry was building up political power, which was more important than

delivering results for people.

Edwards seems to be much more in delivering results to people than building up political power.

[ma4t]

21. only because LBJ didn't run

[AP]

25. Still doesn't make a compelling argument for Kerry. If we're 'at war'

and it's so important that Kerry runs instead of Edwards, we risk Bush capitalizing on the voter sentiment Kerry creates: if we're at war, perhaps changing horses is too big of a risk (even if it means you might be able to keep some more of the wealth you produce).

We need someon who runs on the issue: let's see if we can get you to be able to keep more of the wealth you produce, because that's what (as FDR knew) keeps America strong and safe.

[katieforeman]

4. Ask Grey Davis and Al Gore how much experience matters.

Technically, George Bush now has more experience at being President than Kerry or Edwards. Should we elect Bush because he is the only one with experience in the executive branch?

[AP]

7. Exactly. "War" and "Experience as President" are two arguments that Bush

wins.

Are these really the arguments Kerry wants to make to win the nomination?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. George Bush is the perfect example of why this matters

The biggest issue or concern people had about him prior to electing him was COMPETENCE. He had served two terms as governor in a state whose legislature meets every two years meaning he really only had three years experience when he took office and look at us now. He was LARGELY sold to the nation based on WHO would be in his admin, specifically Rummy, Powell et al.

[AP]

14. Bush hit the ground running. He's extremely competent. He's doing exactly

what he intended to do.

Why do people let him off the hook and pretend that what's going on in the world is an accident.

And is Kerry really running on the argument that experience matters? What's he going to say if he goes up against Bush? Will he say "experience, except for presidential experience, matters"?

[katieforeman]

28. well put. I'm glad we're on the same side.

[spooky3]

42. Exactly. His choices are NOT the result of "inexperience."

His choices have not improved as he's gained experience.

What *'s example shows is that what is really important is the set of values the person brings with him or her to office. A variety of experience patterns can contribute to success in the office, as evidenced by the diversity of backgrounds of Presidents from the last 100 years.

[AP]

43. It's all about conviction. I've said before that in 2000....

...something really bizarre happened: Bush seemed to have more conviction than Gore.

Bush had a clear organizing principle: money. I don't agree with that principle at all, but I understand it.

I have no sense of what Gore's organizing principle was.

I'm not really sure what Kerry's is.

I really understand Edwards's convictions.

[katieforeman]

17. Competence does not equal experience in office.

Competence equals judgement, intellect, life experience, work ethic, critical thinking skills, temperment, integrity, etc.

The problem with George Bush is not his lack of experience before becoming President. The problem with George Bush is his intellectual laziness, arrogance, sheltered life experience, integrity etc. George Bush could have been in the Senate for 20 years and he still would have sucked as a President. He certainly hasn't become a better president as he has gained more experience in that office.

[liberalnurse]

20. Oh, that is very insightful......

I'd like to see someone argue that! :yourock:

[spooky3]

49. I've made that argument in several prior threads, and ya know?

It always remains a rhetorical question :-)! So we should definitely use it!

[katieforeman]

11. Also, we shouldn't let the Republicans frame the debate.

Bush wants to make this election about him being a war President. Edwards won't let him do that.

Bush can't win a debate framed by Edwards' two Americas' speech and the Republicans know it. What they fear is a Democrat like Edwards who can articulate a coherent unified Democratic vision.

[AP]

19. I wouldn't be here if I didn't agree with this 100%.

It's nice to hear someone other than myself saying this.

[liberalnurse]

23. Kerry is falling for that trap too!

[OKNancy]

31. Of course they can frame the debate

Republicans are good at it and they have the media to tag along. They also have oodles and oodles of money to pound in their message over and over again on every teevee and radio show in the country.

[katieforeman]

33. We shouldn't make it easier for them.

This is exactly why we need a candidate like Edwards who doesn't have a record tailor-made for Rove style attacks.

[OKNancy]

38. You're kidding

Edward is perfect for a Rove attack.

[katieforeman]

41. OkNancy, What do they attack?

Edwards was a trial lawyer.
- That was already tried in NC and it didn't work. You can't attack Edwards on this without attacking his very sympathetic clients.

Edwards doesn't have enough experience.
-Edwards already has more foreign policy experience than reagan,Clinton or George W. Bush. Remember Bush couldn't name the leader of Pakistan in 2000. John Edwards has been to Pakistan, Afghanastan etc and met with the leaders there.

How do they attack John Kerry?

Kerry advocated cutting intelligence spending in 1997 and then blamed Sept. 11th on lack of intelligence.

Kerry was against the death penalty for terrorists in the 1980's now he's for it.

Kerry voted against first Gulf War and for Iraq war and gave inconsistent reasons.

Kerry's voting record is rated more liberal than Ted Kennedy.

Zell Miller has already said Kerry's voting record is terrible on defense.

Kerry said he burned his medals in a protest. They were actually somebody elses's medals.

Rove attacks Democrats integrity and portrays them as panderers rather than leaders. I like John Kerry, but his voting record will be used to attack his credibility.

[Wells]

32. The War Debate and regime change

I prefer Kerry. Edwards and the other candidates have the same, big smile, glad-handing style. Kerry is more reserved and circumspect; an attitude that better reflects the seriousness of holding the office of President. Kerry's speaking style is also more commanding than propitiating. He presents a strong, authoritative leadership presence. Kerry experienced both sides of the Vietnam conflict: soldier and dissident.

I think Kerry can win, based on the War Debate. We must expose DUHbya's failure as Commander in Chief. Has he 'really' made the world safer? Like Hell, he has. Will DUHbya's foreign and domestic policy lead to more war? There should be no doubt that his administration is right now planning several more wars; involving our military and the military of other countries.

Kerry must develop his platform on the role he will play as Commander in Chief and diplomat. DUHbya is more an iron-fisted tyrant than a diplomat and this should not be excused lightly. The USA was forced into the 20th Century's wars by economic interests; most prominently by the petroleum industries, and the related industries and financial institutions of transportation and travel. Bush's short-sighted energy policy serves these interests; another issue that strengthens the argument for regime change.

[katieforeman]

36. I think Kerry's record could make him the worst candidate for this debate

Some examples:

In 1997 Kerry is on record in the US Senate advocating cuts in intelligence spending. Then after Sept. 11th, he is on record blaming our lack of intelligence capability.

In the 1980's Kerry opposed the death penalty for terrorist who killed Americans overseas. Now he supports it.

He voted against the first Gulf War and for the Second Iraq War and gave inconsistent reasons for these votes.

Republicans kill Democrats by distorting any inconsistencies in their statements to attack their integrity and leadership. They will say they admire kerry's service but that he does not have the judgement or leadership ability to be President.

[sadiesworld]

12. Kerry has medals and REAL pictures in uniform.

It may not matter to alot of dems, and it may not be important to his ability to govern, but it does make Rove's job of selling W as a war president MUCH more difficult.

[AP]

16. It actually makes Roves job easier: his job is convincing people that the

war on terror is so important that you shouldn't look at the man behind the curtain who's transferring all your wealth you create by working your ass off to the wealthiest Americans.

[LouisFC]

13. Wrong question

The question is not whether or not Edwards could be elected at this time; the question is whether or not he is the BEST person for the job.

Why choose someone with less experience when people are dying? Real people with real parents, real wives, real husbands and real children. They are buying real caskets and attending real funerals.

And, if the campaign strategy is to try to convince people that "something that's happening on the other side of the world" isn't important, than that just solidifies why I chose to support Kerry over Edwards.

[AP]

15. Why elect a person who has no connection with how REAL Americans really

experience life in America? Why elect a rich guy who has never had to struggle, when that struggle is the central feature of living in America today?

If we run on war and terror, we're going to turn off a lot of people who will have no idea why their only choice is between two guys from the same social class, who went to the same college, and belonged to the same frat, and who never really did anything well except politics, and who seem to have rode on the back of the corporatocracy to get where they are today.

It sounds like Gore v Bush redux.

[LouisFC]

27. Neither Does

I am one of those REAL americans that spent my entire childhood struggling to get where everybody else started. So I think I have a pretty good understanding of who gets it and who doesn't. IMO, neither of these men "gets it".

It is not a matter of deciding to run on war and terror. We are at war and there are terrorists who wish us harm. This is a reality we must deal with.

As so many people have stated in this thread and previous ones, we should have learned from Bush what it means to elect someone with no experience.

[AP]

29. What don't you think Edwards gets?

And, once again, Bush hit the ground running without having "experience." It's not a lack of experience that has put us where we are. It's very cunning, evil people who are totally organized around a very powerful motivation principle: money.

Edwards also has a powerful motivating principle: doing what's right for America and Americans.

What's Kerry's powerful motivating principle? (What was Gore's, for that matter?)

[katieforeman]

26. Right Question. Wrong answer.

True. Who would be the best president is an important question. However, experience does not necessarly make for the best President.

Has george W. Bush gotten better with experience?

Edwards has enough experience to be knowledgeable about these issues, and he has the judgement, integrity, intellect, and leadership skills to be a truly great President. He also truly cares about the people he represents and would never be cavalier about the lives of soldiers.

As an ecoonomist, I can tell you there are diminishing returns to experience. In other words, the first five years in the Senate provide more valuable experience than the 15th to 20th years in the Senate.

[Wells]

48. Our better chance to beat Bush

Every time I see Edwards, he's always smiling his face off, trying impress the crowd, I guess, that he's "like-able". There isn't that much to smile about in Politics today. We need a serious candidate.

Kerry's wealth places him among the big players. Money is everything to some of these people. If beating them down, or outmanuevering them requires money, Kerry has a better chance than Edwards.

I think Kerry has paid his dues, and is our better chance to beat the Bush Dynasty.

No member of the Bush should ever hold public office.

[corporatewhore]

24. My neighbors are more afraid of losing their jobs then of terrorists and

orange alerts Edwards is more electable than kerry beccause he is speaking out against nafta (though he doesnt go far enough imho and wouldnt vote for him) this is the one issues cons and libs can unite against

[OKNancy]

30. As soon as you get Bush and the media to shut up about

it, then I'll agree.
Bush is going to use that big war chest of money to say war, war, war, terror, terror. That is the way it is and nothing the Democrats do about it is going to change their game plan.
It's no big dark secret.

With a Kerry nom, it will dampen all that because Kerry has the experience, and he is a vet. That's no big dark secret either.

Any other time or election, I'd be all for Edwards. Not now and not this election.

[AP]

35. I think running Edwards would force them to shut up.

Picture an Edwards vs Bush debate. Edwards talking about jobs and Bush talking about war (and what are they going to say?).

The average voter is going to say, himm, here's a guy talking about my life and here's another guy talking about something happening on the wother side of the word.

For whom do you think those people will vote?

[OKNancy]

39. Bush

You did say : average voter right. Mr and Ms average voter only get their news from a little network t.v. and maybe thier morning paper.
I bet only 10% even watch the debates.

Mr and Ms average voter also have their opinion formed by advertising, and Bush is going to do that big-time.

[AP]

40. Uh, he's going to do that against anyone. And Edwards seems to be getting

the most bang for his buck. Kerry has more money and no limits, and Edwards was still able to narrow the gap by over 30 pts in a week in WI. Clearly, people find him easy to undertstand even in the form of soundbites and ads.

[On the Road]

34. 5 Years vs 20 Years in the Senate

Gives an advantage to Kerry, but not by that much.

I would really like a governor, but barring that, I think experience is less of an issue than intangibles.

[katieforeman]

37. I agree with your basic point that intangibles count more than experience

However, I think 20 years as opposed to 5 years in the Senate may actually be a liability. Kerry can be labelled an out of touch Washington insider or career politician. He also has a long voting record to provide ammo to Republicans.

PS Howard Dean has been a great candidate and we all owe him a debt of gratitude. When we defeat Bush in November, Dean will deserve much of the credit.

[LouisFC]

46. Intangibles vs. experience

Experience is only less of an issue if it isn't your child/husband/wife/parent in Iraq, Afghanistan or South Korea.

Mr. & Mrs. Voter may be more worried about their jobs, but they (and we) have a very real obligation to these men and women and their families to provide them with a Commander in Chief that knows what he is doing.

Edwards charisma gets us exactly nowhere in solving the problem in Iraq and the people worried about their jobs are not going to get any help as long as we have to continue to send billions of dollars to Iraq.

[AP]

47. Check WI exit polls: military families voted for Ed and Ke in same...

...proportions. It seem that even they were able to put jobs/economy first.

[colonel odis]

44. the only war being waged by this country

is against the working classes.

war on turrism? phft!
war against iraq? more like an invasion of another sovreign nation for no justifiable reason.

war, my ass.

[AP]

45. And who's a veteran of that war?

[KittyWampus]

50. Actually, It's Picking Kerry Who Has Relevant Experience

that enables his to function as POTUS without depending entirely on Advisors.

I can think of several "nice guy" candidates who got elected to the White House and had to rely on Advosirs and neither of them
can be mentioned by name or my post will get deleted.

It's not "we're at war" it's that Edwards has no:

Foreign Policy EXPERIENCE
National Security EXPERIENCE

Next to no:
Domestic EXPERIENCE

The only thing Edwards' has is the ability to manipulate people. Which is what politicians do.

But this country is in deep shit and we need LEADERSHIP. Something Edwards hasn't exhibited very much of.