He’d probably merit consideration. Who knows, maybe the camps have already talked. But it’s not a totally ideal ticket either.
Well, the debate in LA just wrapped up, and they made fun of the question in general (the last one). Edwards was asked first and he said, smiling, “I’ll give John every consideration.”. When Kerry replied, he said that he was happy with Edwards for considering him (hardy har har), but didn’t give a straight answer either.
No huge fireworks except for Al Sharpton’s jibes (he’s running a vanity campaign by now, sheer vanity, and boy does he ramble, but occasionally he gives out a good line). This cartoon by Jeff Danziger:
http://www.ucomics.com/jeffdanziger/2004/02/19/
(sorry, links don’t work in Opera) I think is brilliant–I don’t know the others, but in 18 years living in MA I never heard Kerry say much about gays one way or another, I think he’s a typical Yankee who doesn’t like to talk much about sex but is live but let live–but I’m sure all the Dems just want the issue to go the hell away. Some good sparks over the death penalty–Edwards of course is for it, despite its problems, and Kerry’s against it.
It’s a shame, though–I think Krugman or Brooks or somebody had an editorial about it last week; consistency is the most important thing these days, it seems. Did your views, perchance, evolve on an issue? Did you dare to change your mind in twenty years about something? Did you make a vote under circumstances that later proved to be erroneous or simply not what they appeared? Well, too bad, buddy, you voted one way 17 years ago and a different way last year, so you must be a damn waffling hypocrite, huh?
OTOH, with the field so narrowed (I’ve heard the Johns refuse to debate one on one with each other and insist on the fringies so they’ll look sane) there was much less eyes glazing over as each of the ninety candidates rephrased the last guy’s attack on Bush.
Speaking of predictions, I’d like to discuss one made outside this thread where Pat Robertson said that God Hisself spoke to him and said that Bush was going to win by a landslide.
Okay, but what if he doesn’t? What if Bush loses? What if Bush loses by a landslide? Shouldn’t this guy be held accountable somehow? I mean, after all, such an occurence would manifestly prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Robertson is a false prophet — unless I’m missing something.
Therefore, I propose that if (no — when!) Bush should lose the 2004 election it is incumbent upon us to insist that Pat Robertson suck Mick Jagger’s cock in Time’s Square or someone equally attractive should Mr. Jagger not make himself available.
I mean, after all, that’s only fair, right?
I would hope not. By staying in the race, Edwards continues to do Kerry a big favor by keeping the primary season in the news, which gives the Dems a bunch of free advertising they can’t afford to buy.
I’m hoping Kerry doesn’t clinch until May, and Kerry should be grateful to Edwards if it works out that way!
How will things break for Kerry and Edwards on Super Tuesday? This isn’t too complicated: I think Kerry runs the table. Kerry wins all ten. Edwards’ best showings will be in Georgia, Ohio and Maryland (in that order,) but I think Kerry’s going to pick up all ten. Zogby’s been saying that he wouldn’t be surprised if Edwards picked up some Northern states, but I think that’s got more to do with the fact that most Democrats like both candidates the same, and feel that firing Bush is what’s most important. I agree with that.
I’ll admit that I was ambivalent until earlier this week. I was a hardcore Dean supporter until about a week and a half before the Iowa caucus, when he started complaining about the media. (Sure, the media weren’t being fair to him, but you don’t come out and complain about it. That’s for conservatives!) After moving away from Dean, I found myself squarely in the undecided column. I’d probably still be there, but I have to vote in the primary here in New York City in a couple days, so a decision was forced: Kerry. I’d be content with either of them, but I think Kerry would be better with foreign policy than Edwards, and I like the fact that Kerry doesn’t like the death penalty. While my Rust Belt roots point toward Edwards, he does seem to have a bit of a protectionist streak in him. Trade protectionism appeals to me on a visceral level, as a native of an economically ruined steel town in Pennsylvania, but I know it’s not practical or practicable, so I lean toward Kerry.
I suspect Edwards will still stay in the race after the March 2 results are in. He’ll plod on until the March 9 primaries, where I predict he won’t win any again (except possibly in Mississippi,) and then he’ll drop out, ceding the rest of the primaries to Kerry, Kucinich and Sharpton, leaving us to ponder which of those three will eventually secure the Democratic nomination. Assuming it’s Kerry, I think it’s likely that he’ll ask Edwards to be his running mate. It seems likely, too: Edwards has been nice as pecan pie all through this election, saving his invective for Bush, not even considering trying to land a single haymaker on Kerry—or any other Democratic contender, for that matter.
If the election were held today, Kerry would probably win. I think Kerry’s got an excellent shot at taking Bush down in November. However, I think it’s too early to say how this thing will turn out one way or another, and I’m uncomfortable even saying whether it’ll be close or not. But as I’ve been saying all along: Bush is a weak candidate, and the Democrats have a good chance to take him down. Kerry’s an experienced politician, and as much as we Americans like to say that we hate experienced politicians, we do tend to vote for them, so I think Kerry’s positioned very well. I think he’d be an okay president, too. Would Kerry be a great president? Probably not. But I do think he’s a damn sight better than the failure we’ve got in the Oval Office right now. But that’s a whole other thread altogether. Swing a stick and you’ll easily hit one, on this board…
I think Kerry will win Ohio. In the Columbus area, I haven’t seen any Edwards ads, nor do I know anyone who is planning to vote Edwards. I think Kucinich will take a few votes in Northern Ohio which may have gone to Edwards.
Slight hijack:
Why is there all this talk about Edwards for VP? Am I the only person who thinks it makes more sense to take Richardson? Richardson can challenge Bush in Texas by appealing to Hispanic voters. Not saying the Dems will win TX, but at least make Bush fight for it. Also, Richardson can try to help in AZ and NV, as well as campaign in CA so Kerry doesn’t have to keep flying across the country.
End Hijack
It isn’t clear to me why Edwards still thinks he has a chance at the nomination or even the running mate slot - unless he really doesn’t think so. That opens the door to more cynical speculation that he *knows * he’s just being a sparring partner that Kerry needs against an opponent who fights dirty as a first resort, not last, and to keep his party’s positions in front of the purveyors of free publicity called the Beltway Media. He may also be gunning for a Cabinet seat.
If Edwards were really trying to beat Kerry, he’d be going way negative already out of necessity, but he’s been the model of cordiality instead, especially compared to the period when the issue hadn’t been settled. Which, in turn, means he isn’t that much of a sparring partner either.
No, you’re not. I’ve had my eye on Richardson for a long time, and I’ve long thought he’d make an excellent vice president for somebody. Despite all the talk about how well a Kerry/Edwards ticket would go over, I’m not convinced it will happen. ElvisL1ves is right: Edwards would be going more negative than he has been. He did get nastier than usual in the February 29 debate, I think, but that’s not saying much. I see Edwards landing a job in Kerry’s cabinet, if Kerry gets elected, and I see Edwards campaigning for Kerry as a surrogate.
Appealing to Hispanic voters will be important. California, Illinois, New York and Texas probably won’t switch columns, but the votes in New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and Florida will swing significantly on Hispanics. This could make all the difference.
Simply by being the runner-up in the primaries, Edwards has received a lot of media attention and exposure. He’s charismatic to some degree, and may be able to pull a North Carolina-shaped rabbit out of his hat in the southeast come November. A lot of people already know who he is. On the other hand, walk around the general public and say “Richardson”, and you’ll get a lot of blank stares.
You want media attention for Edwards?
I’ll give you media attention for Edwards…
The Washington Post’s campaign writer just compared him to Bill Clinton.
Not, perhaps, useful during the general election (though it might be) but useful as all get out during the primaries.
And this the night before Super Tuesday.
Effects? Any?
Going into the general election, Kerry is going to need a conservative Democrat on the ticket. He is vulnerable on the ‘liberal’ charge - Kerry has the most liberal voting record in Congress. I know you dems don’t think it matters, but that is a HUGE liability for him going into the general election. Quick: Someone name the last liberal Democrat elected president. Bill Clinton campaigned as a ‘new Democrat’, and the Democratic Leadership Council adopted some decidedly right-wing positions. Carter ran as a moderate. On the other hand, Dukakis, Mondale, and McGovern ran as liberals, and got absolutely stomped. And if anything the country has become more conservative since 9/11.
John Edwards is almost as liberal as Kerry. I believe he is ranked 4th among Democratic Senators for liberal vote positions. The two of them on the same ticket are going to be pigeonholed as a couple of rich liberals. That’s not going to play well in the flyover states.
Kerry needs a moderate to conservative Democrat with some decent foreign policy credentials. Ideally, someone from a Southern state. The prime candidate would be Bill Richardson, IMO. But I’m not sure Richardson is willing - the last time I heard him interviewed he seemed pretty dismissive about the idea.
If Sam Nunn were willing, he’d be another good choice.
This might be a hijack, but I dunno. When a thread has hit seven pages in six weeks, it seems kind of pointless to talk about hijacking.
To be safe, though, I’ll phrase it in the form of a prediciton: I predict that the Bush campaign will try to paint Kerry as a flaming liberal and—if necessary—will try to do the same to Edwards. Watch for sunrise tomorrow morning, too.
But help me out here: Where do they get this? Neither Kerry nor Edwards is a liberal! I don’t question that if you say “He’s a liberal” often enough that plenty of people will start saying, “Oh, yeah, he’s a liberal,” even if without sufficient explanation as to why one thinks that he’s a liberal. You really can fool some of the people some of the time.
But I’m not one of those people, and I’m really curious as to how anyone backs up this conclusion. Justifying this conclusion isn’t the point, I know; it’s more to use liberal as some kind of slur, as a surrogate term for out of touch or radical. We all know that. But I’m truly mystified as to how people can call Kerry a liberal. I’m utterly perplexed as to how people can call Edwards a liberal. And I’ve got more than a passing interest in these things: I’ve been following this race since Joe Lieberman was the frontrunner and Howard Dean was an asterisk. I know the positions of the active and former candidates well, and I don’t see it.
So… can anyone help out a thinking man? What will the Bush campaign say about Kerry and Edwards—if anything—to back up its peculiar assertion that they’re liberal? Enquiring minds like mine want to know.
**Sam Stone—**You say “Edwards is ranked fourth among Democratic senators for liberal vote positions.” What list are you using? You’ve got me curious now.
By the way: I’m a native of what conservatives like to call “flyover country,” and I’m still in touch with plenty of people there. I wouldn’t say that Bush is exactly sitting pretty out there, but that’s another thread, to be sure, and if I hijack this thread any more, it’s going to turn up in Havana…
I’m gonna vote for Edwards here in MD today, just to do what I can to postpone the day when Kerry clinches. As I’ve said before, I think the continuing of the race is good for the Dems.
I’m for Edwards over Richardson for the veepstakes. Two reasons: geography and charisma.
The charisma’s obvious: Edwards has got it.
There’s obviously a geographical argument for Richardson too - he’d cinch NM for the Dems, and up their chances of winning AZ and NV, and give them a prayer in CO, which has been trending increasingly Republican over the past decade. But aside from CO, these are states where the Dem candidate has good chances in a close election anyway, but it pretty much cedes the Southeast. That means the Bushies wouldn’t have to play defense at all; they could put all their time and energy into swing and Dem states.
If Edwards is the veep nominee, then much of the South stays in play, and the GOP has maybe 10-12 safe states where they can win without devoting significant resources. If Richardson’s the nominee, I think it’s more like 18-20, and that’s too many.
Congressional voting records as analyzed by Americans for Democratic Action (a liberal group).
Looks like Kerry got an 85% rating in the 2002 term. Liberal, but not uniformly so. Edwards got a 70% rating. Definitely moderate territory.
Quick report from the front lines of democracy by a poll worker on her lunch break–
I’ve been working since 5:30 this morning as an inspector at a polling place in the northern Bronx; neighborhood is mostly Dems, Irish and other folks with lots of vowels in their names.
We’ve had five voters at my table. Five. Other nine districts are not doing much better.
Usually we get a surge of the more organized commuters early on their way to catch the subway to Manhattan, and then another of little old folks who stop in after Mass at St. Barnabas in midmorning. Nada.
People just don’t seem that excited really. I’m hearing a certain leeriness of Kerry for his liberalism and of Edwards for his youth and lawyer-hood. But at least the African-American pollworkers have some good Sharpton jokes (and they don’t plan to vote for him for racial solidarity either).
Well, better go back. Nine hours to closing, oy!
<ducks back down into trench, her Pollworkers Guide shielding her from stupid questions, misspelled names, and Repubs who don’t understand we have a CLOSED PRIMARY, DAMMIT!>
**Mehitabel—**I voted this morning in Crown Heights. WNYC had announced that turnout was light, though strong for Kerry. I got there at 7:30, and it was still pretty light. I guess that since no one is advertising in New York’s expensive media market, there’s not much electricity generated. I guess with the sense that a Kerry victory in New York is a done deal, there’s not much desire to turn out. Plus, with the overwhelming sentiment in the City that any candidate is good, as long as he’s a Democrat. That’s pretty much how I feel, but I voted anyway. Kerry. I mean, there’s something about Edwards that just doesn’t seem right to me lately. I wish I could put my finger on it…
I hear it’s much stronger up in Westchester County. That’s an anecdotal observation from a coworker who lives there.
As much as I hate to quote Drudge, this is actually an accurate story:
Don’t confuse this with the National Review. The National Journal is pretty much non-partisan.
I have to wonder, however, if Kerry’s sparse voting record in '03 had anything to do with this rating. He was present for well under 50% of senate votes. One might argue that he only made a point to be there for critical votes, and those were times when the Dems were pushing some particular (liberal) issue. I’m not making that argument, just wondering if an analysis of the data would explain that '03 was peculiar. Of course, Kerry always gets ranked high on the “liberal” scale.
The Democrats could run a Lieberman/Clark ticket and Sam Stone – parrotting the GOP propaganda machine – would be calling them “too liberal” to be elected. :rolleyes:
rjung:
Other than taking a cheap shot at Sam Stone, what is your point?
Pretty much no matter how you slice it or dice it, Kerry comes up as a Liberal in the US. That is the topic being discussed. Do you dispute it? If so, how about presenting some facts, not just an ad hominem attack on another poster.