Why Kerry Selected Edwards

[demwing]

While the people obviously preferred Edwards to Cheney, the talking heads are all awash in a fuzzy, warm, Cheney glow.

Thats fine! In fact, that ROCKS!

I'll tell you why...

Every time a news-head mentions how well Cheney represented his points, how much gravitas Cheney exhibited, and how much more ready Cheney seemed to assume the Presidency, does Edwards get hurt?

Hell no. NO ONE votes for the VP.

Does Kerry get hurt? I'd love for someone to explain how the hell that would happen.

Who gets hurt?

I'll tell you who...

George W. Bush gets hurt.

The only thing Dick Cheney proved in tonight's debate is that HE is the power in the Whitehouse. George is the frontman, nothing more.

Edwards, on the other hand, makes John Kerry look good, and not in the embarrasing way that Dan Quayle made Bush #1 look better. John Edwards makes Kerry look great for two reasons.

First, you cant help but to compare a candidate to his Veep choice. Edwards is charming, energetic, smart, and sel-made, and still he does not overshadow John Kerry. By default, Kerry improveshis stature.

Second, Edwards' youthful appearance and short resume makes Dick Cheney look like an elder statesman (Ok, a lying, psychopathic elder statesman, but you get the picture). And everything that makes Cheney look experienced and responsible make Bush look lost, confused, and arrogant.

And everything that diminishes Bush helps put John Kerry in the Whitehouse.

The reason Kerry chose Edwards? We saw it tonight. John Edwards, more than anyone else, will help evict George Bush from the people's Whitehouse.

[katusha]

1. edwards showed up at a VP debate

and ended up debating the president.

[DieboldMustDie]

2. Wow! I don't think I've ever seen the words fuzzy, warm & Cheney...

all in the same sentence before. :crazy:

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

11. Cheney bites the heads off of warm, fuzzy bunnies...

I use it all the time.

[CityHall]

3. Ticket flipping

I posted this before, but in the rush, it scrolled off and no one saw it...

After the Lieberman-Cheney debate in 2000, many people responded that the vice-presidential candidates appeared more presidential than the tops of the tickets, who were spouting slogans about lockboxes, and reformers with results, while their seconds had a serious discussion about issues. What happened this time is that yet again, Cheney showed himself to be the brains behind the President. Not so with Edwards. He seemed clearly lighter and less qualified than Cheney for a jod as, for example, Secretary of Defense, the sort of job which Cheney has held several times. But Edwards isn't running for Secretary of Defense, and Cheney's cold CEO demeanor may alienate more voters than Edwards will lose with his drawling non-responses on security issues.

I don't think anyone will walk away from this debate wanting an Edwards-Kerry ticket more than a Kerry-Edwards one, but I'm at least curious how a Kerry-Clark ticket would have fared. On the other hand, Bush's ineptness only looks worse when contrasted with Cheney's robust command of the few arguments that can support his increasingly flawed policies. There is a danger that Kerry's win over Bush will be spun as a win of style over substance. This would be to misunderstand what happened, and not just because Bush failed on what is being called "substance" as well.

The debate format isn't a good one for getting to the bottom of issues like what effect bilateral talks will have on North Korea, or what Zarquawi did and when. THose issues can all be hammered out in articles and round tables by people other than the candidates themselves. The true value of the dabates for voters who are not policy analysts is that they see for the first time how the candidates think and respond under pressure when confronted with greater and more direct challenges than they face on the campaign trail. This is not a question of style, but one of basic competence for the challenges they will face every day in office.

Issues like "winning the stride," or looking into the camera are purely style, but the ability of a candidate to defend his positions in an open forum is a good measure of his ability to handle the job. For that reason, the obvious competence gap between Kerry and Bush, and the even more obvious gap between Cheney and Bush (as they're defending the same positions) should give undecided voters serious doubts about whether George W. Bush can be trusted to continue in office.

[Sugarbleus]

4. I think Cheney looking like the "real prez" isn't going to

disuade Bush's followers. The numbnuts out there who follow Bush for his folksie charm will feel "comforted" with him as prez BECAUSE he has a 'weathered' statesman (ahem) like Cheney to "advise" him....

Edwards SHOULD have tore Cheney a brand new asshole to show the world that Cheney is THE WRONG person to be advising anyone in politics!!!

I believe Kerry picked Edwards because of Edwards "folksies charm" and his more conservative and "christian" values, to offset the same in Bushco. Edawards at PRAYER BREAKFAST???? Yikes!

I have NOTHING against a politician having a faith, it's just that I'm fed up with this conservative christian thinking that has so overtaken this country!! (He stumbled on the G/L marriage question, IMO)

I love Kerry. I AM voting Kerry/Edwards. Cheney is a sinister, mob-think, lying, cheating bastard...I hope he gets too close to a microwave oven. But I will not vote for Edwards if he ever runs for President. His values, so far, are not my own. Maybe time will mellow him. My opinion.

[ThePhilosopher04]

6. It shouldn't matter what Edwards' personal values are...

what matters is whether or not he wears them on his sleeve and incorporates them into his political views. I don't see Edwards doing that the way Bush does.

[Sugarbleus]

8. You're right. He probably won't do that

at least not anywhere near as much or in the same way as Bush. Edwards IS a decent man, and that's extremely refreshing after four years of TOTAL CORRUPTION with Bush Inc.

I guess I was hoping he was going to be a bit tougher with the old dick dog..... but he did hold his own for someone as green as he is.

I was a bit put off with the 'hidden' religious overtones in terms of his support of Israel without mentioning any help for the Palestinians. I'm not anti-Israel but that area IS a huge political and humanitarian mess for us.

I'm looking forward to the remaining Kerry/Bush debates.

Man, this is stimulating--where's my blood pressure cup? lol :crazy:

[cheezus]

5. Byron Dorgan, Kent Conrad, Earl Pomeroy

The boys from ND were instrumental in getting JRE the job. They see how the Edwards populism plays in the midwest.

[JI7]

7. after super tuesday primaries

and before kerry made his vp choice i would see edwards on tv and while he did not have as much knowledge of issues, especially foreign policy as kerry and some others did, i thought he still did the best job in terms of promoting Kerry for president. he doesn't go into much details of how this or that should be done but he gets the point he wants to make across.

and of course kerry said he has the judgement. just look at cheney talking about his resume yet he did nothing but create a huge mess. that's because he lacks judgement. and judgement is something kerry said edwards can be trusted on.

[Carla in Ca]

9. Here is one reason

[demwing]

10. Please call your wife

[MsTryska]

12. Incidentally....

if i hear ONE more newshead say "graVEEtas" i'm going to have to slit my wrists with an electric razor.