My initial reaction this morning was Doh! :smack: … but the news is growing on me. Though I want to remain optimistic about this decision, I think Gephardt may have been a better choice…
Anyone think Gephardt would have been a better choice? And if so why? If not why not?
No, because he wouldn’t add any attractiveness to the ticket. He’s been around the block a lot of times, and, face it, he’s never lit a spark anywhere outside his own district, and maybe not even there (would he have carried Missouri?). He does, however, have a past of being beholden to the unions, and to being one of the last staunch supporters of protectionist trade policies eighty-odd years after the Smoot-Hawley Tariff discredited them. If he’d been the choice, it would be very easy to dismiss him as a sign that the Democrats were stuck in the past.
What do you like about him?
Gephardt would have offered more experience. But Kerry needs Edwards’ charisma and vitailty right now. Badly.
Besides, there’ll always be room for Dick in the cabinet. (Best comeback to that wins a shiny new pen!)
I’m a republican, but I think the Edwards choice was a wise one for Kerry. I actually think Edwards is a good guy and I really admired his positive campaign when he was trying to get the Presidential nod. He doesn’t have the experience of a Gephardt but he’s very charasmatic and I think that will play well for the Kerry camp.
Experience, and experience only. I understand your view that if he had been chosen, it may seem the dems were stuck in the past. However, there are a group of dems who may have really liked the granite pillar Gephardt may have given the vice presidency. Then again, Edwards charismatic tendencies may win them the swing voters. Only time will tell.
Yeah, but the problem with Edwards is that he might overshadow Kerry. Still, I think it was a good choice on Kerry’s part…
I don’t think that Gephardt would have helped at all. For all of the reasons that have been laid out so far, plus, the man is boring. Nice guy, smart as all hell and genuinely engaging in person. But put him in front of a crowd and he’s got nothing.
I can see the reasons people think Gephardt was the right guy- mostly the Midwestern thing and his history with labor. But I never liked him myself, and yes, he’s neither vital nor exciting. Edwards is more personable, and if he doesn’t give them an immediate constituency (who knows what’ll happen with the South), he may grant a more general appeal to undecided voters. It’s a pick that makes sense to me.
How is this a problem? Are there people who are going to say, “Y’know, I was gonna vote for Kerry because I like him better than Bush, but I like his Veep choice even better, so I’ll vote for Bush instead”? I just don’t get the logic behind this “problem.”
Daniel
If the presidential and vice presidential elections were held separately, no way does Edwards lose. It’s hard to conceive of anyone Kerry could have picked that could under-charisma Dick Cheney. He does bring some spark to the ticket and will make a good campaigner. A good choice overall.
A great choice. I must disagree that Edwards will upstage Kerry. They are very complementary. Edwards offers more charisma, charm, and plain old fun, while Kerry comes off as more boring but also more responsible and wise. Definitely the senior partner.
Edwards is also key to the South and younger voters.
Gep would have been a poor choice IMO. He does not offer complementary characteristics, which is what the VP choice is all about. He would have seemed a kind of equal to Kerry, and equally dull.
I think Kerry’s chances just went from a scary 50/50 to a slightly less intimidating 60/40. The VP candidate debates should also be great!
Kerry/Edwards in '04!
I dunno: Lieberman, Gephardt, or a Ficus could give Cheney a run for his money.
Daniel
I love the pick, and I agree with Aeschines that it helps attract younger voters like me. Also, as a soon-to-be teacher, I really, really like Edwards’ ideas on education policy.
Gep may have experience, but listening to him talk is like watching paint dry.
Like Aeschines, I’m looking forward to the VP debates. C’mon, a trial lawyer against someone who tells a Senator to F–k off on the Senate floor? No contest.
Agreed. Gephart is in the right place right now. It’s been over for a long time for Gephart as far as the presidency or any part of it is concerned.
First off, I like that this represents more populism than old pol style. Edwards was far and away the “people’s choice”, the only way he wouldn’t get it is if the Dem’s “leadership” got in the way. Gephardt was their guy because they are playing defense, trying to pick the least offensive candidate. They are wrong, just as they were wrong in the mid-term elections, when they cravenly caved to the Bushiviks agenda of fear-mongering and plastic patriotism. In abject fear of being portrayed as being insufficiently bloodthirsty, they sold out to keep a razor-thin advantage. And then lost anyway.
The leadership doesn’t seem to trust the actual party. They need a good spanking, and Edwards will do nicely. If they shoved aside the clear favorite in the name of professional politics, I would be mighty pissed.
As well, I get the vibe that Kerry is none too crazy about Edwards, but has bowed to the concensus. That sends exactly the right signal: its not about me, its about us. Now it could be sheer calculation, Kerry just signified like that to put more juice into an otherwise entirely pedestrian decision. Fine with me. I’m more than happy to see the Dems playing to win, rather than playing to not-lose.
This time, the stakes are too high.
A-fucking-men, brother. I feel like I’ve been waiting a lifetime for this moment.
I don’t know much about Edwards’ personal background, other than that he used to be a trial attorney. But a comment on the radio this morning said that Edwards balances the ticket in social as well as regional terms – because he is of middle-class origins, while Kerry is upper-class.
I wonder when we’ll again have a serious presidential candidate of lower-class origins? The only such contenders in this race, I think, were Kucinich and Sharpton, and neither had a real chance. (Then again, being of lower-class origins doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll really serve the interests of the workers and the poor – look at where Clinton came from.)
Good move.
He’s tele-genic, smart and charismatic. And from the south!
I think a Edwards/Kerry ticket would have been a stronger ticket than Kerry/Edwards.
It should be interesting.
I would guess that’s all it was. The precednent they keep citing is JFK picking Johnson in '60, a guy he didn’t like at all. Joe Kennedy took care of the rest.
When the lower classes can again get a reasonably decent education the statistical likelihood will increase, I’m sure.
Kerry/Edwards rocks. I’m with Boris (as ever, love ya babe).