Edwards polls the strongest by far among other VP choices

[usregimechange]

I looked at Survey USA data today and was surprised at the extend of advantage that having Edwards on this ticket had. I had the following thought:

Maybe Obama should pick Edwards, run on the economy, and let them attack on foreign policy and when they do:

1). Obama has more experience than Abe Lincoln.
2). You are just trying to take the focus off of the economy.
3). You voted for Iraq.

End of story. Blue America.


PS: I know Edwards said he wasn't interested. It is my guess that Liz would kick his arse if he said no. Edwards has better name recognition so he is bound to poll well early. Also, Webb wasn't included in the polling.

[asdjrocky]

1. Late at night, when no one is looking-

John Edwards as VP is my brightest and biggest dream.

[usregimechange]

2. Hey, if they want to run on the economy, who would be better?

[Yael]

3. I dunno, Rocky

I think if they make him AG and take his leash off, he would set the universe on fire. I have to wonder how much the VP slot would allot him.

[asdjrocky]

8. Oh yeah, I'd love AG-

But I still think, a few pics of John and Obama playing b-ball together, or running, or on jet skis... (that last part was a joke) and it would be all over.

Mostly, I find it hard to be objective on this one because of my personal attachment to the Edwards campaign, and the people on it.

By the by, great to see you. :hi:

[Yael]

10. JetSkis would ROCK!

:D

Good to see you too! I have missed your input the last few months.

:hug:

[Binka]

52. Rocky!

:hug: Great to see you my friend. What a long strange trip it has been. Edwards as VP is my hope as well. I think Obama is gonna go military for what it's worth. Webb or Clark.

[saltpoint]

66. Great candidates like John Edwards tend to attract

great volunteers like yourself.

So that adds up and makes perfect sense.

I got no new material. Just wanted an excuse to say hi.

[tledford]

23. Agreed. AG is the job for John. nt

[cottonseed]

4. I think that he's a "known" commoditiy helps in these polls.

The people against Obama now are against him in part because they don't "know" him. What that means to different individuals is up for interpretation, but I see the advantage of an Edwards on the ticket for that reason alone. Obama is going to have enough work ahead of him "re-introducing" himself to certain segments of the population, without having to do that for his VP. I like Schweitzer a lot, but see the advantage of Edwards as VP.

[tkmorris]

5. I have been wishing for Edwards

I don't often say so here because there are so many who think we need someone to deliver the South or Southwest, or even a battleground state like Florida or Ohio in addition to the clowns who think that anyone who ever lost on the ticket should be expelled to purgatory.

He's who I want though.

[JustAnotherGen]

6. I supported Edwards

Was part of One Corps . . . But -

I want him for AG. I agree with the poster who said he would "set the universe on fire".

Though - I could see it (Veep). They're both tough. I watched Obama after his speech in North Carolina - he was surrounded by Secret Service . . . and they were Blatantly surrounding him.

Edwards - has become a very rich man for following the credo, "When a person/business is bad - they OUGHT to be punished".

I could see it - but I'd rather see that Edwards tenacity pushing back FULLY The (barf) Patriot Act. Giving those folks at GITMO a day in court . . . no more wire taps. Looking at what the f*ck has been going on in the White House these past 8 years. I truly believe he won't let us down. AND - I think Obama will give him carte blanche to just get on with it and get it done.

Good Cop. Bad Cop. Edwards could be the 'bad cop' undoing everything the 'bad people' have been doing.

And just for grins - maybe he'll take a second look at that 35 Articles of Impeachment Kucinich delivered the other night.

[tledford]

24. I'm with you. (former Edwards supporter) nt

[JustAnotherGen]

7. Might be talking to myself

And forgive me for sounding/typing Paranoid -

But I kind of WANT Edwards outside of it. I do not TRUST the NeoCons. They are waaaaaaay to cocky in their choice of candidate. I take that to mean - they've already figured out precisely how they intend to steal Yet Another Election.

In 2000 Edwards couldn't fight it for us. In 2004 he couldn't fight it for us. If he's "outside of it" - this time -

We'd have an Attorney fighting for the people's votes - who has a strong fierce ferocious record of Winning!

[asdjrocky]

9. Not talking to yourself at all,

and I think you make some good points.

[tkmorris]

11. My perception is he could have in 2004

He even wanted to, if some reports are to be believed. Kerry didn't want to.

[JustAnotherGen]

12. Exactly

It's my understanding he wanted to as well . . . We'll have to wait and see how this falls out I guess. *sigh*

[karynnj]

19. There are more believable reasons to think he didn't

The main one being that, unlike both Kerrys, the Edwards did not speak about the election problems or voter suppression at all until mid 2006 - even though JRE was out speaking on many other issues. (There are over 10 times I can cite for the Kerrys, who were trashed every time they did.) The Edwards claim is based apparently on his comments the night of the election. Those comments, in fact, were FROM THE CAMPAIGN and were obviously approved by Kerry.

In addition, Edwards was far better running as a Presidential candidate in either 2004 or 2008 than as a VP. He seems to realize this himself - as I think EE did. He proudly spoke of refusing to use the Kerry slogan "help is on the way". This was likely the tip of an iceberg. The Presidential candidate, not the VP nominee, sets the policies of the campaign. If Edwards bulked at a slogan, it is likely he was not willing to follow what Kerry or the campaign wanted on bigger issues. (this makes the Kerry people's comments that they were frustrated with Edwards refusal to take any real role attacking for the campaign more believable. The fact is that Kerry hit Bush/Cheney far harder than Edwards ever did.) If he wouldn't follow Kerry - a very senior politician with FAR more experience and credentials on everything compared to Edwards, do you really think he would follow Obama's lead? He is on record saying Obama is weak.

[politicasista]

25. Thank you

I am sick of people dissing Kerry to promote other Democrats.

[musicblind]

13. Hillary is my first choice for VP but I would be VERY VERY happy with John Edwards as well

Hillary as VP and Edwards in the cabinet
or
Hillary in the cabinet and Edwards as VP


either way... everyone wins! :)


oh, and did I mention I think John Edwards rocks?

[Alter Ego]

14. It's name recognition, I think.

Not that I have anything against Edwards--he was my second choice--but I think a lot of his appeal is "Hey--wasn't that the guy who ran with Kerry in 2004?"

Plus he's already said he won't do it.

[ozone_man]

15. I think he is still the best choice.

And for exactly the reasons that you stated.

The economy will be heading into deep recession or depression soon, so any solid Democratic ticket speaking to that issue will win. People want an end to war and are starting to realize that the monetization of war debt (~10 trillion dollar debt) is partly responsible for their economic woes. Instead of creating jobs in renewable energy and infrastructure upkeep, we spent it on an illegal war against a sovereign country. As they lose their jobs and homes, they will come to their senses quickly as to what the priorities are.

We are in a parallel path to the Great Depression and will need a few good populists to pull us through that.

[karynnj]

20. What are Edwards actual credentials here

Edwards was not on the Finance committee in teh Senate and has no record of pushing legislation that dealt with these issues. There are many people who did - such as Kennedy, Harkin (various agriculture bills), Kerry (Housing trust fund (2000), SCHIP precursor bill),and Dodd - to name a few.

Dodd as chair of the banking committee and a Kennedy style liberal, who did not anger the Clintons as much as others who endorsed Obama would likely be better on this. If you want a genuine populist - take Harkin. He unlike Edwards did not vote for the bankruptcy bill and has consistently been a populist since he entered the Senate in 1885. He was also against the Contras, like Kerry when many in the party weren't and though he voted for the IWR he was against the invasion and was the first to say he regretted his vote (in 2003 I think). His midwestern background would help in Iowa, where he is very popular and likely in states like Ohio. Sherrod Brown of Ohio might be good too - he was in the House before the Senate and is a real populist.

Edwards did not enjoy the second banana role in 2004 and was a pale imitation of his primary self. He simply gave nearly the same speech day after day - to the point that I quit watching him on CSPAN. He also did not show the same level of enthusiasm. This may be why he says he doesn't want the position. (It also may be that he does not see it being offered - as he really adds little experience to the ticket - which was not a major issue with Kerry, who had enormous experience.)

[ozone_man]

22. I think Edwards knows how to speak from the heart.

Unlike the others that you mentioned. He ran as the populist in this race and that's what we'll be needing. Obama has a weak spot when trying to connect to blue collar voters. Edwards has that area covered thoroughly. He may not have always voted the right way, but acknowledged the error in his Iraq war vote, something that Clinton never did, and I don't think Kerry did either. Kerry crucified Dean for running against the war and wanting to have a fair trial for Saddam Hussein, that we were not any safer after invading Iraq. These were all things that Dean was right on and Kerry was wrong on. of course I'd like Dean as VP, but that just isn't going to happen, because the country isn't smart enough yet. :)

I think Edwards would be a fine choice for these reasons, that we need a populist who can get that message out, at a time when it will be most welcome.

Richardson would be OK too. An executive with foreign policy experience.

I'll still take Edwards though. This time economic issues and poverty are going to trump all else. He's been working on poverty issues for a while now. This two Americas thing. That's really the biggest thing that's wrong with the country isn't it? The huge gap between the rich and the poor. Or maybe he should be the Attorney General and go after those Wall Street Shysters that are ruining the country.

[karynnj]

35. Wrong

Kerry said his vote was wrong a month before Edwards. In addition, Edwards was FOR THE INVASION, where Kerry spoke against it before it happened and criticized it afterwards. Here is a link to a February 2003 op-ed, that shows where Kerry was. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3358606

Here is david Frum's conclusion:
"If ever any administration has moved with deliberate speed, it is this one. But no matter how slowly it moves, it is never slow enough. No matter how often it makes its case, it has never made the case enough. And no matter how much evidence of Saddam's dangerousness it adduces, the evidence is never convincing enough. When, do you suppose, would John Kerry and President Chirac and the editors of the New York Times think it a good time to overthrow Saddam? After another three months? Or six? Isn't it really the day after never?

It is not the speed of war that disturbs them. It is the fact of war. But this time, the fact of war is inescapable. War was made on the United States, and it has no choice but to reply. But there is good news: If the preparations for the Iraq round of the war on terror have gone very, very slowly, the Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts. The sooner the fighting begins in Iraq, the nearer we are to its imminent end. Which means, in other words, that this "rush to war" should really be seen as the ultimate "rush to peace."


Kerry questioned Dean's belittlement of the capture of Saddam - the reason was it was tone deaf and it was better that he was captured rather than free. Kerry did NOT say it was better to have invaded. Part of the problem was that just as Kerry made an issue of Dean's impolitical statement on Saddam, Dean distorted Kerry's positions.It was politics - the problem is that many never bothered to question Dean's accuracy. Kerry's IWR vote was wrong, but when he made it he cited the public promises of the Bush administration. He said if Bush did not keep those promises, he would speak out. In spite of dealing with cancer in Jan - March 2003, he did. Edwards spoke for the war through at least October 2003, on Hardball. Edwards was a cheerleader of the war.

Edwards is an emotional orator who moved juries - but there have been many Kerry speeches that are not only from his heart, but are consistent with the values he has lived by for 4 decades. There is nothing Edwards ever said that competes with Kerry's 1971 speech. Lines of that speech are still known by millions - 37 years later - Nothing edwards said is.

You may be comfortable with the discrepancy between Edwards' actions and his words, which is fine - I'm not. As to being a populist, Harkin beats Edwards easily - for starters he would never have voted for the bankruptcy bill. Ass to corruption, Obama did more with the ethics bill than Edwards ever did - it was not an issue he worked on. Kerry was the author of the real campaign finance reform bill (Clean Money/clean elections) with Wellstone and he spent 5 years investigating BCCI, standing against the entire power elite to help kill it.

As to the huge gap between rich and poor, read this from 1993 before Edwards was even political. This is an except from a Senate speech, not a political rally:

"In many ways, we are witnessing the most rapid change in the workplace in this country since the postwar era began. For a majority of working Americans, the changes are utterly at odds with the expectations they nurtured growing up.
Millions of Americans grew up feeling they had a kind of implied contract with their country, a contract for the American dream. If you applied yourself, got an education, went to work, and worked hard, then you had a reasonable shot at an income, a home, time for family, and a graceful retirement.
Today, those comfortable assumptions have been shattered by the realization that no job is safe, no future assured. And many Americans simply feel betrayed.
To this day I'm not sure that official Washington fully comprehends what has happened to working America in the last 20 years, a period when the incomes of the majority declined in real terms.
In the decade following 1953, the typical male worker, head of his household, aged 40 to 50, saw his real income grow 36 percent. The 40-something workers from 1963 to 1973 saw their incomes grow 25 percent. The 40-something workers from 1973 to 1983 saw their incomes decline, by 14 percent, and reliable estimates indicate that the period of 1983 to 1993 will show a similar decline.
From 1969 to 1989 average weekly earnings in this country declined from $387 to $335. No wonder then, that millions of women entered the work force, not simply because the opportunity opened for the first time. They had no choice. More and more families needed two incomes to support a family, where one had once been enough.
It began to be insufficient to have two incomes in the family. By 1989 the number of people working at more than one job hit a record high. And then even this was not enough to maintain living standards. Family income growth simply slowed down. Between 1979 and 1989 it grew more slowly than at any period since World War II. In 1989 the median family income was only $1,528 greater than it had been 10 years earlier. In prior decades real family income would increase by that same amount every 22 months. When the recession began in 1989, the average family's inflation-adjusted income fell 4.4 percent, a $1,640 drop, or more than the entire gain from the eighties.
Younger people now make less money at the beginning of their careers, and can expect their incomes to grow more slowly than their parents'. Families headed by persons aged 25 to 34 in 1989 had incomes $1,715 less than their counterparts did 10 years earlier, in 1979. Evidence continues to suggest that persons born after 1945 simply will not achieve the same incomes in middle-age that their parents achieved.
Thus, Mr. President, it is a treadmill world for millions of Americans. They work hard, they spend less time with their families, but their incomes don't go up. The more their incomes stagnate, the more they work. The more they work, the more they leave the kids alone, and the more they need child care. The more they need child care, the more they need to work.
Why are we surprised at the statistics on the hours children spend in front of the television; about illiteracy rates; about teenage crime and pregnancy? All the adults are working and too many kids are raising themselves.
Of course, there is another story to be found in the numbers. Not everyone is suffering from a declining income. Those at the top of the income scale are seeing their incomes increase, and as a result income inequality in this Nation is growing dramatically. Overall, the 30 percent of our people at the top of the income scale have secured more and more, while the bottom 70 percent have been losing. The richest 1 percent saw their incomes grow 62 percent during the 1980's, capturing a full 53 percent of the total income growth among all families in the entire economy. This represents a dramatic reversal of what had been a post-war trend toward equality in this country. It also means that the less well-off in our society--the same Americans who lost out in the Reagan tax revolution--are the ones being hurt by changes in the economy.
You might say that we long ago left the world of Ward and June Clever. We have entered the world of Roseanne and Dan, and the yuppies from `L.A. Law' working downtown.

[ozone_man]

44. Kerry sounds too senatorial.

That is why he lost in a nutshell. He doesn't connect with the common man.

Edwards came from working class roots, while Kerry came from a hugely wealthy family.

I think this is why he couldn't win in 2004. He was a weak candidate. To be fair, so was Al Gore, but Al has learned to speak passionately since then, to not sound senatorial.

Edwards just seems to have a natural ability to speak from the heart. He would add strength to the ticket in states where it is needed, to shore up the working class white vote. No help from Kerry there. They know he isn't one of them. :)

[karynnj]

46. To each his own

Kerry's speeches are excellent and they are passionate. If Edwards' were so spectacular why did he win just ONE state in 2 years worth of primaries. I saw both Kerry and Edwards speeches - in their entirety on CSPAN in 2004. Kerry was far better. (Edwards also tended to give the exact same focus tested speech - identical to the hand gestures and facial expression. Kerry was far more facile.)

In debates in the primary, Kerry completely outclassed Edwards. In addition, Kerry had a record of real accomplishment and a real history as an activist.

Give me ONE think Edwards said that anyone remembers - Kerry will be remembered for his Senate testimony. Not to mention, many people - other politicians and the media, have taken Kerry's phrases and used them.

Edwards mauy have had working class roots, but he was wealthy before he was out of his twenties. In his thirties and beyond he was a multi-millionaire. Kerry was born to a very connected family, but an upper middle class one. Because he opted for public service, he had trouble affording his kids' educations, apartments in DC and Boston and the money to travel to Boston every week to be with his kids. He was among the poorest Senators. It would have been silly for him to claim that he was a union worker loading trucks during college summers or to speak of having not been wealthy. The fact is that Edwards was NEVER poor in his real adult life.

In 3004, the service industry people in Iowa, voted overwhelmingly in what was a poll done each election year for Kerry as the one they thought cared the most for them. These were mostly white poor people.

[ozone_man]

47. The OP says that Edwards is the strongest.

:)

And you can't convince me that Kerry was ever upper middle class. His family owns much of the Elizabeth Islands. If he is worth several hundred million, that wealth didn't come from being a Senator.

Edwards grew up poor. That stays with you your whole life in spite of the success in later years. He knows how to connect with the working person, unlike Kerry. This is about communication more than anything. Kerry is not a mass communicator. Obama is. Edwards is. Clinton isn't.

[karynnj]

51. You need to read his biography

Kerry was a Forbes (and a Winthrop) through his mother. but she was one of 13 kids. The family lived mostly on his dad's income as a diplomat. His schooling was paid by a wealthy aunt. Kerry is NOT worth several hundred million - Teresa is and her sons will inherit that money. Kerry himself had closer to $3 million (about a tenth of Edwards) - . From Senate disclosure record -

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., ranking Democrat, Senate Committee on
Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Earned income: $158,100.
Honoraria, all donated to charity: None.
Major assets: Four trusts, $430,000-$2.56 million.
Major sources of unearned income: Dividends and interest from
trusts, $10,800-$29,600.
Major liabilities: Credit card debt, $15,000-$50,000.
Gifts: None.
Narrative: Kerry inherited three of his four trusts in 2002,
after the death of his mother, Rosemary Kerry. His wife, Teresa
Heinz, is heir to the Heinz food fortune and her wealth is
estimated at more than $500 million. Her holdings include millions
of dollars in stocks in companies like H.J. Heinz Co., Microsoft,
Anheuser Busch Co., General Electric Co., Proctor & Gamble and IBM.
She also is an owner of the Thyme Square Restaurant and the Flying
Squirrel charter airline.

Kerry got more working class vote than Edwards - Kerry is a more eloquent speaker than either Clinton or Edwards. Give me one line Edwards has ever said that will be remembered 35 years from now or that a Bruce Springstein level musician will use as a basis for a song. There is no Edwards speech that comes close to Kerry's Dissent speech.

[ozone_man]

53. So Kerry married for money

while Edwards earned his fortune. Which kind of wealth do you think people respect more? :)

Kerry's campaign was all but dead until he lent his campaign $6.4M. And the 527 that his and Gephardt's supporters used to character assassinate Dean left a bad taste in my mouth. I just don't think he has that mass appeal that Obama or Edwards have. If the OP suggests that Edwards polls well as VP, then maybe there is a reason.

No one is suggesting that he runs as VP, so why bring Kerry up. He's fine in the Senate.

[karynnj]

54. Kerry did not "marry for money"

He married a woman with whom he shares many interests and whom he very clearly adores. In the first place, her money will go to the Heinz kids, not Kerry. I've seen the Kerrys together at 2 smallish events and questioning their relationship is as disgusting as questioning that of the Edwards. Why? In neither case is there any reason to doubt it. Hearing the Heinz kids speak of Kerry couters that lie completely - they clearly are very happy their mother met and married him.

Kerry had no connection to the anti- Dean ad. The connection cited is that a former Kerry staffer, who left on bad terms when Jim Jordan left worked for the PAC. The funding was mostly from Gephardt unions. That individuals that contributed to candidates other than Dean gave money does not mean that there was a connection.

Edwards earned his money doing the type of work that Kerry rejected doing - preferring to earn far less money as a public servant. Which life history did people respect more? Kerry's work was more impressive than Edwards earning a fortune being a trial lawyer. I would say that risking a life to save another's, standing up to Nixon as a 27 year old kid, spending 5 years leading an investigation against the corrupt BCCI bank, and fighting Reagan on arming RW thugs in Central America are far more impressive than persuading a jury to award money by playing on their emotions by channeling the thoughts of a baby through a difficult birth. More people thought Kerry's resume more impressive - even though the salary of a public servant was less than a trial lawyer's. That's why he got three times the number of votes in the 2004 primaries.

As to lending his campaign money, the money was from Kerry's half of the house. Kerry had assets himself when they married and he inherited money when his parents passed away - had he not married Teresa, he still would have had money to lend the campaign. In December 2003, Kerry clearly ha more faith in his campaign than the media did. Given than Dean raised $40 million in 4th quarter 2003, it's silly to imply that Kerry's money caused him to win. As to Edwards, to argue he was disadvantaged by having less money is also silly - he was sitting on a $27 million fortune.

Kerry is not running for VP - nor is Edwards. First, you don't "run" for VP. Second, Kerry is running for Senate.

Also Edwards should NEVER have taken the 2004 VP slot, given he was so conceited he refused to use the campaign slogan and spoke proudly of that 3 years later. That is why I think he would be a completely awful choice. The fact that he told the story in 2007, shows that even after the fact he has no concept of how wrong that was. He also adds very little experience or expertize to the ticket.

[ozone_man]

55. He must have won the lottery then.

:)

The top three wealthiest senators are Democrats: John Kerry of Massachusetts, with a net worth of at least $164 million; Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, with a net worth of at least $111 million, and John "Jay" Rockefeller of West Virginia, with an estimated net worth of at least $82 million.

Kerry -- who is running for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination -- is married to Teresa Heinz, heiress to the Heinz food fortune. Kohl's family founded a retail chain and he owns the Milwaukee Bucks basketball team. Rockefeller comes from one of the wealthiest families in the United States.

The numbers are conservative -- base estimates required by the financial disclosure forms. While lawmakers must detail their finances, they are reported in categories with broad ranges. For example, Kerry's estimated net worth, according to the form, ranges from $164 million to $211 million.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/senators.finances/

Kerry is not running for VP - nor is Edwards. First, you don't "run" for VP. Second, Kerry is running for Senate.

No one runs for VP directly, but candidates running for president are often selected. They have been vetted and have been tested publicly. Edwards is a popular guy. A populist when we need on. I think all the OP was referring to is that the ticket polls well. I think the Democrats need to win by a landslide to have the kind of mandate they are looking for, not a Clinton type president, where he was more of a Republican lite. Edwards appeals to the constituency that Obama doesn't. They complement each other. There's no mystery about that in my opinion. I don;t think it's time to run with a conservative military experienced VP. Americans are war weary. They just want an end to it and to focus on the economy, on poverty, on the environment, renewable energy.

Out of the three Democratic candidates, Edwards had the best environmental positions. He opposes any new coal plants and new nuclear plants. Adopting an aggressive renewable energy and energy efficiency program will be an economic boost that can bring the country out of the deepening recession, now that the stock market and real estate market are going bust, and national and private debt are at an extremely high level. We're about the face a modern depression and green economics will play a major part in bringing us out of it.

# First presidential candidate to call for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions 80 percent by 2050, in March 2007. Would launch a cap-and-trade program in 2010 to bring emissions down 15 percent by 2020, as an interim step to the 2050 goal.

# First major presidential candidate to make his campaign carbon-neutral, in March 2007. He's buying carbon offsets to neutralize the effects of his campaign travel and office energy use, while also cutting energy consumption at campaign offices, buying recycled-paper office products, and encouraging staff to walk to work and take other energy-saving measures. (Tom Vilsack was actually the first candidate to go carbon neutral, but he dropped out of the race in February 2007.)

# Introduced a detailed energy plan before any of the other candidates.

# Proposes a $13-billion-a-year New Energy Economy Fund that would invest in renewable energy, efficiency, carbon-capture technology, and cleaner cars; help entrepreneurs start new clean businesses; encourage Americans to buy more-efficient appliances and save energy; and help workers in carbon-intensive industries transition to new job fields. The fund would be financed by the auctioning of permits to emit greenhouse gases and the repeal of some oil-industry tax breaks.

# Calls for a ban on new coal power plants unless they're compatible with carbon-capture and -storage technology.

# Opposes nuclear power.

# Opposes government investment in coal-to-liquid technologies.

# Has been endorsed by Friends of the Earth Action for his position on nuclear power and early support of strict climate legislation.

http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/07/31/edwards_factsheet/

Of course I would really like Gore to play a key part in a green energy program. I think he is done with politics though. So he says anyway.

[karynnj]

56. He did in that THK is an incredible woman, brilliant, warm, funny and gorgeous and she shared his

values and interests. That, though is not what made him a leading candidate for the Presidency.

You speak of Edwards and the environment - in fact, NONE of the top three had any real credentials on the environment. Edwards had a League of Conservation rating in the 60s and had done little work in that issue in the Senate - and was not an activist on it during the first 4 decades of his life. Gore and Kerry had MAJOR credentials on it. Gore led the first hearings in the Senate and Kerry was on that committee. Beyond that Kerry was the speaker in Boston in 1970 on the first earth day. he was also the point person as MA lt Governor in getting the NE Governors to agree to a cap and trade for sulfur to combat acid rain that became the model for the same program in the Clean Air act. Kerry, not Gore, was the first person the LCV endorsed in the primaries - because of his 96 % life time record. In 2004, Gore spoke of Kerry having the best environmental record in the Senate. (In fact, given your obnoxious view of his marriage - here is a foundation that the Kerrys were among the co-founders of in 1993 - http://www.secondnature.org/aboutsn/aboutsn.htm Their relationship was first a friendship based on shared interests. ) Kerry led a filibuster of drilling in ANWR in the early Bush years. Last December, Kerry was the entire Congressional delegation to Bali - and within Seante hearings the Bush administration highly praised his efforts there - one going so far as saying that without Kerry, there would have been no agreement.

Edwards was NOT a populist in his time in the Senate - not even close - his vote for the bankruptcy bill is consistent with his record. Try this test - Go to Thomas and take a session of Congress when Edwards was there - 1999-2000 or 2001-2002 - and put in key words dealing with populism - like "poverty" etc - and see the number of records found, compare this to Kennedy, Kerry, Harkin, Wellstone etc in the same time period. I did this a few years ago - with Kennedy, Kerry and Edwards - and the first two spoke to the issue far more often. Also look at legislation written. Kerry does not call himself a populist - but he authored a bill that almost passed to set up a national housing fund - that recently passed the Banking committee 19-2 - because people now see why it was needed. Kerry also wrote (with Kennedy) the bill that was the precursor to S-CHIP which gives many kids health insurance. Kerry also has been the key sponsor of Youthbuild for decades.

Edwards populism has so far been mostly words.

[ozone_man]

58. North Carolina is a red state.

There is not much of a mandate for populism when senator of a red state like NC. It's easy to run as a populist in a very liberal state like Massachusetts, which surprised me why Kerry voted for the IWR. Kennedy voted against it and both of my senators (VT) voted against it. So why not Kerry? Obviously, it was a politically calculated decision, since he was planning to run for president. Clinton (NY) the same. Edwards was senator in NC, so it is a very different political climate.

Kerry is a very good liberal, but how do you explain his Iraq war vote? Dean got it right, but one can make the point the reasonably valid that he wasn't a senator. Like I say, true liberals like Kennedy or Leahy got it right.

Edwards does seem to have changed toward populism, though he did run on the Two Americas thing in 2004. In 2008, he was the clear populist. He deserves credit for that, raising issues of poverty and corporate welfare. Otherwise, we would have been stuck listening to two Democratic candidates discuss the fine points of corporate economics.

No one runs for VP, but some may not rule it out either. ;)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3353672

[karynnj]

59. The Iraq vote had nothing to do with populism or liberalism

Kerry's vote might have more to do with his place on the SFRC. Biden and Dodd also voted for it, though like Dean and Kerry preferred Biden/Lugar. Kerry had investigated BCCI and knew more about terrorism than any other Senator. There had been no inspections for 4 years and Iraq borders the former USSR with their unsecured nuclear weapons. Kerry's speech said why he voted yes and he said he would speak out if Bush did not follow the steps he laid out. Bush claimed it was no a vote for war and that he needed the leverage to do the diplomacy.

Kerry did speak out - and was labeled anti-war in early 2003. Here is how Bush speechwriter, Frum, reacted to Kerry's Georgetown speech.

"How often do we hear it said that America is "rushing toward war"? Presidential candidate John F. Kerry warned against the "rush to war" in a major speech at Georgetown University on January 23. The day before, the leaders of France and Germany delivered a similar warning. So did the editors of the New York Times.
<snip>

If ever any administration has moved with deliberate speed, it is this one. But no matter how slowly it moves, it is never slow enough. No matter how often it makes its case, it has never made the case enough. And no matter how much evidence of Saddam's dangerousness it adduces, the evidence is never convincing enough. When, do you suppose, would John Kerry and President Chirac and the editors of the New York Times think it a good time to overthrow Saddam? After another three months? Or six? Isn't it really the day after never?

It is not the speed of war that disturbs them. It is the fact of war. But this time, the fact of war is inescapable. War was made on the United States, and it has no choice but to reply. But there is good news: If the preparations for the Iraq round of the war on terror have gone very, very slowly, the Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts. The sooner the fighting begins in Iraq, the nearer we are to its imminent end. Which means, in other words, that this "rush to war" should really be seen as the ultimate "rush to peace."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3358606

Edwards was a co-sponsor of the resolution and for the war even 6 months after the invasion (there's a Hardball interview).

[ozone_man]

64. Kerry blames his vote on being misled.

But we all know that is a crock. His vote and Clinton's were politically calculated.

And yes it does have to do with being a liberal. When the chips were down Kerry, did not behave like a liberal. he did the politically expedient thing. The trouble is he miscalculated, while Dean made the right decision. So, he tried to undercut Dean by criticizing his antiwar position, realizing his mistake.

Even the NYT recognized the hypocrisy of Kerry, being a liberal, voting to authorize the use of military force. One would have to be naive to believe that Bush wouldn't use it, or one would have to be going along with the other spineless Dems who voted for it. He was in the latter group.

I don't give Edwards a pass on his vote either, but he was representing a conservative constituency, not a liberal one like Kerry. No, I think Kerry voted based on his presidential ambitions and got burned. That's why they were able to cast him as being on both sides of every issue. Surely an exaggeration, but you can understand how the right was able to get traction with that. First he was for it before he was against it. Then he voted to fund it. :)

As Dr. Dean, the former governor of Vermont, often points out, Mr. Kerry is one of four presidential candidates who voted to allow the use of force against Iraq. Among the leading contenders who did so, though, it is perhaps only Mr. Kerry who relies so heavily on the support of those liberal primary voters for whom the Iraq war is a lightning rod.

The Iraq problem has plagued Mr. Kerry ever since he surprised many by supporting the use-of-force resolution after having staked out a position as a leading Senate critic of the administration's push for war.

Part of Mr. Kerry's problem is the dynamics of this primary season and the political aftermath of the war. When he cast his vote on Iraq last year, most Democratic strategists were arguing that no Democrat who voted against war could be a viable candidate in the general election in a post-Sept. 11 world.

But in states with early Democratic nominating contests, antiwar sentiment -- fueled by rising American casualties and the failure to find unconventional weapons -- is running strong, giving Dr. Dean an issue.

In a new advertisement being used in New Hampshire, Dr. Dean says that with 130,000 American troops in Iraq, ''the best my opponents can do is ask questions today that they should have asked before they supported the war.''

The perception among voters that Mr. Kerry has tried to straddle an explosive issue is prompting him to work to dispel it on the stump lately. Yet even after months of practice, the senator continues to wade through lengthy explanations of his vote on Iraq -- a tough sell, his supporters worry, to voters who may be tempted by Dr. Dean's more concise antiwar alternative.

''His biggest problem is Iraq -- that he can't explain his position in two sentences,'' said Dan Caligari, a longtime New Hampshire campaign organizer who is backing Mr. Kerry.

Indeed, Mr. Kerry's explanations can take 10 minutes or more. In Berlin, N.H., recently, Mr. Kerry said his vote was partly a result of being misled by the White House.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E6DA1531F937A15753C1A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

[karynnj]

60. Finally found a link

Over all - Kerry won all income groups in 2004. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/primariescaucus/2004-02-03-primaries-glance_x.htm?loc=interstitialskip

So, he apparently DID connect with the working person.

[politicasista]

48. Thank you

It would be nice if people would just leave Senator Kerry alone. He isn't running this time and has been out there working his tail off for Obama, and it would be nice if some of his supporters would show him some respect for doing what's right instead of tearing him down to promote other Democrats.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. I'm afraid I think Edwards ruling himself out rules him out.

I would have no problem with John Edwards as VP, but I don't think it's going to happen; I suspect that if Obama wins he may end up as attourney general.

That said, my predictive skills are not great - I expected the election to boil down to Clinton vs Giuliani - so maybe he will be VP...

[SaveAmerica]

17. He polled early on in the primaries ahead of every one else, it was one of the reasons I had in on

my nominee short list. I seriously believe that with him and Obama together on the ticket they will flip the south over for us.

[Alcibiades]

30. Or at least one state

Or two, whatever, it's all we need. NC and SC.

[SaveAmerica]

37. I agree with you - by 'the south' I meant NC and SC (ha ha) I think they could also do well in MS

[Clark2008]

18. Then people read his abysmal record and don't vote for him.

Polling means squat when you can't rally the troops.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

21. Please tell me

about his abysmal record.

:shrug:

[Labors of Hercules]

34. His Senate record.

He not only voted to authorize war in Iraq, he cosponsored the bill.

It's unfortunate because since then he's done some great things, but his record in the Senate really was abysmal.

[PresidentObama]

27. Another anti-Edwards post from you? Whats new really

[benny05]

42. That is a better choice

Or Webb. Sherrod Brown would be OK too.

[PresidentObama]

26. Mark my words: Obama/Edwards is unbeatable n/t

[usregimechange]

28. Yep beat them over the head with the economy

[weezy2736]

29. Obama/Miss Piggy is nearly unbeatable this year.

Oh damn I wish I had a graphic... or the will to make one.

[ShadowLiberal]

31. If Edwards is the best/unbeatable as VP why did Kerry/Edwards lose in 04?

I've seen several topics like this, and polls that I'm highly skeptical of that give Obama like a 15% lead in swing states like Ohio if he has Edwards as his VP.

[muryan]

32. Kerry

that was an easy one

[karynnj]

36. Then why did Kerry get 3 times the votes edwards got in the primaries

It was Kerry whose debates were considered brilliant.

Before taking Edwards, Obama needs to ask if he will use all of Obama's slogans and actually act as the second banana and genuinely support the Presidential candidate.

[politicasista]

49. Hear crickets?

chirp, chirp, chirp

[QueenOfCalifornia]

38. Kerry

was the problem.

Remember?

[PresidentObama]

39. Kerry/Edwards lost? News to me!

[QueenOfCalifornia]

40. Good point

I should have caught that one.

Thanks.

[goclark]

33. Elizabeth Edwards can win the hearts

of women of all ages.

The more I think about it, Edwards is perfect.

Name recognition, a fighter, positive message

Help me, he voted for the war and then said sorry -- right?

If so at least he said sorry.

[27inCali]

41. Edwards wasn't my first choice, but I've always liked him

and was routing for him to beat Kerry in the Primaries.

yeah, my mom wants Hillary to go to AG, but I think Edwards would fuck shit up for the coporations way more.

[Overseas]

43. I would like that.

And I like your rebuttals. And I hope Elizabeth would get him to do it. Prefer Edwards to Webb for sure. Less of a hot head. Economic advocacy vs. military experience.

[paulk]

45. that poll didn't include Clinton as a VP choice

which makes it kind of bogus, IMO.

[Bensthename]

50. Edwards didnt even help win his home state...

Clark or Biden is the best choice IMHO..

[BlooInBloo]

57. Um, he LOST.

[skiekite]

62. you can't compare his lost in the primary election

to what he could do as a VP. It's not the same playing field.

[skiekite]

61. I'm beginning to think he might be Obama's best choice

If Obama has a successful presidency, which I believe he will, he needs someone to continue it, and I can see Edwards doing that. Democrats need to be in the White House for at least 16 years in order to restore this nation from where it is at now!

[anonymous171]

65. Yep. That's one of the strengths of a Obama/Edwards ticket. nt

[LordJFT]

63. if only it were that simple

[TexanDem]

67. I don't think he'll help the ticket. He's lost w/ Kerry & his own run. Bad choice IMHO n/t