John Edwards kicks right wing arse and defends John Kerry (this is good)

[JI7]

<COLUMBUS - Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said last night that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should resign because of the abuses of American-held prisoners in Iraq, but Mr. Edwards declared the real solution is to replace President Bush with Democrat John Kerry.

"This is not about the secretary of defense; this is about the President of the United States," Mr. Edwards told about 1,300 at the Ohio Democratic Party State Dinner.

"If we want to signal to the rest of the world that we in fact emphatically reject what happened, then we want to say to the rest of the world that what happened here is completely inconsistent with American values. If we want to say to the rest of the world we as a nation want to change course here, there is a simple answer to that, which is to elect John Kerry the next president of the United States," he added.

Mr. Edwards said Vice President Dick Cheney received "five deferments to avoid serving in Vietnam "and the President had a "year of his life disappear in the National Guard."

"Those two men are criticizing our candidate for President because of the medals he won. You have got to be kidding me," Mr. Edwards said.>

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040509/NEWS09/405090397/-1/NEWS

[fearnobush]

1. Edwards will Hill Billy the piss out of these Bush co. fascists criminals.

I love this guy.

[Hobarticus]

2. Attaboy, John!

I still think Edwards is the man to tap for VP.

[lachattefolle]

3. Is Edwards too nice?

I like Senator Edwards alot, but would he be able to demolish, or at least diminish, the right wing attack machine without losing that boyish demeanour that makes him so popular now? Senator Kerry needs a very aggressive VP to counter some of the negative images the GOP ads have engendered. It's going to get really ugly down in the trenches especially since Bush is finally sinking significantly in the polls. Also, with the preoccupation of the country geared towards the situation in Iraq and terrorism, Edwards may be perceived as too young and inexperienced by the general populace. On the other hand, I hear he was a magnificent trial lawyer and he's certainly eloquent on the stump.

[shraby]

4. John Edwards was

a good trial lawyer..stomped many large companies. He may look sweet but I believe he is one smart tough cookie. Also has the ability to "read" a jury to the max in order to know what will win his case for his client. Don't ever misunderestimate him.

[meow2u3]

11. John Edwards reminds me of a 21st Century Teddy Roosevelt

He walks and speaks softly, but carries a big stick to pound Repukes (read: bullies and thugs) in their place.

[JayS]

5. I think the right wing attack machine would not even faze...

...Edwards. Remember that what might piss off a poodle will generally go totally unnoticed by a Great Dane. He is tough when he needs to be and is a quick thinker.

What is so sad is that when I mention Edwards to my Republican friends the remark I usually get back is something like "now I would have voted for him".

[JI7]

6. Edwards got a lot of republican votes , it's how he did well in wisconsin

it's probably true when people say edwards can't gaurantee north carolina if kerry makes him vp. but edwards might be able to help with bringing some republicans to the ticket. kerry did very well among democrats and i think he can use his military service,and work as a prosecutor to help bring in some republicans , but edwards has shown he can attract republicans so kerry should take it into consideration.

[chimpymustgo]

7. Edwards will force Chimpy & Co. to spend money in a lot of places they

hadn't planned to. NC WILL be in play, as well as GA, other southern border states.

Edwards plays QUITE well in the Midwest - Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin. His press secretary, Jennifer Palmieri has been put in charge of Kerry's Ohio press office.

Edwards attracts Republicans and Independents - and is strong in TWO REGIONS of the country.

Charismatic, populist, great campaigner.

Kerry/Edwards '04. And beyond...

[AP]

10. Even the worst freeper I know gets really confused when trying to...

...articulate a reason not like him, and has to conced that he pretty much represents -- economically speaking -- everything she claims to believe in (about class and opportunity) and that she'd probably vote for him, because that's her top issue.

Freepers generally think they like Republicans because Republicans are the people who help working class people become rich through their own labors. There's no way you can say that that isn't John Edwards. Freepers get confused with him and they want to vote for him, even when he's talking about raising taxes on people making over 200,000, and when he talks about investing in public education.

[newyawker99]

8. Hi lachattefolle!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[lachattefolle]

12. Thanks for the welcome newyawker99

I have finally found a place where people are sane...can you believe my siblings are Republican, right wing, born again, etc...I'm the black sheep! Of course, hubby and kids are Dems also. I couldn't live with them if they weren't because I feel way too strongly that this election is vital to our national interests. I just hope President Kerry can salvage some of the mess Bush and Cartel have created.

[spooky3]

19. Hi, lachattefolle, that's true for many of us as well! DU is a

very good antidote to siblings, parents, friends, neighbors, etc., who are politically delusional!

[lachattefolle]

23. I needed an antidote, spooky3,

My husband is active duty military and I sometimes feel surrounded by Republican diehards. I can't remember where it was posted that the writer speaks out in public against Bush, little comments, etc., but I find myself doing the same thing. I get alot of looks from military people, but sometimes agreement. You know active duty can't hardly say boo without getting accused of disrespect to the Commander in Thief. If Bush keeps the troops in Iraq much longer he'll probably start losing his military base of support. I just wish the stupid s--t had never gotten us in there to begin with and we have to worry about all those poor guys and gals over there fighting and dying for his lies. Not to mention all the poor dead Iraqi civilians.

[AP]

9. Too nice for what? Too nice for the voters to like? To nice to get his

points accross? Too nice to win?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/polls.html

[lachattefolle]

13. Too nice

My only concern with Senator Edwards when I posted the question was would he be able to attack Bush and Cheney without losing the charisma and positive message that makes him so attractive to many voters? Senator Kerry's VP pick will have to defend the ticket vigorously or risk being run over by the GOP slime machine.

[AP]

14. Kerry would be the bad cop in the relationship.

[TheDonkey]

17. Edwards, I didn't like BUT

now seeing him on the campaign trail he shows that he can be damn negative to shrub and friends while seeming nice and positive. I think he'd be a great VP. He really has got his stuff.

[Cuban_Liberal]

15. He was GREAT!

That's our VP nominee--- take it to the bank! :thumbsup:

[chimpymustgo]

16. Were you there? Please, details if you have them!

Was it covered by C-SPAN? Would love to see JRE in action again.

(you caught me smiling again...)

[Darkamber]

18. Edwards back in OH on Monday May 17th

As posted from the JRE Grassroots site..

Hear John Edwards Monday in Cleveland!

"What's at Stake in Election 2004: Restoring America's Integrity"
conference at the Renaissance Hotel, Public Square, Cleveland
May 16th - 18th.
John speaks Monday (May 17th) at 11:30.

The event is free.

Needless to say, I think Edwards will continue to be in demand in OH, which indicates that he can help win this swing state.

He's also scheduled to the speaker for the Louisiana Democratic JJ Dinner. This information also from the Grassroots site.

North Carolina U.S. Sen. John Edwards, a former presidential contender, will be the Louisiana Democratic Party's guest speaker for its annual major fund-raiser June 19 in Baton Rouge.

State party chairman Mike Skinner said Edwards is the main attraction for the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner.

Edwards is a frequently mentioned potential vice presidential prospect for Democratic presidential aspirant and U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.

Tickets are $150 per person or $1,500 for a ten-person table, and $2,500 for the best tables. For more information call 225-336-4155.

And finally, though this is not confirmed, The Texas Democratic convention have mentioned that they want John Edwards as the Key note speaker at their State Convention. This info came from one of the caucus delegates who was there when the announcement was made. With a few Texas hoots to go with it. And the comment that they hoped it would be VP Edwards by the time they held their convention.

[spooky3]

20. Thanks, Darkamber, I hope all OH DUers who can go will.

I wish my state were in play so that JRE would speak here!

[JI7]

21. what state are you in ?

?

[spooky3]

35. VA

[GOPBasher]

22. Go, John, go!

I'm so torn between Edwards and Clark for VP. I love them both.

[realcountrymusic]

24. Leaning toward Edwards, but I like Clark plenty

Dear y'all

First-time post to this forum, which I've been reading for a couple of weeks with increasing delight. Between DU and Air America (PLEASE let it survive until November!) my world is a lot brighter than it's been since * took (and I mean "took") office.

Had to weigh in with my own ruminations on Edwards/Clark, which I do agree is the real choice Kerry faces. (McCain is clearly a diversion, though I'm one of those who would happily vote for that ticket. I admire McCain despite disagreeing with him on many issues, which is the way one would hope to feel about the "other party" in a true democracy. And I do think that we are in a state of emergency in this country in which a bipartisan ticket would be a history-making intervention.) Gephardt, though a good man who *might* deliver Missouri or Ohio or both, lacks the zing we all know Kerry needs at this moment. Richardson is a truly fine man, one of my favorite people in public life. But I think all the attention would go to the "Hispanic factor" and not to his amazing achievements in and knowledge of foreign relations and weapons proliferation issues. Much as I *love* the idea of finally having a non-Anglo candidate on the top of a Democratic ticket, I don't think the Hispanic community is going to be won with an affirmative action appeal right now. Hispanics who might come out to support Democrats will come out if they hear intelligent ideas about issues they care about the most. The democratic party would make a mistake by patronizing these voters. And while New Mexico would be nice to have, it's not as crucial as Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan. The other states in which a major positive effect from the "Hispanic factor" might matter are much more solidly Red or Blue states already. So I do hope that Kerry is seriously thinking about Clark or Edwards at this point. Richardson and Gephardt deserve major posts in the administration. Both are team players.

I didn't take Clark all that seriously in the primaries, but he's grown on me a lot. I think the symbolism of his stature and service would make Chickenhawk Inc. look like what it is. He is an eloquent speaker and I'd feel good about his potential presidency, though I'm not so sure he'd be the best candidate in 8 years, which is how I think we must be strategizing here. We need a 16 year run of democratic government just to undue the damage the right has done in this country since Gingrich and Limbaugh appeared on the scene. * is just the final bursting of that dam.

But I now lean to wanting Edwards, for several reasons. One is the aforementioned longevity question. He's young, telegenic, and a brilliant speaker, and with the seasoning of 8 years in the co-pilot's chair, he looks like presidential material to me. I think other Americans will see that too - a return to the classic function of the VP slot, after 4 years in which the VP has been the real president and chief babysitter. The contrast of statesman Kerry with protege Edwards will play well against the absurd image of a "likable" idiot being handled by his cardiac-challenged assistant. More substantively, however, I like Edwards because he is the *one* candidate in this entire game who can truly claim and articulate his working-class roots, who embodies the middle-class American dream of achieving wealth and standing through education and hard work. That's the much-vaunted "optimism" of his campaign style, and it sells because it plays to the real emotional center, not the phony political "center," of American life. He's not ashamed of being rich, and has no reason to be. He'll answer all the charges about Kerry's wealth and privilege, and Teresa's, and George's, and Dick's, by simply standing beside Kerry.

Elections, like it or not, are won on emotions. They require winners to think strategically like an advertising agency, not a policy professor. The reason * is finally wilting is that the mood of the country has darkened and become pessimistic and embarrassed. That's why the comparisons to Carter are arising. Rove (I hope he's having a BAD month!) was always a master of this logic, and we have to beat him at this very game, even (especially) if we have sound policy-oriented reasons for wanting Kerry to win. And admit it -- those of us on this board are *very* motivated by emotion. We take it for granted that if the facts about * were well known, everyone would hate him as much as we do. But put yourself in the place of someone who voted FOR Bush in 2000 and it looks different. Not many people are comfortable admitting to themselves that they were had, that they made a mistake, or even that their hero has let them down. The sale won't be made to swing voters if it entails an appeal to shame or embarrassment or self-criticism for supporting * in 2000. Kerry's new ads are excellent, and I think they have been underrated in discussions of why his numbers are gradually improving. We have to sell hope, optimism, a better mood, a more generous and less self-loathing America. And John Edwards has made an art out of closing that deal, and embodies it in his biography.

No matter whom Kerry picks, the appeal has to be positive and forward-looking. The Big Dog -- who also drew on his humble-roots biography perfectly -- taught us how to win elections (though I *pray* Hillary stays out of the mix, as she's just too polarizing, through no fault of her own). "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" is cheesy, but America spells cheese "P-R-E-S-I-D-E-N-T."

Thanks for letting me weigh in. I really look forward to hanging out here in the future.

Realcountrymusic
(I'll explain the handle another day)

[chimpymustgo]

26. Welcome to DU, realcountry. EXCELLENT post!

Great to have you around - an auspicious beginning here!

:yourock:

[realcountrymusic]

28. Thanks! and more on "the "Chickenhawk factor"

Very kind of you. I agree, in fact, that staying off the "chickenhawk thing" makes some sense in the public discourse of the campaign, though I take for granted that participants in this forum mostly agree that the cynicism of Those Who Didn't Serve sending our kids to die in Iraq is the ultimate example of RW arrogance.

As I said in my previous post, I think Kerry/Edwards, or Kerry/Clark, would do well to avoid selling such arguments hard, though surrogates can still play this angle with the right constituencies (veterans, in particular). Kerry's Vietnam service, properly touted, will do the job without having to say much about why Shrub and Dick didn't show up for duty.

One more reason for favoring Edwards, IMHO, is that I think the "Vietnam" angle is going to get stale over the next six months if it is hammered by Kerry too hard. A substantial portion of voters are either too young to care or too ignorant of history or too conflicted about their own feelings on that war. Kerry served, more than honorably. But it's his history of serving and then *opposing* the war which provides the richer story to campaign on in light of the current crisis. He can turn the charge of "flip-flopping" into a character asset: he gives his country the benefit of the doubt, but learns from experience and is able to change his mind, and advocate changing policy, where others are blinded by ideology or fear. Edwards as VP lets voters who don't want to re-fight Vietnam identify with a candidate who was too young to be held accountable for his actions in that era, and who represents a more future-oriented vision. I think it's really important for voters to be able to imagine their VP as a future president. I think that's one place where Gore went wrong picking Lieberman (besides JL being an ineffectual "moderate"). Rove inverted the image because there was no way * could embody the gravitas of a Kerry -- or even a Gore. So we all went to the polls knowing we were voting for or against President Cheney. Right Wing voters, in particular, took comfort in that fact. We can turn that image into a liability this time around with Kerry/Edwards. I'm convinced of it. You DO need one candidate, and *ideally* the top of the ticket, to evoke history, experience, gravitas, etc., and one to evoke youthfulness and a future orientation. Clinton managed to do both at once, though he de-emphasized the gravitas and had the sheer charisma to do it (plus the ineffectual Bush Sr. and hapless Dole as opponents). Gore was his young man in waiting, and played it well. He just failed as the heavy.

I'm willing to bet that if Kerry picks Edwards, he goes up 4 or 5 points within 2 weeks. I'm less certain how much or how quickly Clark will raise his numbers, though over the long term, and especially if Iraq remains the Big Story and/or there is another major terror event in the US, Clark might be just as strong a VP candidate. But the image of Kerry/Edwards is an ad-man's dream.

Realcountrymusic

[chimpymustgo]

33. Another thoughtful, unimpeachable post, realcountry.

Whew! PurityofEssence and AP finally have some decent backup! Welcome again.

Kerry/Edwards '04. And beyond...

[GOPBasher]

38. Wow! What a first post!

Excellent post and welcome to DU! :hi:

[robbedvoter]

25. I'd stay off the chickenhawk subject if i were him. otherwise fine.

[Padraig18]

27. Why?

:shrug:

[robbedvoter]

29. hangman meet rope?

It was a bit embarrassing on Imus when he said "he was in high school through most of Vietnam" - that's one long high school stint.
This from the guy who would have started the war in Iraq....

[AP]

30. If you don't understand that as meaning that

Vietnam ended shortly after graduating from high school...well...

[Padraig18]

34. Do the math

He WAS in high school throughout most of Vietnam. He's only 50.

[VOX]

31. Edwards actually was too young - born 6/10/53; by the time he was 18...

and eligible for the draft, the lottery system was in place for Selective Service. The lottery for men born in 1953 was held on 2/2/72, and Edward's number (for his 6/10 date of birth) was 178. There was no way that number would have ever been called up to active duty.

By 1972, the Vietnam-era draft was winding down -- only 49,514 men were called up that year, with the draft ending altogether on 7/1/73.

Here you can see the pattern of the draft during the Vietnam conflict; the heaviest induction years were 1965-69.
http://www.landscaper.net/draft70-72.htm

1964 112,386
1965 230,991
1966 382,010
1967 228,263
1968 296,406
1969 283,586
1970 162,746
1971 94,092
1972 49,514
1973 646

[atre]

37. Ah! Facts!

The rabid wing of the Clarkie cult won't know what to do

[citizen snips]

32. Are you afriad Edwards might make valid point?

:eyes:

[JI7]

36. his point was defending John Kerry's service which was being attacked

from the way i read it, i think he was defending john kerry from those who were attacking kerry's service. he wasn't attacking others for not serving in itself. he was showing that those who are attacking kerry on defense are those who did not serve and avoided doing so unlike kerry.