Was Edwards Kerry's best possible choice for VP?

[Guaranteed]

[Liberal Veteran]

1. No, he should have chosen Joe Lieberman.

:rofl:

[Guaranteed]

2. Heh- that would have been a bad choice.

Personally, I think Edwards was the correct pick.

[Liberal Veteran]

3. I think so too....Plus Edwards is smart and attractive

:D

[Yupster]

57. At the time I thought Edwards

was a good pick. I thought he'd help Kerry win Florida, and North Carolina and make Bush defend Tennessee, Georgia, Louisiana and Arkansas.

Looking back, he was obviously a bad pick as he didn't do any of those things. Bush won Florida and didn't even make any extra effort in the other states.

So who would have been better?

Looking back perhaps Graham would have given him Florida. Really can't think of a viable candidate in Ohio, but that would have been the best pick for sure. Maybe Mark Warner would have been a better shot at winning a southern state and making Bush waste money there.

To me the Vice-president must give you something specific, and I can't think of anything Edwards gave Kerry that he didn't have already.

[ChiciB1]

77. I Still Don't Think They Lost... Especially NOT Florida!!

I also think the fix was in all around the country, just so "the corrupt ones" could say THEY got the POPULAR vote too!

If the cheated in 2000, they cheated in 2004! Until someone actually shows me proof otherwise, it's kind of ridiculous for me to make a choice here. But I'll take Edwards and run with him AGAIN! He has an extremely intelligent engaging wife who can hold her own too!

[Kerry fan]

4. Don't know if it would have been better, but

I was hoping he would pick Wes Clark.

[saltpoint]

5. Yes. Definitely.

Although the New York POST felt differently, I think. They ran the too-early and way-wrong headline, "It's Gephardt!"

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/09/national/09post.html?ex=1247112000&en=eb50353711d67a71&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

[Larry in KC]

27. When it announced Gephardt...

I was absolutely crushed that it wasn't Wes Clark. I kept coming back over and over, though, to the small but real consolation that at least it wasn't that empty suit Edwards. So you can imagine how I felt when the real news broke a couple of hours later.

[saltpoint]

29. Clark's a good man, but I have a lot of respect for Edwards.

I think his work with One America is absolutely outstanding.

[calimary]

64. Agreed but I think Clark would have been better. Edwards is a great

American, but I have to say this -

I watched his acceptance speech and then also his debate with cheney and I was SERIOUSLY underwhelmed. I thought he'd go out there and KILL. He did nothing of the sort. His speech was lackluster, and his debate left so many gaping holes in cheney's presentation so glaring - you could have driven a humvee limo through them all. SO many opportunities on which he dropped the ball. THAT in particular was VERY instructional and revealing. Sadly so:

1) If an uninvolved civilian bystander like me could see these openings, why couldn't he? My favorite example of this is the moment during the debate when cheney's lesbian daughter came up in discussion. Edwards let a once-in-a-lifetime knockout opportunity slip through his fingers. What he should have said, after the usual blather about father-to-father support of one's kids and all that: "I just think it's a shame that - on the biggest night ever for you and your family, mr. cheney, when you accepted your party's nomination for Vice President of the United States, you couldn't even have your own daughter, Mary, and her partner, up there with you ONSTAGE, in the limelight, with all the balloons and confetti and applause and cheers and adulation. You couldn't even bring her up there to share that moment, because you felt compelled to pander to people who'd judge her and condemn her - and you, too, like the modern-day Pharisees they are. EVERYBODY in your family got to be up there sharing your big moment with you except for her and her partner. But your daughter, whom you love, and her partner, whom you accept without judging, were forced to stay on the sidelines because their presence up there might offend some of your voters and their alleged 'moral superiority'... THAT is the real sin here. As a father myself, I must tell you, that utterly disgusted me." WHYTHEHELL didn't Edwards make that case? He was handed the opportunity on a sterling silver platter. And he blew it. And don't tell me maybe it was in the heat of the moment and maybe it didn't occur to him or the pressure of the debate and all that. Edwards has been in a LOT of pressure-filled situations before, where he's been on the hot seat, and he's handled it. It's not like he was a newbie in this.

2) These were his God-given chances to blast back and he decided to hold back instead. WTF? You have your opponent on - or near - the ropes and you're gonna give him time to catch his breath and regroup, you're gonna give your enemy time to shake themselves out of their daze and come after you again, you're gonna step back and give him room to pull himself back up, because that's the gentlemanly thing to do? BULLSHIT!!! cheney wouldn't do that for him, why did he do it for cheney? He let cheney survive and look what happened. He shoulda finished the bastard. Especially with his much-vaunted skills as a successful trial lawyer. I saw few of them on display. And it made me wonder what kind of fighter he'd really be. It made me question whether he really was the fighter I'd hoped he'd be. Same thing for Kerry. He promised he'd fight for every vote. And he didn't.

I've said this before and I'll keep saying it: bush resonated with a LOT of people when he said "you may not agree with me but you know where I stand." THAT was true. Totally true. There aren't enough words in ANY language to express how powerfully true that is. People resonate to that and find it MOST sympathetic. Anything else is wishy-washy and flip-floppy, and not strong and gutsy. And that's what people vote for. Either the real thing or what they THINK is the real thing, even if it's simply image. THEY VOTE FOR THAT. bush, unfortunately, gave that to them in spades. Our guys did not.

I still like Edwards. A LOT. And I think he'd make a good president based on who and how he is and where he stands on most issues. But I have yet to see him demonstrate how fierce a fighter he is, or how he'd stand up to the enemy. Whether it's bush, or bin Laden for that matter. I want to see somebody as our standard-bearer who is willing to go for the jugular - and then DOES go for the jugular. Just ONCE during the last campaign, when somebody accused either Kerry or Edwards of insulting our allies (remember THAT one?) - I would have given ANYTHING to hear, JUST ONCE, one of them put that one away by saying "oh yeah? WE'RE the ones 'insulting our allies'????? I've got two words for you on that: 'OLD EUROPE.'" I tell you, that would have completely eviscerated that issue, and killed it dead. Then and there. The enemy would NOT have had a comeback for that one. And hell, if I can think this stuff up, I'd desperately hope that some of our strongest and finest minds, like Kerry and Edwards, would have been able to come up with that, too. It was just SO disappointing. I expected SO MUCH MORE out of Edwards and he did NOT measure up.

[saltpoint]

65. Let me ask a question. I'm not asserting an opinion because I do not

have facts to frame it.

But it is a question that's on my mind regarding Edwards.

Might the diagnosis of Elizabeth's breast cancer have come after his getting the veep nomination but prior to the VP debate with Cheney?

The official announcement did not come until after the election in November. But Elizabeth Edwards is a perceptive, dutiful soul, and she would surely have been swift to get to a physician had she noticed the need for it.

My hunch -- again, strictly a guess -- is that the diagnosis was made following Edwards' nomination in Boston but prior to that debate.

For over a year now, he cites Elizabeth's health as the imperative before making any decision about running in 2008.

[calimary]

68. Well, your hunch sounds like a good one to me.

Perhaps that made him pull his punches during the debate. Maybe deep-down, he didn't want to subject her to any more punishment, although I can't imagine what greater punishment there'd be on somebody's physical, psychological, spiritual, and emotional health than you'd be subjected to as the wife of a presidential contender in a dirty a campaign as this was. But I bet you're correct - that either she knew, or they both knew and chose to keep it quiet until just after the election.

But did they know when he made his acceptance speech at the convention, well before the fall debates?

Because I thought he pulled his punches there, also. I was expecting SO much of that one. And I was seriously underwhelmed. And, in fact, on points, my initial reaction was that cheney won the debate.

[saltpoint]

69. Cheney won the debate narrowly on points, but not decisively.

And then there was the issue of his demeanor and comportment.

This Vice President is a soulless lizard. I've been around a while and seen a lot of different models and styles of masculinity.

The ones I admire least are embodied by Dick Cheney.

[Yupster]

58. Forgot all about that

Maybe Gephardt could have helped Kerry win Missouri and Iowa? Could he have helped with Union voters in Ohio?

That's more than Edwards gave him so I guess as a Monday morning quarterback I'd say Gephardt would have been the better pick..

[saltpoint]

66. It's possible that the veep nod would have invigorated Gephardt

but Gephardt in and of himself couldn't win the Iowa caucus back in January of that year.

The Union vote in Iowa split every which way, with Dean getting the bigger share of what might ordinarily have been Gephardt's union vote.

Kerry and Edwards both whomped Gephardt. The final totals in Iowa were Kerry at 38%, Edwards 32%, Dean at 17% and Gep coming in at 11%, despite being an Iowa neighbor and a previous winner there, and he quit the race the next day. CNN was reporting that Gephardt was quitting the race before 11:00 p.m. Central Time on election night.

An operative I know in Montgomery County, Ohio, believes that Edwards was a huge plus for Kerry in that county. The entire rest of the counties in SW Ohio were solid red, and Edwards' appearances in Dayton and other surrounding towns turned Montgomery County blue.

[bullimiami]

6. id dont know about best, but he sure was a very good choice.

[Bluzmann57]

7. Should have been the other way around

Edwards-Kerry. But it wasn't and that's that. Hopefully in '08, WE Dems can put together a winning ticket. Gore-Schweitzer perhaps.

[Mass]

8. At least the debates would have been balanced \nt

[Guaranteed]

10. Yeah, but that's not the question,

so voting "No" would be deceptive.

Given that Kerry was the nominee, was Edwards his best pick for VP?

[Bluzmann57]

22. Yes

There ya go. Beer time. Have a happy holiday.

[LA lady]

9. We needed the South

He needed someone stronger in the south. Edwards didn't help much in NC

[1932]

20. Kerry said during the debates that Dems didn't need the south to win

the election.

The cause of losing the south was because the Democrats didn't compete in the south.

[Texas_Kat]

30. You are exactly right

[mtnsnake]

41. Yeah, that really worked!

Maybe he should've picked a running mate from Ohio.

[On the Road]

11. The VP Candidate Needs to be a Hatchet Man

Howard Dean would have been more effective in that role. To along with that, he also has the capability of inspiring and giving a positive vision that Americans of all stripes can buy into.

[Guaranteed]

12. That's a very interesting point. nt

[Rufus T. Firefly]

13. They've proven that with Cheney.

The VP needs to be a guy who can do the dirty work so the Pres candidate looks "above the fray."

[Mass]

14. I agree. I dont know if Dean would have been the best, but

Edwards was not the right person for this role.

[dailykoff]

15. Yes, for several reasons.

1) the veep is basically supposed to be an understudy in case the top guy gets taken out,

2) Edwards is a pretty good veep candidate but way too lightweight for the top of the ticket, and

3) if he hadn't, Kerry would have been called a sore losesr, jealous, etc so it was worth it just to short circuit that line of crap IMHO.

[WI_DEM]

16. My gut feeling is that the electorate liked Edwards more than Kerry

but Kerry would have made the best president because of his experience.

[wellstone dem]

17. I think Wes Clark would have been better.

He had more experience, would have had two vets on the ticket, and Clark has not been afraid to say the tough things that need to be said.

[KC21304]

19. Kerry/Clark would have been a winner.

And on the day my avatar picture was taken I told them both so. It was 2/13/04 Damn, I sure thought on that day it was going to happen.

[cobaindrain]

51. no chance, Clark was a dud in the primaries

[Tom Rinaldo]

56. Except he came in third in New Hampshire, remember?

That was the first actual primary, even though the MSM press was completely focused on the men who came in first and second in Iowa where Clark didn't compete. Clark came in first in NH among the Democrats who were not from adjacent States (and NH is a small sliver of a State, both Vermont and Massachusetts are a virtual stones throw away from almost anywhere in NH). Despite that Clark was ignored in the media in favor of the men who came in First and Fourth in NH. Clark later won a Primary and came in second in three others and was running second in Wisconsin on the day that he left the race early to endorse Kerry.

Yes Kerry and Edwards did better than Clark did in 2004, who was then running in his first political campaign. But Clark showed more strength in 2004 than Al Gore did when he ran for President for the first time in 1988. From Wikipedia:

"In the Iowa caucuses, Gephardt finished first, Simon finished second, and Dukakis finished third. In the New Hampshire primary, Dukakis finished first, Gephardt finished second, and Simon finished third. Dukakis and Gore campaigned hard against Gephardt with negative ads, and eventually the United Auto Workers retracted their endorsement of Gephardt, who was heavily dependent on union backing."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1988

Gore didn't crack the top three in either of 1988's first contests. Back then the steamroller effect of momentum coming out of early wins wasn't as strong as it was by 2004, and Gore was able to rebound some later in Southern States, but he never seriously challenged Dukakis. Actually the two most popular Democrats in 1988, for different reasons, never entered the primaries as it turned out; those being Gary Hart and Mario Cuomo.

[chieftain]

18. It should have been Gephart. We would have taken Missouri and

therefore the Election.Edwards added nothing in the way of geographic strength. He disappeared during the campaign. One of the unanswered questions of the '04 race is what happened to Edwards. Did the media choose to ignore him? Did the Kerry advisors' demand that he keep a low profile? Or was he just not a very good candidate? I have a hard time believing the last item, given how hot a topic he was during the Primary.

[Awsi Dooger]

24. Missouri wouldn't have been enough

I think it has 11 electoral votes. That still leaves Kerry short, since he got 252 electoral votes.

[Yupster]

59. Maybe Gephardt could have helped in Iowa too

I think Bush only won there by a few thousand votes.

[Awsi Dooger]

76. Possible

I guess that would have been just enough, Missouri's 11 plus Iowa's 7 putting Kerry at exactly the needed 270.

However, something I neglected to mention in my previous Gephart post: Kerry lost Missouri by 7 points, which is twice the expected VP bump for a favorite son. You might expect a higher number in Missouri, which seems like a very proud political state and hasn't been represented on a national ticket recently, but I don't know about 7 points.

[OzarkDem]

42. Gephardt is screwed up badly - he'll never run again

The dirty tricks campaign he tried to pull with his union buddies and the GOP to discredit Dean screwed him for life in the Democratic Party.

I used to like him, but his collaboration with the GOP to take down Dean was unforgiveable.

He's garbage.

[chieftain]

46. He's not my favorite either. When he went to the Rose

Garden to stand with W on the War, I was enraged. That said, he would have added more to the ticket than Edwards. I think he would have helped in Iowa and maybe even in Ohio.
I did see him at the Florida Democratic convention and he gave a remarkably powerful speech on the negative effects of Free Trade when not accompanied by wage and environmental standards. So even with the problems I have with him, I think he would have been enough of an add to swing the Electoral College our way.

[Awsi Dooger]

21. Unfortunately we lacked a good option from Ohio

The typical VP bump in a competitive state is 3-4 points. That's exactly what Edwards provided in North Carolina, about 3.3 points, if you look at the difference from 2000 to 2004 in terms of how North Carolina voted in relation to the national popular vote average.

A John Glenn minus 20 years would have won Ohio and therefore the presidency for Kerry. But who did we have? Sherrod Brown wasn't a viable option.

[Jim Lane]

37. Ohio option -- Strickland?

I don't know whether Kerry ever seriously considered Ted Strickland, the Ohio Congressman who's now running for Governor against Blackwell. Strickland isn't a veteran, AFAIK, but he was a minister. Boosting the religiosity of the ticket's image probably would've helped outside Ohio. (As an agnostic, I hate to say this, but the religious prejudice is there. The electorate perceived Bush as distinctly more religious than Kerry, a factor that helped Bush.)

[Awsi Dooger]

39. I forgot about Strickland

And I never heard him mentioned in 2004. He's the right age but as an unknown congressman it would have been considered an obvious attempt to sway Ohio. I wonder if Strickland would have been worth the typical VP bump since he probably wasn't high profile throughout Ohio.

This is why it's critical to have a stable of well known and popular senators and govs, or former senators and govs, in the vital electoral states.

[OzarkDem]

43. Strickland same as Brown

Either one would have been about the same re helping Kerry.

[pdxmike]

23. Yes, but he was horribly used

I think that Edwards was the perfect choice. But the bastards who ran the campaign emasculated him. He is at his best as a populist, railing against the powers that be. Hell, he's been playing that role for ~20 years. But the K/E consultants wouldn't let Edwards be Edwards. His performance in the debate was lame. He was told to just be a pretty boy(smiling John). Pathetic. He's much better than that.

I find it revealing that Gore, Edwards, and even Kerry are so much more effective now as they speak out. Why don't Dems see this and tell the Shrums of the world to take a hike. OK, that's a rhetorical question.

[OzarkDem]

44. Agree, Edwards should have spoken out

he should have been allowed to play a more active role in the campaign.

[ginnyinWI]

25. Yes. They would have been a very effective team in the WH. n/t

[Josh]

26. He needed to energise the ticket -

Edwards was the only one who could do that. I was for Clark, but I think Edwards was the right pick in the end.

[nickshepDEM]

28. Probably not. IMO, Edwards would have shined much brighter

at the top of the ticekt.

When selecting a VP, you want to fill a void in your resume. Gephardt would have been a good pick. Vilsack would have been good too.

[FrenchieCat]

31. I just never understood how John Kerry kept talking about a

National Security ticket, and then named John Edwards as his VP!

Whatever reasons he chose John Edwards (for optimism, youth, vitality and Edwards' popularity with the press--They kept saying it should be him), it certainly wasn't because of John Edwards' National Security experience...that's for sure!


snip
According to the Post: "Friends say Kerry believes he has passed a national security threshold with voters that has freed him to tap a vice presidential candidate who complements him in other ways."

If these "friends" of Kerry were really his friends, they would inform him that, sadly, this is not the case. In fact, the only thing keeping George W. Bush in this race is that John Kerry has not yet met this "national security threshold" with the electorate. Voters still give the President a commanding lead on the questions of who can best protect the nation from terrorists and who is a stronger, more patriotic leader. Fortunately for Kerry, these sentiments say more about the Democratic party -- and voters' lingering doubts about Democrats and defense -- than they do about the candidate. Kerry has enough time to close this national security gap -- and must close it if he hopes to beat Bush this fall.

Kerry needs to get viscerally and visibly angry about terrorism. Whether it's a bombing in a foreign capital, the beheading of an American contractor, or a suicide attack in Baghdad or Jerusalem, Kerry's reaction must not be one of diplomatic disappointment, but of plain-spoken anger. The American people need to hear in his voice and see in his body language that if given the opportunity, Kerry would not hesitate to serve Osama bin Laden's head on a platter. Bush has mastered the art of this rhetorical reassurance even as he has pursued policies that have made America less safe. Kerry has the chance to offer voters both hot rhetoric and the clearheaded policy prescriptions to back it up.
snip
Third, bring back "Bring It On." During the nominating campaign this past winter, Kerry would say: "If George W. Bush wants to make national security the central issue in this campaign, I have three words for him I know he understands: 'Bring it on.'" At campaign events around the country, audiences would jump to their feet. They not only were cheering a candidate who would stick it Bush, but also responding to a candidate who was showing Bush-like swagger. "Bring It On" made Kerry look tough; it made him into a fighter, and more than that, into a leader who would not back down from a fight. It's time for Kerry to bring back, if not that exact phrase, then a catchy rallying cry that will both motivate the faithful and inspire confidence in his leadership in the minds of swing voters.

Right now, Kerry has the opportunity through his vice-presidential selection and in the coming weeks of campaigning to define himself as a strong leader who will keep the nation safe and secure. When he does, Kerry truly will have passed the national security threshold and put himself steps away from the White House.

The writer is Kenneth S. Baer, a former senior speechwriter for Vice President Al Gore, runs Baer Communications, a Democratic consulting firm.
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=7927

[nsd]

72. I felt the same way.

Even by the end, Kerry hadn't quite convinced voters he was tough enough to stand up for America. This was nonsense, of course, but the impression was there. He probably thought his war record would immunize him from Republican attacks on this front, but, once the Swiftboat liars went to work, it didn't. I think having Wesley Clark on the ticket would have helped a lot. Another name mentioned at the time for much the same reason was Bob Kerrey, though that would have been a controversial pick.

[Digit]

32. Had Edwards won the nomination, he might be in the WH now

JE knows how to fight a "decent" battle with all his courtroom experience and remember how he wanted ALL the votes counted.

Plus his charming personna made anyone attacking him look just plain bad.

[dailykoff]

34. I think the outcome would have been the same no matter who

was on the ticket. Ohio was outright stolen, that we know -- thousands of ballots in Dem counties were simply set aside and not counted -- I heard Bob Fritakis interviewed about this a couple of weeks ago.

And rigged voting machines in states like New Mexcio apparently did the rest.

[politicasista]

36. Exactly. Hindsight is 20-20

But that's ok. We'd rather dwell in the past instead of the future.

[Clarkie1]

33. Not by a long shot. Kerry should have made a bolder decision. n/t

[dailykoff]

35. Teresa? (n/t)

[Clarkie1]

45. LOL. Nice comeback. n/t

[skipos]

38. Clark would have done much better on the ticket.

People were obsessed with being "safe" and Bush convinced them that he would be protect them from terra better than Kerry. A 4 star general would have done a great job of negating that.

[Skarbrowe]

40. I don't think Edwards hurt Kerry. I still think they won. I love the pics

of Kerry and Edwards and up until that gut wrenching evening, I thought they were our new President and Vice President. Even if Edwards had to catch up on some international policy, could you imagine him charming the pants off of other world leaders?


Eh, it was a great dream.

[Awsi Dooger]

47. This is a much higher percentage of yes votes than I expected

43% at this point. Since we lost you would think the condemners would be jumping in, especially since Edwards didn't help carry his own state, or probably any state, for that matter.

A yes/no question like this means only Edwards for the yes crew and any other possibility for the no, so I would have projected more like 30-35% yes.

[BlueIris]

48. Yep. Though I guess some will doubt that until Edwards is president.

My guess? 2020. And good luck, John. It's gonna be NASTY around here by that point.

[MercutioATC]

49. The "VP" wasn't the problem...it was the "P"...

Just my .02

[cobaindrain]

50. yes

[Snivi Yllom]

52. A better question, was Kerry the best choice for P?

Edwards as VP or not VP made no difference.

Kerry was a flawed candidate who ran a terrible campaign and frankly was not a 'likable' character. John Edwards was far more personable, telegenic and I believe would have resonated better with the American electorate if he had been at the top of the ticket.

Whomever wins the primary in 2008 will have to learn from those mistakes. There is a certain almost aura like quality, very hard to put in words, that candidates must project to win.

[1932]

63. Kerry is the one who would have been the great VP pick for '04, perhaps.

[Snivi Yllom]

67. he just a sense about him that says 'you owe me this'

Not 'I earned it'.

He's just not a VP kind of guy the more I think of it. His personality would not allow it. that's not a negative, it's just the way he is.

[LittleClarkie]

73. Not the sense I get

He thinks he could do good for the country. He has a sense of service. Always has.

But still, I can't picture him as VP. Not after running for P.

I also don't see the point of digging up the Edwards question now. It feels like ancient history.

[question everything]

53. What difference does it make now?

Why are people so obsessed about the last elections - except to learn lessons for the next one?

I doubt that the presence or absence of Edwards made any difference. I doubt that any other VP would have made a difference - unless it were someone unanimously loved and admired in Ohio or in Florida.

There were many mistakes done in that elections, which is a good reason why Kerry should not run in 2008, but this will be for the next candidates and their advisers to study.

[NJ Democrats]

54. He should have picked a different Southerner

Sen. Bob Graham of Florida. That would have given us FL and the election.

[1932]

62. The problem with Graham was that his approval rating in FL went down

over the course of his short participation in the primaries. His supporters in FL liked him because the thought he was conservative (he voted against the IWR because he thought it was too restrictive) and when they heard him criticizing Bush, they got very confused about who he reall was.

Graham was too complicated. He would have been a very risky bet.

[IndianaGreen]

55. I thought Edwards brought a fresh face to the ticket

with a lot of vigor and unstained by Beltway corruption.

A better question is who had the bright idea to put Lieberman on Gore's ticket and why?

[1932]

60. I think Gore picked Lieberman to send a message to Wall St that he wasn't

gping to ask much from them. I think Gore was telling the businessmen that was in the Summers-Lieberman-Rubin camp within the Democratic Party.

I also suspect that the only reason Gore looked at Edwards was because Edwards was from a huge banking state, but when he discovered that Edwards didn't have the connections to Bank of America and the rest of the NC-based financial institutions that one would presume a NC Senator would have, he went looking in CT for his VP.

[TNMOM]

61. Yes. The only problem with vote '04 was Bush's theft of it.

We need to stop beating ourselves up 2004. The only way we could have gotten into the White House was a full accounting of all votes. With Bush and Cheney pulling controlling all the levers of government, that didn't happen. There is nothing I would have done differently in 2004. Remember we won.

[LWolf]

70. Irrelevant question,

in my opinion. A better question:

Was Kerry the party's best possible choice of candidate?

Choice of Edwards? I don't know if he was the "best;" he wasn't the worst.

Choice of Kerry? Not in my opinion. That's what makes the question irrelevant. If your chosen candidate is not the best possible choice, why would you worry about whether the running mate is?

Obligatory disclaimer: Kerry was also not the worst possible choice. This post is not attacking or bashing him in any way. It is simply expressing the opinion of this Democrat: Kerry was not the best choice. Neither was Edwards. That doesn't automatically make them "bad" choices. Just not "the best."

[quiller4]

71. VP Choice

Frankly, I think we would have been better off with Edwards at the top of the ticket.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

74. If Warner could have delivered Virginia, Kerry might have won.

There would have been a different strategy without some much time and money wasted in Ohio.

[ChiciB1]

75. I'll Take Edwards Any Day!!

He has a GREAT deal to offer and he does some really "Hard Work" for those less fortunate!

I hope he's on the ticket in 08, one way or another! As long as HILLARY isn't!!!!