Kerry's message to voters if he picks Edwards: I fear nothing.

[AP]

WARNING: This post is nothing more than spin.

If Kerry picks Edwards, it's like saying, "I'm afraid of nothing."

All the other potential nominess say to the public, "I'm afraid I'm not enough" of something. LIke, I'm afraid I don't have what labor wants, or I'm afraid I don't have enough to fight terror, and I need someone to make up for my lackings on those issues.

But if he picks Edwards, it's like saying, "I'm confident I have what it takes, AND I'm not even afraid this guy is going to show me up with his charisma and youth."

All the arguments for other candidates tend to be arguments about them offering something Kerry lacks. Now I know some of the arguments about Edwards are about experience, but the most popular argument I've heard from the press (and not from supporters of other candidates who contrast him to those other candidates) is that he would make Kerry look dour and lifeless. Do you think Kerry is really afraid of that?

Furthermore, specifically on the issue of terrorism and national security, I think picking Edwards would send the message that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. And that's a pretty good message for Democrats to be sending.

[chimpymustgo]

1. Agree completely. I think Kerry is confident enough to pick JRE.

I disagree that your post is nothing but spin - it's a well reasoned argument. Show your stuff Kerry - pick the best guy - JRE.

[spooky3]

2. me too.

[Skwmom]

36. Confidence?

Putting a lightweight on the ticket does not express confidence. It sends out the message that "I'm so insecure, I want to pick a guy that has spent most of his life being a personal injury attorney (who cares if he's unfit to assume the commander-in-chief role in these troubled times) because I want to be the only heavyweight on the ticket."

[dpbrown]

3. Why wouldn't the number one pick the number two?

If Edwards is the second most popular choice among Democrats, then why wouldn't the winner pick this person to be the V.P. choice?

I seriously don't understand why someone would consider adding a soldier with no elected experience. I think that would be profoundly insulting toward all the anti-war people the NY Times says Kerry thinks he has "wrapped up" on the left.

I don't get what the big deal is. Pick Edwards and get it over with.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

DNC National Convention Delegate for Dennis Kucinich

[AP]

5. Historically, primary losers don't get picked because they have the taint

of being a loser.

But I don't think that applies to Edwards. I think the perception of Edwards is that if he just had a little more time and a little more money, he could have pulled out an even better primary performance. He also started with such low expectations -- nobody knew him and he rarely broke double digits all summer long in '03.

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

[DinahMoeHum]

6. but wasn't Al Gore a primary loser in 1992 ?

If you can, please refresh my memory. Thanks.

:kick:

[leyton]

7. I think he ran in '88.

Not sure though.

[AP]

8. He didn't run in '92 because of his son's car accident.

He was a primary loser in '88.

[dpbrown]

24. And wasn't G.H.W.B. second to Reagan?

I don't see evidence of a trend to the contrary.

The Constitution used to make the Vice President the second place candidate from the general election, didn't it?

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

DNC National Delegate for Dennis Kucinich

[AP]

25. GHWB and LBJ were the exceptions for very obvious reasons:

in 50s LBJ was most powerful Democrat in America. He waw, as Carro says, the Master of the Senate. He was where the real power was located in the Democratic Party. But he was too unappealing ever to become president on his own. He used his power to ride in on Kennedy's coattails.

Bush was the same thing on the right in the 70s and 80s. He was master spook and servant of the TX oil industry (just as LBJ was, by the way). He was real the power in politics and rode in on the coattail of a more appealing president.

Get rid of those two, and those circumstances, and you rarely find a P picking his VP from the primary losers.

There's another reason for this two: if you and your VP thought so much alike, you both wouldn't have been running for president (or you would have cannibalized your own support and neither of you would have made it to the top spot). You usually have to reach outside of the primary process to find the people who are on your same page.

I think there are obvious reasons this doesn't apply to Edwards (sure the trial lawyers like him, but his appeal is directly to people who work for a living, and not really to any single power apparatus, such as, eg, telecoms or the teamsters, or the insurance industry).

Edit: note that Gore was NOT a primary loser in '92, and that constitutional provision was changed in the 1800s, I believe.

[dpbrown]

29. I think the rationale is more like you appeal to MORE people

This rationale:

"if you and your VP thought so much alike, you both wouldn't have been running for president (or you would have cannibalized your own support and neither of you would have made it to the top spot). You usually have to reach outside of the primary process to find the people who are on your same page."

...could just as easily read:

The number one and the number two candidates for the nomination together provide the biggest spread covering the potential Democratic voters who will participate in the general election, given that one garnered the top spot and the other was most attractive the the second-highest numbers of participants in the primaries and caucuses.

I think the hand-wringing is overdone, and that it makes more sense for the number one to pick the number two, unless they absolutely hate each other, other over-riding considerations aside.

[AP]

34. Granted, you want to find some who covers lots of territorry, but

seriously, when you run for president, you need the financial support of specific factions of the party, and they support people who are ideologically categorizable, and they aren't going to support two people in the same category.

As the p-nom, you want to make sure you pick someone who agrees with you on the big issues and who'll carry through with your agenda. If you're running for president, it means that the other people who think most like you probably aren't running for presidnet because you came in first in that category you represent.

Ok, I'm reading Stiglitz's last book. Gore and Lieberman were VERY close ideoligically-speaking on deregulation and going easy on wall st with the accounting regulations. They both wouldn't have run in the primary because they would have cannibalized their financial support.

Same with Cheney and Bush. Cheney would have never run against Bush because they represent the same interests.

But when it comes time to pick a VP, you reach into the group of people who think the way you do.

I'm not saying this explains the choice of VP 100%. However, I do think that maybe 45% of the reason that a primary loser doesn't end up on the ticket is because of this. And I think another 45% is becasue they just have the taint of being a loser, regardless of what they stand for.

Having said that, I think that there is no real deep ideological conflict between Kerry and Edwards (because Edwards really rides mostly on a very broad-base message about class and opportunity) and I don't think Edwards has the taint of being a loser.

[AP]

27. Work backwards: Cheney, Lieberman, Gore, Kemp, Quayle, Ferraro...

Not many primary losers in there.

Bentsen? I can't remember.

[GreenArrow]

11. I think picking another pro-war IWR voting candidate

who has absolutely no remorse or regret about his vote, and who has bragged that he wouldn't "take a back seat to GWB on defense" would do as much to insult and alienate the anti-war left as Clark would.

Elected experience is no bonus for me. In fact, I'd like to see professional politicians made obsolete.

[Skwmom]

37. Antiwar vote?

I know many people who are anti-war but support Clark. Maybe you should do a little more research on the personal injury attorney (like he was a big time supporter of the war who thought Bush did the right thing by going into Iraq).

[sadiesworld]

42. Why would would the "anti-war people" prefer someone who

voted for the IWR (Edwards) over someone who argued against the war (Clark)?

[AP]

46. Why would they vote for Kerry if this issue were so important for them?

Or, why wouldn't they vote against Bush no matter what if this issue were so important?

[sadiesworld]

47. I'm going to go out on a limb here and opine that Kerry's IWR vote

did not endear him to "anti-war people".

Having someone on the ticket who voiced opposition to the war might be attractive to this group.

Voting for Kerry or Bush are not the only options available to them, they can vote Nader or stay home.

[AP]

48. Nader barely talks about the war. He talks about economic justice.

Nader's picks for VP are Edwards (IWR yes voter) and Gephardt (remember the Rose Garden?). And Nader probably won't even be on the ballot in more than three or four states anyway.

I don't think people who are primarily anti-war are going to have a problem voting for Kerry regardless of the VP pick.

[sadiesworld]

49. I'm not arguing that Kerry won't win the anti-war vote.

You might want to look at my original post. It was in response to a poster's suggestion that Edwards would be more attractive than Clark to "anti-war people". I find that to be an odd argument in light of their respective positions re the Iraq war.

As for "Nader's picks", I couldn't care less. He appears to want 4 more years of *.

[Generator]

53. I'm sorry but the idea that Clark is anti-war

is absurd. He made a career in the military. He was against THIS war and how it was waged. I thought someone should point that out. That's why I found people like Michael Moore supporting Clark kinda ridiculous.

That said, I like Clark. But I remain suspicious of someone that turned to be a Democrat when it most suited him. Clark is probably the most oportunistic of the whole bunch. NOT that he wouldn't make a good VP though, he probably would.

Contradictions abound, it's not so simple.

[sadiesworld]

54. Please reread my post(s).

Where exactly did I state that Clark was "anti-war"???????

I said that Clark was opposed to the Iraq War and that might be attractive to some "anti-war people".

Before you accuse me of promoting absurd ideas, why not read the post(s) first?!

[Crunchy Frog]

55. So, pick a pro-Iraq War senator

rather than an anti-Iraq War General in order to please the voters, like myself, who opposed the Iraq invasion?

That makes alot of sense.:eyes:

[Scoopie]

60. Get it over with is right...

Four more years of Shrub.

:puke:

[dwilson]

74. If your referring to Clark, then I must disagree

A four star general would not be insulting to me. However someone who helped author the Patriot Act, voted for the war, and quit his Senate seat before his first term was up, would be disappointing to me (insult is too strong a word).

Having said that, I'm confident Edwards will be the V.P. pick.

[JI7]

4. some say Edwards would be too predictable

but maybe that's because he is obviously the best choice ?

[leyton]

9. Agreed. Edwards is the best choice.

He's a celebrity now in the party, he's young (and eligible, in say, 2012), he's got lots of appeal to women and centrists, he's from my state...

I could go on and on.

[AP]

10. I think he also has the most well-honed and relevant policy-persona

The problem in America right now is which direction the power is flowing, and Edwards stands for the idea that it should not flow to the top, to a few large multi-national corporations, but that it should flow down into the engine of economic growth: people who work for a living.

[Scoopie]

62. So that's why he attended the

hoity-toitey, richie-rich, muckety-muck Bilderberg event?
Riiiiiight.

[Darkamber]

65. And who do you think will be Kerry's Sec. of State?

I've heard alot of Clark supporters mention a name as the shoe in for that spot for Kerry. And he's a regular goer to the Bilderberg event. And Clinton went as well. And...the question then becomes...so what?

[Scoopie]

72. And, as I've said before

because others went is no excuse.
I don't like it that Holbrooke went or that Clinton and Kerry dropped by.
That's what.

Besides, Holbrooke isn't running on a "populist" message. It's very hypocritical of Edwards to attend when he's constantly yammering about "two Americas."

[Scoopie]

61. Where do you get Edwards is a celebrity?

I never, ever, ever, never, ever see the guy!
And I live one state over!

[surfermaw]

78. Right on

It's cut and dried, it is Edward's as V.P......Go JFK & JRE

[deminflorida]

12. Kerry has stated that he will choose someone who can step in

and lead the nation. A one term Senator, with a trial Lawyer background, who displayed the least knowledge concerning National Security during the Democratic Debates...is not my idea of someone who is going to put to rest the nation's concerns that the number two man can take over and drive during a War Time situation.

[JI7]

13. Kerry feels everyone he is considering for vp can step in and lead the

nation. if he felt they could not do that they would not be in consideration in the first place.

[deminflorida]

17. What's not at issue is what Kerry Feels....It's what independent

voters feel....

They're the ones that are going to decide whether Bush stays or goes...

And you can bet your ass they are going to review the resume of the number two guy before they pull the lever in November....

[AP]

18. Independant voters like Edwards a lot (as do FL primary voters)

40% want him on the ticket.

[Darkamber]

32. The point is they are "Independent"

You can't assume what they are looking for. One thing that makes them independent is they tend to not support the big political machines. Yes, both Clark and Edwards are outside that "political insider' deal.

However, there's no way to measure what they are looking for. Do they want an anti-war General? Someone who went to a military college and from there spent his whole life in the military? Or do they want someone who to a State University and even worked his way through college and achieved his dream from childhood of being a lawyer against the odds?

Clark has an amazing resume. But is that really what Independents are looking at? And how many anti-war Republicans are there that Clark will bring in? You can hate Edwards position on the war, but if things go well for Bush in the coming months, if Kerry puts Edwards on the ticket, he will have opened the door to a middle ground. If he puts Clark on the ticket, he closes that door and says he is 100% anti-war and he has an anti-war General as well to prove that.

Yes, you might loose some of the far left if you add Edwards, but you would gain in the middle and the conservatives and if those conservatives are also Republicans then you take away from Bush. As for the left...would they vote for Bush anyway?

[Qutzupalotl]

79. Since Kerry and Edwards both voted for the IWR,

then by your reasoning, wouldn't putting Edwards on the ticket close the door and say he is 100% pro-invasion?

(I don't really believe that; I just wanted to point out that Kerry and Clark have differing views on the IWR, which would provide balance to the ticket--just the opposite of what you were saying.)

Both Clark and Edwards could bring in some of the disaffected Republican vote. Personally, I suspect Clark has an advantage here, since he has worked with Republican administrations in the past, and a Kerry/Clark ticket screams "national security"--which is probably why most of them vote for Republicans in the first place.

[deminflorida]

14. As a side note, Economics is not going to be the issue deciding

the election, Iraq is.....

The Economy IS adding jobs quarterly, even if they are low paying, and service sector.

The American People however, are just as or even more comfortable with the Democrats taking over the Economic reigns...

National Security however is a different matter.

[AP]

16. The economy is only delivering wealth to people at the top.

All the new jobs are McJobs which pay nothing and are just making the McEmployers super wealthy. It's wageslavery.

This is the story of America, and this is the issue Edwards articulates really well.

Also, he's the antidote to fear.

[Darkamber]

20. I question whether either will be the primary issue...

The war could turn on a dime. Already with the UN resolution and the New government set up and elections scheduled including the "out" Bush has given the Government to allow us out that situation could go either way. Bush could say we are here and we are remaining because the Iraq government wants us to stay.

As for the Economy, that too is not stable. It could turn, but it seems to be getting better according to some reports. We haven't see any change where I live. Unemployment is still higher then national average.

However, one issue that will not change and is a big selling to point to many who are pissed at Bush is the Federal Deficit. Watch that and watch interest rates and the value of the American dollar compared to other currency. The big power brokers in Japan and elsewhere can change things on a dime if they don't keep buying up our currency to keep it floating. The GOP is the "borrow and spend" party under Bush and believe that pisses off quite a few of them.

Edwards is seen as more of fiscal conservative because his plan, which is pretty much the same as Kerry's will reduce the deficit by 50% in 4 years. He can speak of this issue to the people. It is a weak spot that we really should hammer home and it will not change or go away.

[AP]

15. Edwards has more experience than Abraham Lincoln (who was elected at

a time when it was clear that America was about to disintegrate).

And, like I said, picking Edwards is like saying Kerry and America has nothign to fear except fear itself. And that's the best antidote to fascism. (You've seen the trailer for F 9/11, right? "With fear you can make people do anything.")

[deminflorida]

19. Thanks for making my point for me....

You can bet your ass the GOP will use fear when it comes to swaying independent voters....

The guy holding the short stick concerning National Security and Experience plays right into their hands....

By the way, There was no CNN and MSNBC, and FOX News when Lincoln was running for president...

Keep that in mind, when considering Edward's National Security Resume...

[AP]

21. If fear is the mood, Republicans will win. If it's hope, Democrats win.

The press was every bit as worse back then.

Read Wealth & Democracy by Kevin Phillips.

[dpbrown]

26. "National Security" is a canard

Bush approved torture.

Ashcroft's in contempt of Congress.

More than 800 dead soldiers in Iraq.

Tenet possibly springing a Plame trap on Bush.

These keystone cops are showing us how incompetent they are every day in the area of "national security."

The Democrats don't need a dick-swinging comparison with the Republicans on national security, they need to connect with voters' core values. Bush is doing himself in on "national security" and the Democrats are only going to be ill-served by over-focusing on it.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

DNC National Delegate for Dennis Kucinich

[spooky3]

28. I'd like to see Kerry clearly articulate a plan for nat. sec.

I think that would be more effective than either conceding it or trying to out-macho the other side. Just be rational and show you have a better way, and you'll win over many of the people who aren't blind loyalists to *.

[dpbrown]

30. Multilateralism versus Unilateralism

That's the message he's going to go with.

Progressives would also have him adopt "Prevention not Pre-emption" as a step in the peace direction.

I think Kerry will win in a walk, anyway.

[spooky3]

38. I'd like to see more step-by-step description.

I think a bit more detail than a general message would be more persuasive to the majority of undecideds. And according to the LA Times poll, there are still quite a few of them.

But I hope you are right about the outcome.

[JohnLocke]

31. What is wrong with being a trial lawyer? (nt)

[dwilson]

75. I don't see why Edwards is ridiculed

for being a "trial lawyer". Weren't Clinton and Kerry "trial" lawyers? I know the Repugs love to use that term in a derogatory way, the way they use "liberal"), but I think Edwards litigated against big business for the small guy?

Anyway, I was a huge Edwards-for-V.P. fan in 2000, when he was an even lighter weight politician. But this time around, I feel we need someone with more gravitas, like Clark.

[beavus]

22. precisely why Edwards wont be the VP

when was the last time Kerry did something brave or showed leadership in politics?
Dean should have been the nominee.

[AP]

23. Kerry's been ranked the most liberal senator in US 6 times, including '03.

Granted, he's from Mass., but, post 1973, it's not easy being liberal in America.

[VOX]

57. But Dean isn't the presumptive nominee, and Kerry is...

It's time to put aside differences and back the nominee. Dean is backing Kerry very enthusiastically.

Welcome to DU, beavus -- :toast:

[dwilson]

76. Dean would be a great V.P. too,

after Senator Graham. I hope they are both still in the running. I just can't get excited about Richardson, and heaven forbid - McCain!

[NoPasaran]

33. I like Edwards myself

I didn't support him during the primaries but I was impressed by him. I crave the passion he would add to our ticket.

As far as national security goes, I think that anyone who hasn't figured out that Bushco has been an ABSOLUTE DISASTER in that realm is unreachable and won't be swayed by us putting a general on our ticket.

[Jai4WKC08]

35. Gee, by that logic...

Why not pick... Madonna? Or my neighbor Phil? Or Osama bin Laden--hey, that one would really show his courage!

Personally, I don't think it's a weakness on Kerry's part to say, hey, I'm picking (fill in the blank) for VP because he/she is really good with (fill in the blank), and it's a really important issue, and I want the most able people possible helping me with it.

Besides, if we can believe all you keep saying about how popular Edwards is, how many votes he'll attrack, isn't picking him just as much a case of Kerry saying, I'm not popular enough and I need to be able to attract more votes? You can't have it both ways.

[cosmokramer]

39. Good points, HfJai

[BootinUp]

44. LOL -eom-

[Leilani]

58. Is your neighbor Phil

charming & charismatic?

[Jai4WKC08]

59. Nope, not at all

And he's got a witch for a wife. But hey, if Kerry really wants to make a bold choice, that says "I don't need anybody with competence or experience" well, Phil would be just about perfect.

[RafterMan]

40. Nothing to fear but fear itself in national security?

Your talking about a guy who thought "tin-pot dictator" (as General Zinni put it) Saddam Hussein was a threat to America.

Is the monster in Edwards' closet next?

[AP]

41. Like Clinton said, you can't wake up one morning and decide not to trust

your intelligence.

Clearly the neocons have been building a paper trail and lying about intelligence for years.

Edwards, Kerry and every good Dem (ie, not Lieberman) said they based their position on the intelligence, and if it's wrong they want to know about it.

[RafterMan]

45. Zinni believed the intelligence

He was the head of centcom.

He understood that it did not imply Saddam was a threat.

[Leilani]

66. I seem to remember Wes Clark believed the intelligence, also.

Of course, he had not seen the most recent.

But he, like Gen Zinni did not feel Saddam posed a direct threat.

And he testified to Congress as much.

[AP]

67. I wonder how he'd have voted if he were in Congress

[Capn Sunshine]

43. Now if Kerry REALLY wanted to demonstrate fearlessness

He'd bring on Howard Dean.
A liberal and a centrist
I'll leave it to you to discuss which is whom

[napi21]

51. I love Howard! My fear with JFK chosing him as VP is that

Howard hasn't been bruised enough by National politics and is still trying to be fair with his opponents. I think that's what happened to McCain in 2000, and Clelland in 2002.

The Shrub machine is vicious! Their strong belief is to say or do anything to win! Truth and fairness doesn't matter at all.

I don't think Howard is capable of being nasty enough to fight them!

[Darkamber]

69. We won't win by anger...

Bush is now trying to push the message that he represents optimism and hope and Kerry represents pessimism. Put Dean into the mix and they will with the ticket as pessimism and anger. And Bush as optimism and hope.

Add Edwards to the ticket and you cut that message back as Edwards whole theme included optimism and hope.

Also, Dean's issue on taxes would kill us. I think it's the primary reason why he lost and the same with Gephardt. No one wanted all of their tax cuts rolled back to where it they were before Bush became President. Kerry and Edward's positions were a much better compromise.

[Jai4WKC08]

70. That won't be the theme tho

You're right about BushCo pushing the optimism vs. pessimism theme. In their most recent ad campaign anyway. They are basing it on the economy, saying that it's improving, more people are working, wages are up, home ownership is up, and other bs. Then they ask why Kerry is talking about the Great Depression.

They're also trying to use it to tie Bush to Reagan and his optimism and belief in American potential--we've heard little else for better part of the last week.

I have little doubt that around Oct, they will manipulate gas prices to make people feel good about that too. If the economy does improve (or more importantly, if they can engineer the numbers to make it look like it's improving) we'll continue to see the Bushies run with it.

But that's not the theme I hear from the Kerry campaign, or the DNC either. It's all about competence. That's one reason we Clarkies think our man will be VP. We're seeing Kerry discuss how Bush is screwing up at home, and Clark how he's screwing up abroad. Oh, there's some overlap there, to be sure--both are qualified to talk to either foreign or domestic issues. But isn't that what we want?

Bush can't run on what he's actually accomplished, so he's trying to run on emotional reaction (gee, where have we seen that before?) "Who do you want to eat barbecue with?" for gods' sake.

Kerry's not gonna play that game.

[bushwakker]

50. I agree with you

While I haven't picked a side in the Veepstakes (I like Gep, Clark, Edwards) I think this post hits it on the head. Kerry does not need to have his nat'l security credentials boosted (by Clark) - he's already more ready to defend our country than AWOL is. Edwards is as bold a choice as there is right now.

[MontecitoDem]

52. On national security issue I disagree

"specifically on the issue of terrorism and national security, I think picking Edwards would send the message that we have nothing to fear but fear itself"

not sure what you mean by this. Do you really think national security is not an important issue? Or that foreign relations is not an important issue?

What I see is the need for Kerry and whomever he chooses to transform our role on the world stage very dramatically in order to increase our safety at home, and for the safety of all people around the world.

I'm not saying who would be best for VP -- I'm just disagreeing with your premise that picking Edwards would be a "bold" move sending a message that Kerry has nothing to fear.

[dogman]

56. If that's his choice,

then I'm afraid. Afraid of his judgment, afraid of his electability, and afraid if he were to pass away while in office.

[wjsander]

63. Uhhh...

Yeah, like Edwards being the president would be SOOOO bad...

Where have you been the last 4 years?

[dogman]

64. In a country where the President links 9-11 to the Iraq War.

The same as Edwards.

[kodi]

68. if kerry picks gephardt it shows he is looking towards governing

that message would indicate that kerry feels the election is won and that he is assembling a team to govern, not building a team just to win in november

[AP]

71. The only reason people think he'd pick Gep is to get help from Labor.

Gep could barely perform his job as speaker of the house and house minority leader very well.

Gephardt's a decent guy, but he stabbed Clinton in the back in the '94 budget negotiations (and ended up being on the wrong side of history) and then saw the number of Dems in the House dwindle every year under his leadership. He's hardly a success story about leadership.

[kodi]

77. okay if i end up being on the wrong side of history with gep on nafta

clinton did little to help democrats get re/elected in congress in his first term and sided with the gop on several items that undercut traditional social/labor liberals like gephardt.

if the democrats saw their power in congress eroded a significant part of that needs to be laid at clinton's feet and his strategy of "triangulation."

it was hard to campaign as a democrat when clinton was acting like a republican.

but to the point; your criticism is of gephardt. okay, if kerry wins and he should regardless of the vp nominee, whomever is on the short list is going to have to help kerry govern and that means someone can help him get his policy initiatives and programs enacted by congress.

i doubt the experience of a trial lawyer or nato commander are as valuable in that as gephardt's 3 decades in congress.

[AP]

81. If Gep hadn't established a confrontational relationship with Clinton,

perhaps Clinton could have done more to help Dems get elected.

When the Dem House leader starts acting like he think you're going to be a one-termer and like his goal is to run against you, how much help can you be?

As for getting your polices through, what is the power of persuassion and clear, articulatable policy vision. Gephardt hasn't realy displayed much talent doing that. Edwards has. I think he'll find the same success doing that as he's had in EVERY OTHER ASPECT OF HIS CAREER. Edwards is on an upswing. Gephard is clearly on the downswing. And, serioulsy, Gephardt's behaviour in '94 was attrocious. It showed a lack of team spirit and a lack of vision. And I don't think it should be forgiven easily.

[goodhue]

73. yes rejecting fear is an important message

I agree with your point and not simply as a matter of spin, as I really don't have any personal allegiance to Edwards.
I'm not sure that the national Kerry campaign understands the importance of the fear/hope dichotomy.

[citizen snips]

80. A Kerry/Edwards ticket will inspire real change.

And a kerry/edwards ticket will set up a democratic majority in the future.

[AP]

82. The A.S. kick