Edwards Has Not Ruled Out V.P. Run

[grantcart]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/edwards-has-not.html

ABC News' Mary Bruce reports: 2004 Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards this morning left open the possibility of a second run for the position. "I'd take anything he asked me to think about seriously," Edwards explained in a "This Week" interview with George Stephanopoulos.

The former 2008 presidential candidate was quick to clarify, however, that he is not actively pursuing the job. "But obviously this is something I've done and it's not a job that I'm seeking."

As the veepstakes continue to heat up, Edwards said Obama should be left to make an independent decision. "Senator Obama ... has earned the right to make this decision for himself. I think he has enormous choices available to him, really great choices available to him. And I think he'll go through this process in a thoughtful, orderly way, and he'll decide who he wants to be his running mate. And that's exactly how it should be done."

In a separate interview, former Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson offered a more emphatic response on his vice presidential intentions. "It's presumptuous for a person to turn down things that haven't been offered to them, and I don't think will be offered," he said. "It's not something that I want."

Thompson also joked about his rivalry with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., on the campaign trail. "John wasn't that generous with me when I was running against him, you know."

[saltpoint]

1. If you asked a lot of union households if they would show up to support

an Obama/Edwards ticket, IMO you would get a very vigorous 'yes' to your question.

Labor matters. Bonior & Edwards by all counts must have had some of the most effective discussions on the issue during the campaign. The campaign fell short of the nomination but it remained long on virtues and solid arguing points.

No complaint from me if John Edwards is Obama's choice.

[Occam Bandage]

2. I don't think Edwards is the strongest choice, but he wouldn't be a terrible one.

[Zhade]

28. He'd certainly be a better choice than clinton, but she's not a real possibility anyway.

I'd love DK, but that's not going to happen either. :\

[BklynChick]

3. I like Edwards but I didn't like this ticket initially; I feel like they are too similar

in style, policy, and demographic interest, but this election is like no other and I'm starting to think this would be a dynamic and winning ticket. I'm surprised that Edwards is interested.

[OneAmerica]

4. If I remember correctly, the Obama/Edwards ticket polled strongest of all others

Better than Obama/Clinton mind you.
Which is good news for me because he is the one among all others I'd love to see on there.

[Major Hogwash]

6. That is true.

And they don't look so bad standing beside each other either.

The republicans already bashed Edwards pretty bad in 2004, so this would be a good selection because there isn't any new ammo for them to use this year.

He's a known quantity, as they say, and he was already vetted by Kerry in 2004.

[chknltl]

5. I think Edwards would be a fine choice.

He strengthens the Labor/Unions vote for one thing. I feel he will bring a measure of confidence to the progressive vote as well...(swinging in a few fence-sitting Indies who are thinking Nader over Obama won't hurt either). Does Senator Obama need what votes an Edwards brings...likely not so much because most who Edwards might bring would not be voting for anyone OTHER than Obama anyway. I can not imagine toooo many of those blue collar unhappy Sen. Clinton supporters as feeling so disenfranchised that they will be sitting home or voting for Senator mCcain. Frankly I don't see anyone bringing in too many more votes than Sen. Obama would already be getting.

I would very much like to see an Obama Edwards ticket though as would many of our fellow DUers. Back in '04 at the DNC when that unknown Senator Obama gave the keynote speech, I knew then that I was listening to a man whom I wanted as our President even more than I wanted John Kerry. Years later when John Edwards gave his endorsement to Senator Obama, when I saw the two onstage together, I knew who I wanted to see as our ticket. These two look like a fresh new start for America, an utter 180 degree turnaround for our nation and the best hope for stopping the corporatists who are bleeding our very democracy to it's utter demise.

Many here would be quite happy seeing Attorney General Edwards too...as would I, but I would prefer to see him as our Vice President. It would be nice to see Attorney General Conyers or dare we hope against hopes Attorney General Kucinich. Attorney General Sebalius wouldn't be so bad either. Going out on a limb here and likely to get flamed for this because he is not a Dem, (but Obama said he was into doing like Lincoln and looking outside the party): Attorney General Ralph Nader??? We would hear an instant sonic boom from the crooks leaving our government and heading to the safety of...well anywhere but America that's fer sure! Nader has a lot of pent up hostility right now and an early track record showing his willingness to fight coruption.... just think about it.

In the end we shall see what we shall see... it's not like anyone in the DU will be making these selections anyway. It IS fun to speculate though. Perhaps a DU 'pool' could be fun..."Pick President Obama's cabinet!"...if for nothing more than for bragging rights. Sorry grantcart, I strayed a bit off the topic.

[Clark2008]

7. Oh God NOOOO!

Will this guy just go away aleady!

Phony populist.

[Inspired]

12. Why do you want him to go away? He's a fine Democrat.

You may not want him as VP but still....

btw....the average US citizen isn't even aware of who Wes Clark is. He ran a less than spectacular campaign in '04. But I don't think he should go away...heck, he hasn't even arrived yet.

[Canuckistanian]

13. ?? What's your problem with Edwards?

Obviously, you'd like to see someone else in the position, but why attack the Democratic nominee in the process?

[saltpoint]

18. Union households see nothing "phony" about advocacy to their cause.

To which John Edwards is expressly and convincingly dedicated.

For fake populism, please see under Reagan, Ronald, "Morning in America."

[Inspired]

20. Thanks for saying it so well, OC.

John Edwards was very dedicated to the unions. Most of the union members, at least in Iowa, loved the man.

[saltpoint]

21. Hi, Inspired. Nice to see you. Yes.

I think those conversations between John Edwards and David Bonior should be a book.

I would definitely buy a copy.

[Inspired]

23. Bonior said that they were political soul mates.

You know, he almost stayed at my house during the campaign. It was his way of doing his part to save some campaign money. They asked if it would be OK and I said I would be honored.

Then they found out that I had cats. I guess there is an allergy problem with cats and Bonior. So, they found another home for him to stay in. I wish I could have had that opportunity. It would have been fun. Oh well. The cats were bummed too!

Nice to see you around as well. I've missed you!

:hi:

[saltpoint]

24. Cats! Well, at least they were Democratic cats.

I guess ol' Dave Bonior has to be allergic to something. He certainly isn't allergic to hard work. With not all that much money he had John Edwards in contention for the White House.

I've missed you too. I hope we meet more often on the boards en route to a huge and happy November evening.

:hi:

[Milo_Bloom]

32. LMAO.. I hope union people aren't that clueless.

This guy voted for the original bankrupcy bill... voted to hand manufacuring over to China... Worked for a hedge fund neck deep in predatory lending...

and now he is a "working class hero"?

With heroes like this, who needs enemies.

[saltpoint]

36. Hi, Milo. You can't shortchange the facts of strong advocacy in

the case of Bonior and Edwards, as has been widely discussed in the progressive press.

Seriously, I get your point on votes in the Senate, but all Senators vote in ways you and I might object to, and no more obviously when we can specifically pick the bills we wanted and they did not support, or the bills we opposed and they did support.

There aren't any zipless fucks, as the phrase goes, and when you are dealing with the Congress, there just aren't very many purely agreeable reps, 100% purely agreeable, agreeable in all respects on all issues at all times.

IMO that is not a realistic characterization for politics whether local or national. What is realisitc is the campaign emphasis by our original 8 on Democratic issues versus let's say, the Zell Miller-type Democrat who has completely and vehemently aligned with Republican domestic policies, or the Joe Lieberman (ex)-Democratic model, which favors Bush's international pre-emptive war policy.

That distinction is there and can be made, and should be made in assessing any candidate -- again, at local, state, or national levels.

When John Edwards was in the Senate, it is my feeling that he would have been a far, far, far superior representative to my interests as a citizen than a dangerously large percentage of the other 99. Massachusetts lucked out. So did Wisconsin. But many states have only one Democratic Senator, and in many of those states, that one Senator is Evan Bayh or Ben Nelson, as opposed to say, Barbara Boxer or Bernie Sanders.

And it all adds up. Because the organization at the county level -- which really is where elections are won and lost -- depends in part on the party's sense of its own strenghth. If we could have a more socialist left agenda, I'd be slobberingly for it, and standing on rooftops INSISTING on it, but that would also mean that county organizations could not persuade, raise funds, do the canvassing/envelope stuffing etc needed to elect Evan Bayh in Indiana -- who while not my personal favorite of the 100 Senators is nevertheless with our party's platform more often than he is against. Do I prefer Boxer or Feingold? Sure. But could either be elected on a statewide ballot in Indiana? I doubt it.

Obama is within striking distance of McCain in recent polling in North Carolina. It is not 04 but 08, and two horrific administrations of George W. Bush have not left North Carolinians better off than when he took office. Actually, when he stole the office. With Obama competitive in NC, Edwards would be more than enough to put it into very doable play. There are other Democrats who could also help in many states, but polling in Ohio and elsewhere suggests that Edwards would be a boost to the national Democratic ticket.

[LTR]

19. I'll give his Senate record the benefit of the doubt

Representing a strongly red state as a populist Democrat is like typing with boxing gloves. First priority must be to represent the interests of the state he represented.

In addition, a candidate should be able to tailor a message that he/she feels will resonate with voters. That's how politics works. Then again, I'm a bit cynical.

I get the feeling that after being out of the Senate long enough, he felt that the shackles were off.

[butterfly77]

31. Thank you...

he doesn't have to go away we just don't want to see him running as vice or president again...

[frogmarch]

8. I hope Obama picks Edwards k&r

It would be wonderful to be excited about the race again.

Edwards would have been a great president, but since that's out of the question for now, I'd settle for him running as vp.

[progressoid]

9. I like John but he shouldn't be the Veep.

Sorry John.

And I caucused for him!

[Eric J in MN]

10. Why not? NT

NT

[Zhade]

29. I second the question, and add - who should be, in your view?

NT!

[Cha]

11. I like what John said here..

"As the veepstakes continue to heat up, Edwards said Obama should be left to make an independent decision. "Senator Obama ... has earned the right to make this decision for himself. I think he has enormous choices available to him, really great choices available to him. And I think he'll go through this process in a thoughtful, orderly way, and he'll decide who he wants to be his running mate. And that's exactly how it should be done."

[BeyondGeography]

14. A well thought-out, all-around excellent answer

[LordJFT]

15. Fred Thompson is just what McCain's ticket needs

Then there'd be an angry old white guy and a lazy old white guy.

[tritsofme]

16. Edwards is the worst possible choice for VP.

How can Obama claim to run a campaign based on change, if he is running reruns?

This would also be the fourth campaign platform that Edwards would need to pimp in as many years, think people accuse him of being a phony now? Wait till he has to get reloaded with another campaign's worth of talking points.

Cheney cleaned his clock at the debate, and lots of Kerry people said he refused to stay on message.

There is just nothing good about putting Edwards on the ticket.

[Major Hogwash]

35. Cheney didn't clean Edwards clock. What the hell are you talking about?

Lieberman and Cheney were the ones who held tea party debates back in 2000.

[saltpoint]

37. Agree -- and what's more, Cheney lied about not meeting Edwards and

Elizabeth on the floor of the the Senate when in fact within 48 hours photographs of his meeting both John and Elizabeth showed up on the web.

Now, no, I'm not surprised that Dick Cheney lied. He's pretty good at it, in fact.

Just that I agree with you on the tone and substance of that debate.

[rebel with a cause]

17. Another article on the same subject

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080615/pl_afp/usvotevp

As for me, I use to not like Edwards, but now can take him okay. I still don't know how much I trust him, but that is just me. He looked good with Obama on stage, but there was still something uncomfortable about it. It's up to Obama who he picks.

Up thread, someone is pushing Wesley Clark for VP, and I have nothing against him either. Edwards could bring to the ticket a better chance at those "white hard working Americans" that Clinton talked about. You know, the ones that would never vote for Barack. (wink, wink) Clark would bring to the ticket the national security experience that everyone (media and republicans) is quick to point out that Barack does not have. Either one of them would be okay with me, as well as some of the others that have been mentioned. Time will tell, and as long as it drives the republican crazy, I don't care if Barack waits a while before he names his vp.

Question though, speaking of repubs..how many of you still suspect that LIEberMAN will be mccain's vp? It seems they are everywhere together and mccain speak of "lieberman and me" as if they are a couple. It just seems too much like they are covertly now running as a pair at times.

[anonymous171]

22. Well known white guy? CHECK. Southern? CHECK.

Experienced? Yes, but not too experienced. Can still play the outsider. Would be able to run for the presidency in 2016? Yes.

The only problems I can foresee will be that the GOP may redouble its efforts to paint Obama as an elitist. "And now he has a man who pays $400 for haircuts as his running mate? That's not change we can believe in!" :puke:

Also no military experience, which could be bad.

[Carlinni_22]

25. Maureen Dowd would have a field day with him

calling him a Breck girl and what not.

[saltpoint]

26. She would, but then again Elizabeth would likely punch her lights out.

[dogday]

33. John is prettier than her and the public loves pretty... Maureen

Dowd is just jealous.......

I think it would be a great ticket... But then again, I like pretty too....

[Omaha Steve]

27. I was gut punched when John dropped out

I crossed over to Iowa to work on his campaign with Rocky etc... I'm in his "Just Say No" video on youtube. Marta and I kicked in a couple hundred bucks. He is not my first choice to balance the ticket. But I would be jumping for joy if he get the VP slot.

I'm in the yellow shirt, black hat, and graying beard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR9GYelgz18

[saltpoint]

38. If there are any newbies tonight who are wondering if you know what

you are talking about, Omaha Steve, I hope they will donate to DU, get their star, and take a moment to look up the absolutely and consistently excellent pro-labor posts you've put up for us over a course of many many months.

The one I'm responding to included.


:thumbsup: :hi: :dem:

[Milo_Bloom]

30. No war voters on the ticket!!

[LawyersGunsandMoney]

34. Maybe the job's looking good to him all of a sudden?

we can hope.

[Colobo]

39. Edwards for Attorney General.

[Vattel]

40. Obama could do worse than Edwards, but

I think Obama needs someone with more experience and less of an elitist image (I know it's silly, but politics is silly). I would vastly prefer Edwards to conservatives like Webb or Nunn. Maybe Clark is also too conservative, and he wouldn't help secure any state, but he doesn't hate the left like Webb, and he's very intelligent and obviously strong on military experience and expertise. I think Clinton would result in too much distraction; the Republicans would be attacking her as well as Obama and would be in a better position to use her criticisms of him against him.

I can't think of any choice that is really solid on all fronts.