Kerry picks Edwards

[Ben E Lou]

Kerry picks Edwards

BREAKING NEWS

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry has chosen Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina as his running mate for the 2004 election, sources close to Kerry's campaign said today. An official announcement is expected at a Kerry campaign rally in Pittsburgh later this morning.

DEVELOPING STORY

[Honolulu_Blue]

Solid choice. After McCain decided to support Bush, Edwards was my next choice. 1,000x's better than Hillary (man, that would have been a disaster) and better than Gephardt. Never really took to him.

All right, lads. Let's do it.

[Ksyrup]

I was really hoping he'd be stupid and pick Gephardt. Oh well. VP can be an important position, but most of the time, who it is doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

[sachmo71]

Does that mean Edwards was "tapped"? Why does picked apply in this situation?

[CamEdwards]

Republicans will have a field day with the recent comment by Chris Heinz about John Edwards, but they'd better come up with more substantial criticism between now and November.

And I'm not sure Kerry's going to do anything for his likeability by having someone younger, more energetic, and better looking on the ticket. Not saying it can't be done... after all, look at Dan Quayle.

Also, wonder what labor leaders think. I'm presuming they really wanted Gephardt.

[gi]

I'm kinda getting the Bill Clinton/Al Gore feeling from this pick. I'm hoping it works out the same way and Kerry is elected over Bush. The VP debates should be filled with a lot of fire. Looking forward to those debates.

[NoMyths]

It's fun to see a prediction come true.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And here I was hoping that was Cam Edwards. Ah well, that would have been too good to be true (which hardly ever happens in politics)

[JonInMiddleGA]

And while I'm in the thread ... is it just me or does that picture look like John Ritter, circa 1990 or so?

[Flasch186]

The debates should be awesome this season. I seriously wish I could Tivo them. IT'll be must see TV. Come to think of it, since my hopes for fireworks are so high, I leave a lot of room for disappointment. IT'll probably be bland....larry King like. nevermind.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And here I was hoping that was Cam Edwards. Ah well, that would have been too good to be true (which hardly ever happens in politics)

I was waiting by the phone, but I never got the call.

[Senator]

Much like a team with a late first round pick and who needed many areas addressed, he has picked, "the best available player".

I actually think Edwards should have been the Democrats top choice, so this is a good choice.

"As he wrapped up his remarks — a vintage Kerry stump speech laced with a few descriptions of Edwards — Chuck Berry's "Johnny B. Goode" played, a reference to the first name they share. "

I was wondering if it was the Judas Preist version? And afterwards, did Anthony Michael Hall and Robert Downey Jr. come running out on stage?

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Senator

Much like a team with a late first round pick and who needed many areas adressed, he has picked, "the best available player".

This was my exact thought.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

The debates should be awesome this season. I seriously wish I could Tivo them.

You know if don't own a Tivo you could always use this recording device called a VCR.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Senator

Much like a team with a late first round pick and who needed many areas addressed, he has picked, "the best available player".

I actually think Edwards should have been the Democrats top choice, so this is a good choice.

"As he wrapped up his remarks — a vintage Kerry stump speech laced with a few descriptions of Edwards — Chuck Berry's "Johnny B. Goode" played, a reference to the first name they share. "

I was wondering if it was the Judas Preist version? And afterwards, did Anthony Michael Hall and Robert Downey Jr. come running out on stage?

Please...as painful as the Turbo years were, the Johnny B. Goode cover was the most painful moment in my life as a Judas Priest fan. Let's not speak of this again, OK?

[wbatl1]

Originally Posted by panerd

You know if don't own a Tivo you could always use this recording device called a VCR.

I gave up on those years ago, when I couldn't evn figure out how to move through the menus .

[timmynausea]

I thought this was funny and sort of bizarre. The New York Post this morning ran a headline that said Kerry picked Gephardt. That's a pretty big mistake.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...000163898.html

[ISiddiqui]

Ugh... I'm backing Kerry and all, but Edwards is a dullard. He's like a Democrat Dan Quayle. Should have gone for Bob Graham or a Dem Governor.

[Flasch186]

I thought it was risky and aggressive. Taking a Washington rookie, someone outspoken. I think it could be just the thing to push Kerry over top or the thing that kills the ticket. Im rooting for the former as i think the kid is a great orater and will destroy Cheney in debates and expose him.

Obviously Im biased.

[SFL Cat]

A good choice by Kerry. His campaign suddenly has a little charisma. However, since Edwards has as much foreign policy experience as Bush did when he ran, I wonder if the press will give him as hard a time about it as it gave Dubya? What am I saying?!! He's a pro-choice Democrat, he'll get a pass.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

A good choice by Kerry. His campaign suddenly has a little charisma. However, since Edwards has as much foreign policy experience as Bush did when he ran, I wonder if the press will give him as hard a time about it as it gave Dubya? What am I saying?!! He's a pro-choice Democrat, he'll get a pass.

Why would Edwards get as much flak as Dubya? He's in the Veep slot, not the Presidential spot. There's a substantial difference there, bucko.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Ugh... I'm backing Kerry and all, but Edwards is a dullard. He's like a Democrat Dan Quayle. Should have gone for Bob Graham or a Dem Governor.

Uh, no. Given I lived in NC when Edwards got elected to the Senate, you're way off base. In an overwhelmingly Republican state, against an incumbent (Faircloth) - hand-picked by the political machine of Jesse Helms - Edwards still won. It was a HUGE upset. A lawyer winning? Against Jesse's machine? Against an incumbent? In a Republican state? Unheard of.

Edwards is very smart and very good with the press. For his entire political life, he's been underestimated and pulled off upset after upset. Don't make the same mistake.

[Vegas Vic]

I think that part of Edwards' appeal was the way that he conducted his campaign during the primaries. He stayed away from the mudslinging and personal attacks, and he did a much better job of articulating the issues.

The choice will help Kerry nationally, but Bush will carry North Carolina comfortably. Having lived there most of my life, I know that NC is a staunch Republican state. Twenty-eight years ago, Jimmy Carter narrowly beat out Gerald Ford for the state's electoral votes, but it usually hasn't been close since then. Clinton came the closest in 1992, but Bush-41 still carried the state.

This election will boil down to Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. Watch those three states, they are the key.

[Swaggs]

Living in NC, I think the race will be closer than people think. There are a whole lot of people that are unemployed, and a whole lot more peole that are in lesser jobs than they were four years ago. Plus, even though the military vote will swing toward Bush, I don't think the military vote is going to be enthused to vote in this election.

I think if the Dems spend some time down here, the GOP will have to spend a good amount of time and money defending North Carolina.

[ISiddiqui]

Uh, no. Given I lived in NC when Edwards got elected to the Senate, you're way off base. In an overwhelmingly Republican state, against an incumbent (Faircloth) - hand-picked by the political machine of Jesse Helms - Edwards still won. It was a HUGE upset. A lawyer winning? Against Jesse's machine? Against an incumbent? In a Republican state? Unheard of.

Yes and? It was during 1998, the whole backlash over Clinton's impeachment was going on then. Everything I've read said that Edwards' numbers in NC were baaaad. Besides, look at the %'s in Helms last few elections. He's gotten closer to 50% than 60%. If he's got a 'machine', it's a piss poor one.

And I'm going to continue to think he is a dullard. In the debates he had absolutely NO CLUE what the Defense of Marriage Act was about. None. And he's a US Senator for God's sake! He said that he wasn't in the Senate at the time, as if that made it ok. Sorry, but if you are a Senator and have no clue about important legislation, you are a dunce.

For his entire political life, he's been underestimated and pulled off upset after upset.

WHAT political life?! One Senate upset? The guy that upset the Democrat Speaker of the House in 1994 (a MUCH bigger upset) didn't end up being anything super-special, why should I be convinced that Edwards is when he looked incredibly unimpressive in the debates?

[timmynausea]

I watched the primaries very closely. (Not that I have any real insight, just I checked all the 24 hour news channels constantly.) The number one asset that John Edwards brings to this campaign is a positive image among/from the press. Starting about a week before Iowa, Edwards started getting a lot of publicity. Every time he was mentioned, whether it be MSNBC, FOX or CNN, and more importantly whether it was a pundit or an actual news reporter, they made mention of Edwards running a positive campaign first and foremost, and then things about him being young and good-looking, etc. Even if it was only a 5 or 10 second brief mention of his campaign, the word positive was in there. It was really kind of strange.
Here's a link to a study that basically backs up what I just said, although it is about the network news, which I didn't follow as closely.
http://www.cmpa.com/pressReleases/Ne...rryEdwards.htm

The media loves John Edwards. You may recall that heading into the Wisconsin primary most of the pundits were calling for Howard Dean to drop out and talking about how Edwards still had a shot despite the fact that Dean had more delegates than Edwards. (I'm only about 90% sure of this, if he wasn't in second than he was basicallly even with Edwards. It's possible that this would be with super-delegates that had pledged Dean factored in, but I don't recall exactly.) After Wisconsin the media pushed really really hard to try to make it seem like Edwards was a legitimate threat to Kerry heading into Super Tuesday. I think the two weeks or so of heavy and positive media coverage from Wisconsin until super Tues. basically legitimized Edwards and that's basically why he's Kerry's pick for VP.

[timmynausea]

Dola - Keep in mind that Edwards only won one state - South Carolina where he was born. Dean and Clark also won one state each, but were not really at all considered for VP.

[Senator]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

This election will boil down to Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. Watch those three states, they are the key.

I agree with this.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Edwards is very smart and very good with the press. For his entire political life, he's been underestimated and pulled off upset after upset. Don't make the same mistake.

Upset after upset? Again, he's been in two political races. He won one and lost one. Upset after upset?

As it's been pointed out, he couldn't even win his own state in the primary.

As for the debates... Edwards' big schtick in the primaries was being the postive, optimistic guy, right? Never a negative word about any of the other candidates. So how's it going to look in the debates if he turns into an attack candidate? He loses that sunny, optimistic quality. He's going to have to continue to play nice or risk turning off those who liked him in the primaries.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Upset after upset? Again, he's been in two political races. He won one and lost one. Upset after upset?

As it's been pointed out, he couldn't even win his own state in the primary.

As for the debates... Edwards' big schtick in the primaries was being the postive, optimistic guy, right? Never a negative word about any of the other candidates. So how's it going to look in the debates if he turns into an attack candidate? He loses that sunny, optimistic quality. He's going to have to continue to play nice or risk turning off those who liked him in the primaries.

Yeah, but he can now. Edwards has pulled off a masterful theft. He has stolen the democraatic nomination in 2012 from Hillary Clinton. Clinton was the presumptive leading nominee in 2008 or 2012, but Edwards has positioned himself now as that leading candidate. Despite the rhetoric, Edwards knew that he would not win the primary this year.

But he has pulled off an old political trick that hasn't been used successfully in a while, by running for president in order to get national press, respectability, and exposure. For a rookie senator from a state where he could be easily defeated, he has now positioned himself as a VEEP on a ticket that could win.

If Kerry wins, Edwards will be handed the keys to the kingdom. If Kerry loses, Edwards has little to no blame and continues to be a rising star. Win-win for Edwards.

But, he has to prove that he is about more than sunshine and daisies. By running a smart, positive campaign, he hasn't pissed off any democratic strengths. Now he has to keep them from being disappointed in him by going after republicans. They didn't like Lieberman four years ago in the debate, because they felt that he was too congenial. Edwards can't become Attack Dog Alpha, but I'd be surprised if we don't see a different side from him.

-Anxiety

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

If Kerry wins, Edwards will be handed the keys to the kingdom. If Kerry loses, Edwards has little to no blame and continues to be a rising star. Win-win for Edwards.

The logic worked well for Libermann

In fact, I can't think of any losing VP candidate in recent memory that ever went on to even get the party's nomination for prez, let alone win. Libermann, Jack Kemp, Lloyd Bentsen, Garaldine Ferraro, ... All their political careers ended after losing in the presidential race as the VP.

[CamEdwards]

just have to concur with Arles. If Kerry/Edwards loses, then Edwards becomes a one term senator who was on a losing ticket for the Democrats. That's supposed to be impressive?

BTW, I don't buy the Hillary 2008 talk either.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Arles

The logic worked well for Libermann

In fact, I can't think of any losing VP candidate in recent memory that ever went on to even get the party's nomination for prez, let alone win. Libermann, Jack Kemp, Lloyd Bentsen, Garaldine Ferraro, ... All their political careers ended after losing in the presidential race as the VP.

Bentsen didn't run for Senator re-election in order to run as VEEP. Kemp was never a major player in the party due to his elected positions, but his rhetoric. Lieberman did not tow the party line, thus he was ostracized. If he had, I firmly believe that he would be the nominee right now. (He would have had the steam to stop Dean from ever being the front runner and Kerry was not anywhere near the front until the anti-Dean backlash and the lack of a true front runner propelled him.)

But it has worked in the past numerous occasions, just not in the most recent past. Mondale, for example, lost a reelection as the VEEP candidate only to be nominated as Pres in four years.

-Anxiety