Hindsight (on the VP pick)

[HFishbine]

I suppose one could come up with a dozen single things that could have made a difference in the outcome of this election. But there's one that I think inarguably was a determining factor: John Edwards.

Edwards gained us nothing. Not one southern state, not even his home state of NC, in which he barely campaigned. That shouldn't have been a surprise. His lack of popularity at home was known. He didn't secure anything for us that we wouldn't have gotten without him. And we knew in advance that the "trial lawyer" label was a vulnerability that wouldn't have applied to a doctor or a general.

I was a Dean supporter in the primary, fell in line for Kerry when he got the nomination and worked harder for him than I have any candidate ever. From my perspective, Wes Clark would have made the difference. I think he alone would have been responsible for an Ohio win, would have brought along a sun belt state or two and maybe even would have flipped FL, VA and WVa. Shoulda been Wes.

[NotLiberalEnough]

1. Edwards was fine. They won on morals aka W's Jesus.

[HFishbine]

2. Fine?

Yeah, fine like "Honey, does this look okay?" "Yes, it's fine." That kind of un-offensive fine, I suppose. But Clark would have actually flipped some votes from Bushies to Kerry. Edwards didn't.

[lapfog_1]

3. Nothing mattered... they cheated!

I will never accept the current analysis crap that it was all about
the "gay agenda" issue or whatever. They cheated and stole this
election too.

[BlueEyedSon]

4. They won on

1. The media not accurately and forcefully reporting W's 4 years of FAILURE (im sure you can think of 10 things, 1/3 of which are criminal).

2. Slandering Kerry with the swifvet crap/most liberal/flipflop label

[calico1]

5. Exactly.

I don't think it would have mattered who the VP candidate was. They were determined to steal the election and the media stood idly by and didn't do their jobs. Please let's not blame Kerry/Edwards for this.

[Wright Patman]

7. The job of a corporate media

is to support corporate power. So they did their job very well by their definition.

[BlueEyedSon]

10. Thank you, Noam Chmopsky!

[calico1]

31. Yes, you are right. I guess I keep forgetting

that our media is owned by Corporations now and is not like the media we had in the 60's and 70's who reported the unvarnished truth.

[HFishbine]

6. Okay

Sure. But with Kerry and Bush as the nominees, those things would have happened anyway. The question is, what one thing, in hindsight, could WE have done differently that would have changed the outcome? We had no control over the things you cite*.

(* On edit: We didn't control the media, but we sure had some influence. Think how much worse it would have been without the efforts of DUers.)

[BlueEyedSon]

30. Nobody asked me about the VP pick.

Not that I would have chosen someone other that Edwards, or that it would have made a difference.

People did not vote based on policy this time, and may never again.

[bushisanidiot]

8. All this "AWoL won on morals" shit is pure repuke talking points.

he won because Karl Rove set up the 72 hour program.. the cheating campaign.

explain to me how the pop. vote percentages DID NOT change throughout the night even after CA, OR, and WA were figured in late in the night? those states should have closed the pop. vote gap, but somehow AWoL held his lead. It is not mathematically possible.

[Skwmom]

22. Since the Republicans worked overtime to keep Clark off the

ticket, obviously they were worried about having him on the ticket.

[RafterMan]

23. Remember how E! was going to bring in all those crossover votes?

Bush got ~95% of his party's vote, while the Dems lost 11% of theirs.

[Catchawave]

35. This whole "Jesus" thing is confusing

Wasn't he the original "liberal" ? I think he would have voted for Kerry:D

Forget Passion of the Christ mentality, rent Superstar. You'll see what I mean.

[Frederic Bastiat]

9. Edwards was great, keep in mind we are dealing

with religious nuts, nothing would have made these folks vote Dem.

[HFishbine]

12. Great? Really?

What exactly did Edwards do for us that any other VP candidate wouldn't have? Clinch New Jersey? Edwards was a wash when we needed a boost.

You're right, nothing would have made the supposed 4M religious nuts vote for us, but Wes Clark would have flipped more security-minded voters to Dems in close states like Ohio, NV, IA, NM and maybe FL.

[demjomr313]

21. and now this man is seeking presidency himself -

"Edwards, however, chose not to run for re-election to his seat from North Carolina when he decided to seek the presidency himself. With his term ending in January, he faces a return to private life."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6400430/

[high density]

11. There was something fishy about the way Edwards was selected

in the first place for the VP slot. Before Kerry selected him there was a huge PR push for Edwards as VP and the media was gobbling it up with polls showing that virtually everybody wanted Edwards as VP. Then weeks later I saw a CBS/NY Times poll that showed a majority of people, even many self-described Democrats, didn't know who Edwards was or held no opinion of him. Where did all of those Edwards-lovers go?

Still, I think Kerry could have selected Jesus for VP and he still would have lost. Nobody casts their vote for a vice president.

[Claire Beth]

13. Edwards wasn't the problem....

The religious radical right rallied their church members to vote for Bush and used the "gay marriage" to energize them to get to the polls. John Edwards was an excellent choice.

[HFishbine]

14. Uggh

We had no control over what the other side did. The fundies were going to turn out and vote for Bush no matter what. That wasn't OUR problem. Our problem was that we came up just a little short among the 50M Bush voters who were not part of the "religious radical right." Clark could have delivered some of them.

Pray tell, why was Edwards an excellent choice? What did we accomplish that we would not or could not have without him on the ticket?

[Claire Beth]

15. I agree....

this is the first time I have had access to a PC for any length of time since Nov 2nd. I took yesterday off I was so sick from the results.

Edwards was an excellent choice because he was very popular among a LOT of democrats and from the south. He had charisma, too. I liked Wes Clark and voted for him in the primaries.
Our problem wasn't with the VEEP....it was the radical religious right and gay marriage issue.

[Historic NY]

16. Edwards was a good pick!!!!

Its the message that didn't resonate. We Democrats as I have said before try to be too many things for too many people. In pandering to our base we get carried away with trying to find the fix for everything. The moral value issue was staring us right in the face, but instead of recognizing it, we went off further making the divide between the parties more obvious. Democrats do well with local bread & butter issues when people can really see a difference, in smaller districts or communities. Our primary system is broken, not so much in its purpose but what it does to us. We spend too much time in-fighting and beating each other over the head for the nomination that it does turn people away. The he said, she said or did crap makes us look too wimpy. I was taken by Dean in the very beginning when he was on message and whacking away at the *. People took notice and even the press was on the band wagon. In the end he imploded, mostly because of our system in picking our candidate. Would he have made it to the finish line? That is a question we would never know. Would a Dean/Edwards or Dean/Clark ticket made it? Who knows, we all can speculate but when we are trashing our perspective nominee over the long primary season, it doesn't leave much for the general election to fire people up.

Our country is divided, there are pockets of support dotting throughout the red states that were not even exploited. In hindsight would we have done better if our guy went to a few of these states to try to turn them. We seem to still be fighting the Civil War in this country and it takes a lot to get the bubba vote. A southern nominee with a middle of the road philosophy should be our pick as it seems the only way we can capture the red vote.

We can should of would have all day, but now is the time to retool our party, streamline its message that either competes or expose the foibles of the opposing message. We have 4 yrs to put ourselves back together as a stronger alternative.

[colonel odis]

17. i'm surprised at all the blame headed edwards' way.

people don't vote for vice president. they vote for president. sure, vp candidates are supposed to provide geographic balance. but clinton/gore flew in the face of that.

i think edwards' story and his history of taking on big corporations was a great way to reach out to disaffected working class voters, particularly in the south. of course, the fears of "them damn homersekshals gitting married" skeert them more than the thought of losing their jobs.

i don't necessarily think clark would have added anything to the ticket. personally, i'm suspicious of generals, regardless of which political side they take after they retire. and i think they would have had a field day with a kerry/dean ticket.

i also think edwards will be -- and should be -- the front runner in 08.

[HFishbine]

18. "particularly in the south"

So you say, but look at the results. Nadda.

Edwards couldn't even carry his home state for the ticket, he'll be out of public office for the next four years and you want him as the front-runner in '08? That would be disasterous.

[Ripley]

24. I agree.

But you know HF, DUers keep telling me Dean would have done worse in the South. To which I reply:

THAT'S FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE, K/E DID NOT WIN ONE STATE IN THE SOUTH. (Sorry for the yelling.)

I think you're right about Clark too. No negatives like Trial Lawyer and inexperience and can't even count on his own state. Burns me up the way these guys wrote off the South, except for Kerry's SC Vietnam black buddies photo-op early on.

[RafterMan]

19. Agreed

Edwards brought nothing -- he had no issue impact, no regional impact, no demographic impact.

I think there was a lot of interest in an alternative approach to security issues this year, and nobody was going to wade through Kerry's muddled statements on the war only to latch on to Edwards' muddled statements on the war. Clark on the ticket could have done a better job of forcing the issue and splitting off the doubters.

[llmart]

20. Not true.

Let's not start putting the blame on us. Dems did an excellent job. This election was fixed from the get go. Have we all forgotten when Bush cockily stated "I do not intend to come in second"? He knew the fix was in. North Carolina is still a backward state in many ways and those bible thumpers down there can't and don't think about the issues. Now, mind you, not all in NC are like that, but the vast majority are still not very educated. They would rather lose their jobs then vote for a Dem. I say, let more of their jobs go overseas. I, for one, will cheer the next time an NC or Southern company announces job cuts. And I'll rub it in as much as I can.

Just yesterday, somewhere on the net, I saw an article about massive numbers of people in Georgia having their water turned off for nonpayment of bills after 30 days. I laughed out loud and said, "Good. I hope you like living without water like a third world country. Maybe your bible will help you when you're thirsty or need a bath."

P.s. I lived in NC for 10 years. I know whereof I speak.

[Ripley]

26. Gee, would you still say that if they were blacks?

How do you know who had their water turned off and why do you people (and I don't care where you lived) insist you know for a fact that 100% of Southerners are bible nuts and how dare you say the vast majority are still not very educated!!!!! My entire extended family lives throughout Carolina from small towns to rural, to big city and most have college degrees and are CPA's, lawyers, nurses...

You never lived 10 years there, if you did, you never ventured out of your gated community with other New Yorker transplants. My parents neighbors are just like that. IGNORANT.

[llmart]

39. Did I say that 100% of southerners are bible nuts?

You need to reread my post. And maybe YOUR entire extended family are college educated, but I'm talking generalities here. My extended family is college educated, too, but at a company of 100 business people, only 3 of us women were college educated and they were all northerners. And for your information, I do not, nor have I ever lived in a gated community. And what on earth makes you say I never lived there 10 years? How would you know? And I am not a New Yorker. I'm from Ohio. You need to take your anger out on someone else.

[HFishbine]

27. I can't disagree with you

But your observations simply make the question of Edwards as VP even more compelling. Knowing NC is so solidly red on national elections, why Edwards?

Admittedly, this is all Monday-morning quarterbacking, but Clark would have made the close states more competitive than Edwards did. I can't think of a single state in which we would have been worse off were it not for Edwards.

[Dinger]

25. The Difference Was Diebold (IMO)

I strongly supported Wesley Clark in the primaries, but I disagree that Edwards was the problem. Wes might have made a difference, but the fix was in. Jesus would have had trouble getting elected in this country.

[gnofg]

28. miscalculation

This battle is between Rural/Affluent/super rich and the "urban areas. The repubs have put together a very powerful coalition. The rural voters will never support the urban groups. They look at us as morally inferior. This fight has been going on for many years. Even when I was in college in the sixties Upstate looked at downstate as weird. I don't see how we can change the affluent voter in the red states to support us. The affluent voter in the "blue ststes" can be converted but those states already support us. Look at the blue states- highly educated with the best universities. A solid history of skepticism of religion and a firm belief of seperation of church and state. How we get to a winnable coalition is troubling me. I currently live in the south and there is little hope that this state will ever vote for a democrat. Look at how successful Passion of the Christ" has been and there is a seperate group of "faith based entertainers" that do very well and sell out all the time. We need more than a new marketing philosophy. There has to be a fundamental change in America and an understanding of why there is supposed to be a seperation of the church and state. Look at the increase in home schooling. These are all examples of the seperation of our culture from a middle ground to one of us against them and whoever wins rules. I unfortunately think we are only half way through the conservative lifecycle. We governed for fifty years and they have ruled(they believe in ruling) for twenty five. Remember at the base of conservative philosophy is selfishness. I got mine you get yours. This is a party(Southern) that at it's roots believed that Jim Crow was OK party and historically was against social security from the beginning. They believe if old people are eating cat food then it's a good lesson for not saving enough and it's a good lesson for society. I hope I'm wrong.

[demokatgurrl]

29. Edwards was OK but there were better choices-

I think Graham might have brought Florida and then Kerry wins.
Clark might have overcome the "fear" factor but what states would we have won that we didn't? Too bad there wasn't a "favorite son" from Ohio.

[ollie3]

32. Was Edwards really Kerry's First Choice?

I don't know about you, but I felt that Kerry had others in mind, perhaps Clark, but the Democratic "leadership" crammed Edwards down Kerry's throat.

Also,Edwards was annointed by the press from the start, and it would be hard for Kerry to pick superman if he was available....

Was Edwards a good pick? I don't think so. Why? Because, any way you cut it, terrorism and security were the underlying issues in this election and Edwards added nothing in this regard. People are worried about terror threats and Edward's smiling face and two Americas mantra did not address this. Secondly, the Swift Boaters had started their campaign back in the Spring, everyone know (or should have known) that they were going to make this an issue. If Kerry had picked someone like Wes Clark, a four star general who is part of the ticket would have been much more effective in making a mockery of these lies from a position of authority. Clark did, of course, make a strong defense of Kerry, but it doesn't get the same media attention if he is not VP. Edwards did not even serve in Vietnam, he had absolutely nothing to say that could counter the Swifties. This is not hind sight, folks. They knew the Swifties were going to charge beforehand and they STILL picked Edwards. Sorta like a death wish in my view.

So what did Edwards do in the campaign except be invisible. Leno on the Tonight Show made jokes saying he saw Edwards' face on milk cartons of missing persons. Edwards was shunted off to small media markets. The VP is traditionally the attack dog. Cheney sure was. Edwards wasn't. We all knew Edwards was gonna debate Cheney. But Edwards couldn't attack many of Cheney's vulnerable points...for example, he couldn't make a big point of being the son of a mill worker with Cheney because Cheney could come right back and remind him that he too had modest upbringing. He couldn't attack Cheney's five deferments because Edwards did not serve either. Edwards did not win the debate, and anyone with an ounce of foresight could have predicted that.

I think the best choice would have been Clark. He has security credentials up the gazoo. And he can speak with authority in attacking Bush's bungleing of Iraq. It was precisely when Kerry took Clark's forceful stand, about a week or so before the debates, and basically channeled Clark's talking points, that Kerry started to come up in the polls. Kerry's debate performance was filled with Clarkisms. Moral values? It was clark who made moral values part of his campaign, he was very comfortable talking about religion and values. I don't think Clark would make fundies vote for Kerry, but he sure would have helped with the Catholic vote in my view.

[xkenx]

37. Clark '08

Your comments are right on! Clark was the "moral values" candidate this year. The media ignored him because the R's feared him the most, and the DNC (Terry McAwful) feared him because he couldn't be controlled. Wes Clark would have been the strongest PRESIDENTIAL candidate this year. Nothing will change for '08. We should be working on a Clark '08 run right now and persuading this national treasure to once again step up for his country.

[smb]

38. "Leader"ship

I don't know about you, but I felt that Kerry had others in mind, perhaps Clark, but the Democratic "leadership" crammed Edwards down Kerry's throat.

Yeah, that's my read. They screwed the pooch on this one.

[Catchawave]

33. John Edwards was about inspiration and optimism

Not to mention to his army of supporters during the primaries, easy on the eyes. We loved Elizabeth too. I highly recommend his book Four Trials for a deeper glimpse into this gentle soul.

Please don't rule him out in 2008 either, as 2004 is history now, think "Johnny, We hardly knew ye".

You can visit http://www.jregrassroots.org/jre/ and choose to be inspired!

[demokatgurrl]

40. I'd LIKE to rule him out in 2008. He doesn't have a prayer

against those monsters. Trial lawyer or not, too much Mr. Nice Guy, and too young and naive (in a political sense). And where is he going to run "from"- he'll no longer be in the Senate. Even if they make him DNC chairman, that's not a basis for running for office. In 4 years will people even remember him? What will he be doing between now and then to gain experience? I'm sure Dubya isn't giving him a cabinet slot.

[Blue_Tires]

34. i agree

the only reason you even nominate a southern VP is so he can carry southern states...we could have had clark/dean/kucinich for VP and maybe done better in other places if we were already going to get swept in the south

[liberal N proud]

36. It was not the ticket!

It was the fucking moal issues that they put on the ballot in key states that brouht out the right wing assholes who inturn gave the chimp his throne.

[Democat]

41. In retrospect, I tend to agree

Sadly, Edwards did not help us where we needed help.

[amazona]

42. I wanted Clark too but...

..I think Edwards did a great job, and I'm glad I had a chance to learn more about what he stood for. I would like to see more from him.

At this time I am not confident enough that we had a fair election to hazard a guess about whether Clark would have pulled more votes than Edwards.

We had great candidates, I honestly have trouble believing that any real blame falls on the VP pick.

[YusefHawkins]

43. Who votes doesn't matter, it's who counts the votes

As Karl Rove reiterates, who votes doesn't matter, it's who counts the votes. As long as Republicans program e-voting machines without paper trails, FL and OH are lost and will always be lost. It won't matter who the running mate is.

Choice is an illusion, created between those with power, and those without. -Merovingian from "The Matrix Reloaded"