Kerry or Edwards?

[RageAgainstTheirMachine]

It has become apparent to me that this is a two man race. Who should I support now that my guy is out of the race? My biggest issue is electability (to me, electability has nothing to do with how liberal or how moderate a candidate is; electability has increasingly become LIKEABILITY), followed by standing up to Bush on national security, then healthcare and education. I would like to hear reasoned arguments from both sides if you all are so inclined. Thanks.

[edzontar]

1. I suggest La Rouche

This man has been systematically excluded from the debates because he is the most likeable and electable of them all, and the DNC doesn't want ANYONE to know it.

(humor-ironic)

[RageAgainstTheirMachine]

2. Yeah I spoke with one of his supporters in NH

for about 15 minutes. Nothing the supporter said seemed to make any sense.

[Rockholm]

3. Edwards....

Kerry is a bore. Kerry = Gore. The man has no fire in him. Sadly, he can't seem to make up his mind on many issues. I really think HOward Dean did us all a favor in speaking his mind. For that matter, so did (does) DK, Sharpton, CM-B. In any event, I truly believe that John Edwards will state his position on whatever the issue with passion and conviction. Kerry, unfortunately, just seems a bit too opportunistic to me. Furthermore, our friends the media seem to really want Kerry. That alone should make one want Edwards.

[bearfartinthewoods]

5. if we were casting for someone to play Lincoln in a movie

who would be better than Kerry? the problem is, everyone says Lincoln could never be elected in this day because his oratory was best read, not listened to and he was so very unattractive.

[Carolina]

19. Edwards too

for the same reasons. If I -- a lifelong, over 50, yellow-dog Democrat -- find it hard to listen to Kerry. If I cringe when he speaks because of his Senate-speak oratory and side-stepping, his lack of fiery, inspiring message ... how do we expect independents and dismayed GOPers
to come over to our camp??!!

Sadly, elections are about likeability first; everything else is secondary. Remember, Bush was the guy people felt comfortable having a beer with, they felt he was like them (go figure, but that's how they felt). Tell me what does Kerry inspire, what is your gut reaction watching and listening to him?

[jmoss]

24. Exit polls show: Edwards captures swing votes!

.....and we want to win in November, right?! --not just see "our candidate" win. In the beginning of it all in last September, I didn't know who to pull for. But in my mind, I see John Edwards, not Sen. Kerry, as the one who candidate left who can energize the disgruntled GOP'ers and independents to win in swing States (e.g., midwest/GOP land, Tennessee).

I pray that we can all see past the current Kerry-media-hype, and take a closer look at what has been happening in every State where John Edwards has been able to seriously compete--he's come in 1st or 2nd, because independents are coming out and voting for him!!

The difference is, if we don't have Edwards on the top of our ticket, Democrats will still vote Democrat--but most "on the fence" Indi's & Repug's are merely going to stand behind the current President.

[krkaufman]

4. National security is the gatekeeper to all other issues

Howdy Rage, best of luck with your decision.

As for me, I view national security credentials as the gatekeeper to the domestic issues of health care and the economy. Without strong national security creds, the Rove machine will shift to a war/terrorism terror campaign and the voters will be pissing themselves sufficiently to not be able to focus on Bush's (and Reagan's) failed domestic policies.

I found the following UPI op-ed from last night very much in line with my thinking on the issue.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040217-061854-2353r

Analysis: Kerry attack machine bashes Bush
By Martin Sieff
Published 2/17/2004 6:30 PM

This is not the campaign Bush and Rove planned for and expected. They were openly relishing the prospect of tearing former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean to bits in the fall. And against Dean, or Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., for that matter, the concept of presenting Bush as a "war president" made perfect sense.

I'm a Clark IL primary voter (Mar 16) -- unless Kerry needs my vote -- and ABB in the GE (but pray that we put up a nominee with national security credentials).

[TreasonousBastard]

6. There is a real problem...

there.

Presidents don't often come from the Hill. They tend to come from executive positions. Governors and generals are used to running things, not scoring debating points in Congress and sitting around in committee. Remember Bill Bradley? A great guy, smart and reasonably together on the issues, but when you looked at his years in the Senate, you couldn't put a finger on anything he actually did. Except talk. That's a large part of what killed his Presidential run.

Of course, there was also Johnson, who as Senate leader ran a lot of things. He lived for power.

So, we now have two people from the Senate who have no track record of actual decisionmaking. What to do? Who's the one we trust to keep the country stable, and possibly make it better? Who's the one we can trust to keep cool in a crisis?

I'll go with Kerry, simply because he's been around long enough to know what mistakes not to make. Edwards is really an unknown. OK, he's bright and a quick study, but every time he talks, I feel like I'm a member of the jury. He's smooth, like Clinton and Reagan were, but I don't really know what's behind it. Blind ambition comes to mind. Maybe he really is on a mission to straighten things out. Who knows?

Individual issues and past votes are the smallest part of it. What are the driving attitudes toward the things that are important to me? The environment, criminal justice reform, civil rights, economic reform, international affairs...

Kerry's got a past record that pretty well shows where he's coming from. Edwards talks the talk.

[Rockholm]

7. Very Well Said, but......

Does Kerry walk the walk? I am not opposed to Kerry, mind you, but at present, he does not inspire me.

[krkaufman]

8. I say we retreat to a more sensible position...

... and nominate Clark.

[PATRICK]

9. The talk

will come in very handy for addressing the nation and dealing with Congress, inspiring new leadership. The paranoia as to what the "inner" Edwards really is has been addressed about every candidate and is pretty shallow.

This is a contrast of image, message and strengths and I wouldn't argue about any of Kerry's. It is sometimes difficult to see how their strengths point out the other's weaknesses because they are both excellent. The process of elimination and nose-holding doesn't work too well either. This is more like a panic attack of the final choice between two goods but that one will turn out to be disastrously "wrong" somehow.

Also, it is not quite an even two man contest, just the beginnings of one with a critical several state monster primary looming very quickly. Edwards would have to be very very good to finally pull some victories out at this stage. I happen to think he is that good, but the voters have to both tune in and decide.

[DemDogs]

10. What's behind Edwards? Passion for democratic values

Read this: <http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2004/02/wade-a-02-09.html> from the American Prospect web page. (I posted excerpts in another thread. The last sentence reads: "I think his desire to make this a fairer nation is as deep a passion as I have seen in a public official since I can remember."

[TreasonousBastard]

14. Good article.

Really makes the case for him. If this is the real Edwards, and he can pull it off, I'm comfortable with him.

Our primary isn't until June, so it's a moot point here.

I worry largely about who can keep cool in a crisis. Clinton and even Reagan could, and this Shrub can't. Clinton and Reagan were also incredible speakers, and used their talents to calm everyone, not rile them up. Clinton moreso than Reagan, but Reagan always had that way of making you smile and nod when you had to suck it up.

Shrub is a hothead and extremely dangerous. Indecision, though, is just as bad. Bush I could keep his head when things heated up, but he never did get around to doing much of anything, except free Kuwait. Carter pretty much the same way.

So, the next terrorist attack, $5 a gallon gas prices, or the next Really Great Depression-- who's the guy to have there running the show? Beats me. Go with your gut and hope for the best.

Just make sure it isn't Shrub.

[democratreformed]

13. What are the driving attitudes toward the things that are important to me?

This sums it up perfectly for me as well.

[Tweed]

11. Two HUGE problems for Edwards

If the economy picks up, Edwards is sunk. That's his main issue and it could easily be taken away with even the slighest uptick due to RW spin. Even if it continues to go down, he can't beat Bush on national security.

If Osama Bin Laden gets captured, Edwards is sunk again. There is no way that he can say, I would have captured him faster or anyway he could fight agaisnt that. Let's say that Kerry is the nominee, he can say "Congrats to the bullies, now let's move on and do the work of peace."

[Carolina]

21. if the economy picks up and Osama

is captured, ANY Dem is doomed. Those would be huge bonuses for Bush regardless of the Democratic nominee. Kerry would slink back into his pre-Iowa obscurity too.

[moondust]

12. I have some doubts that Edwards can win very much in the South.

Maybe nothing. Those states seem to be pretty much stuck together in their Bible Belt dreams so much so that one guy may not be enough to jar anything loose.

And it's possible that he could narrowly lose some of the purplish blue states largely due to not having much in the way of national security and foreign policy credentials. Rovebush could spend millions and millions and millions making this the central issue.

[AP]

15. I have no doubt that Edwards can win everywhere Kerry can win, and will

have a better chance in the south, where Kerry can't win.

Edwards forces Repubicans to spend in every state, which is good.

Also, notice that he does really well among Republicans favority demographics -- rich, white men in the suburbs. Check out those CNN polls.

Not only does he force a geographic strategy, but he's going to force Republicans to spend a ton of money just to retain their core voters.

[moondust]

16. What's a ton of money

when you have two?

[PROGRESSIVE1]

20. We need to stop pandering to the south!!!!!!!!!

:argh:
















https://contribute.johnkerry.com/

[RobinA]

17. I Can Live

with either one of them, but I think Kerry is more electable. He has far more experience in what I feel counts in this election - national security. Edwards reminds me of a used car salesman, but I can live with that if I have to. I don't think he can beat Bush, but I do think he's a credible candidate. Dean was the only candidate I was really worried about. I thought he'd be a disaster in the GE.

[Cuban_Liberal]

18. Edwards! n/t

[many a good man]

22. Every poll says...

national security ranks on the BOTTOM of every voter's list of concerns and jobs at the top. Doesn't that give Edwards the edge since he's perceived as being the most anti-NAFTA?

[NV1962]

23. Want to avoid having to switch later, again? Kerry

Feel free to back Edwards - while he's still in.

Politics, it's a sport.