Is this the kiss of death or what?

[robbedvoter]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&ncid=2043&e=7&u=/nm/20040227/pl_nm/campaign_edwards_future_dc 

"His future is so bright you have to look at him through sunglasses," said Gore, who put the North Carolina lawmaker on a short list of potential vice presidential running mates before picking Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. "

Wow! passed over for Joementum!

[hippiechick]

1. so why'd Gore ultimately pick Joe, then ?

:shrug:


:hippie:

[StClone]

2. Jewish Votes

And I think overall it was a good move especially for Florida.

[robbedvoter]

Great move! When Joe went on mTP and said fake military ballots should

be counted, Gore's choice really paid off (NYT recounted - there was a Gore victory right there - by 202 votes without the fakes)
. that was his first one...
Second one in December.
And now, Third...
:nuke:

[StClone]

10. Ugly Publicans

Forced that be damned if you do, damned if you don't service voter thing. They filled out the vote forms and forged others. Proving that was not timely so they accepted the service votes only to lose by them.

Lieberman was a flop in other regards though.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

15. didn't work, but it wasn't for Jewish votes anyway

It was for the corporate support that Lieberman brought with him. Joe calmed the corporate CEOs by saying that Gore's populist speeches were mere "rhetorical flourishes".

[robbedvoter]

3. because he backstabbed Clinton? because he makes poor choices?

I dunno. But does this amount to yet another endorsement ( a second hand one) and how will it work its magic?

[OKNancy]

4. Morals

Needed a super clean "moral" type who was as far from Clinton as possible.

[DenverDem]

5. Being a treasonous tool for a foreign government

doesn't count as immoral, I guess.

[BL_Zebub]

9. Apparently not, given the current makeup of the Defense Dept.

...Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, etc.

But then, a certain "electable" candidate is all for their agenda, and that of their Likud string pullers.

[robbedvoter]

14. What foreign government would that be, Denver Dem?

Running out of legit gripes against Lieberman again? How is this possible? Need to scrape the bottom of the barrel? Should invite Mr Gibson Sr to help?

[DenverDem]

17. Right, critisizing the Likud is anti-semitism.

Peddle that meme elsewhere.

I love Jews, it's Sharon I can't stand.

[dsc]

6. maybe because Edwards had 5 minutes of political experience in 2000

It is hard to make the case that Edwards had anything like enough experience back then to be a heartbeat away from the Oval Office.

[robbedvoter]

8. as opposed to 3 years of "bipartisanship" that solved this

What was it? 70% agreed with W? Yeap. Now he's ready.

[Auntie Bush]

11. He still doesn't ! And no foreign policy experience to boot.

He'll bring nothing to the ticket except a nice smooth talking Southerner with a pretty face....and very little experience. Maybe if he had stayed in the Senate and gotten more experience...he'd be a great choice in 2012. He'd make a good AG in the meantime!

[IconoclastIlene]

13. Ill second the motion...

lots of flash....and cash...but little experience and ya'll could vote 'em in for 2012, ya'll know what I mean?

[SangamonTaylor]

16. His involvement in the Clinton impeachment was the moment they took note

Perhaps no candidate now running for president - no other congressman, period - benefited as much from the impeachment hearings as John Edwards. Edwards entered the Senate in January 1999, at the bottom of the Senate's seniority rankings. But the North Carolina freshman, a former trial lawyer with no previous political experience, soon found himself in just the right place. Within days of his inauguration, Edwards was tapped by Sen. Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader, to oversee the depositions of key witnesses: Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan and Sidney Blumenthal.

Edwards was joined by two Senate veterans, Sens. Pat Leahy of Vermont and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, in overseeing the witness interviews. Edwards said the hothouse atmosphere of the impeachment proceedings, with the full Senate working long hours behind closed doors, offered a steep learning curve. "It was a very intense, very fast introduction," Edwards recalled in a recent interview.

When the time came for the full Senate to vote in February on whether to remove Clinton, Edwards gave his first Senate speech. But unlike most first-timers, Edwards's speech was not about some obscure topic of regional interest, delivered to just a handful of his colleagues. He spoke to the full Senate, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in attendance. In that speech, Edwards explained his decision to acquit Clinton, drawing deeply on his 20 years of courtroom experience.

He told his colleagues that when the trial began, he was "100 percent completely open to voting to remove this president. I think this president has shown a remarkable disrespect for this office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter," Edwards continued. "It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen."

But despite moral outrage, Edwards explained, he had to vote to acquit.

"Every trial I have ever been in has had one moment, one quintessential moment when the entirety of the trial was described, and in this case we have such a moment. . . . The question was, is this a matter about which reasonable people can differ? . . . Now, if the prosecution concedes that reasonable people can differ about this, how can we not have reasonable doubt? These things all lead me to the conclusion that however reprehensible the president's conduct is, I have to vote to acquit on both articles of impeachment."

Former Nebraska senator Bob Kerrey said Edwards's work in that trial forced many of his colleagues to take notice of the newcomer.

"He became influential immediately there," Kerrey said in an interview last week. "When John stood to express his opinion, they would listen. He had the capacity to understand and explain things for them."

That suddenly heightened profile set Edwards on a quick path toward political stardom, leading Al Gore to seriously consider him as his running mate in 2000. And it laid the groundwork for his current bid for the White House.


http://www.primarymonitor.com/news/stories2003/103003impeachment_2003.shtml

[bushwakker]

7. Holy Joe was a fave of the Beltway Media Clinton haters

Gore hoped to appease them by distancing himself from the best president this country has had since FDR. Picking Holy Joe was part of this process. Unfortunately it didn't work and the media did a number on Al anyway. The campaign was fundamentally flawed from the beginning - the premise being that he must distaqnce himself from Clinton. He would up getting none of the glory for a successful 8 years and was tarred with the "scandals" anyway. Pretty sad.

[IconoclastIlene]

12. As soon as I heard who he'd picked as a running mate..

I figured Gore was somehow gonna lose.....Jewish folk don't number that many of the population for Chrissakes......(pardon the pun).

[Kathleen04]

18. I knew from the subject line that this was about Gore

;)