John Kerry has taken the advice of anti-NAFTA anti-Semites and Ralph Nader and picked John Edwards to be his running mate. This match wasn't exactly made in heaven.
Several Kerry advisers say the Massachusetts senator is skeptical about Edwards's strength as a running mate, saying he appears to lack the clout with Southern voters that he often brags about being able to deliver. Edwards's inability to win more than a single primary state thus far may give him the aura of a loser in the general election, these Kerry aides said. And Kerry himself recently noted with a touch of derision that, according to opinion polls, President Bush would defeat Edwards in his own home state of North Carolina.It looks like I'll have to add John Edwards to my page of lying liars.Kerry is also said to be unconvinced that Edwards is experienced enough to step in as a wartime president should something happen to him. National security credentials are the most important assets that the Democratic presidential front-runner would use to choose a running mate, these aides said.
Edwards, meanwhile, has dismissed talk that he would accept anything other than the Democratic nomination and has said he would not want Kerry to consider him for a running mate.
At least the Democrat campaign bus now has another John.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 06, 2004 05:35 AMThe GOP seems to have been prepared for the pick.
http://www.gop.com/RNCResearch/Read.aspx?id=4345
My view: John Edwards is an ambulance-chaser who, through his numerous lawsuits against doctors and hospitals, has played a substantial role in raising the costs of health care in the USA.
Posted by: Matt J Kurlander on July 6, 2004 06:58 AMso matt, what is your view of ex-ceo of haliburton cheney? what of his role in say, oil prices, geopolitical affairs, environment-related issues, etc.
i think the vitriol used by republicans against kerry-edwards will be telling. it seems the perspective will be distinctly partisan.
Posted by: dinesh on July 6, 2004 11:03 AMProvided there are no real legal or ethical lapses in his performance, Cheney has nothing to be ashamed of, Halliburton-wise. He led a company that provided gainful employment to thousands of people by providing valuable services that people were willing to pay for, which to me is a more respectable way of earning a living than using theatrics and innuendo to convince juries to fork over other people's money.
I respect businessmen... I loathe trial lawyers. That's my POV.
Posted by: Matt J Kurlander on July 6, 2004 11:14 AMthanks for the clairfication matt. although your caveat at the beginning of your post ("provided that....") is rather large, i understand your point.
sharkman: in all fairness, perhaps you should add cheney to your list of liars, especially given the seriousness of the subject of his particular lie...
http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi?__mode=view&entry_id=2152
Posted by: dinesh on July 6, 2004 02:54 PMIn terms of electability, Edwards is probably the best choice Kerry could have made, certainly better than Gephardt, who engineered the Dems disasterous 2002 Congressional showing.
One way the Republicans can play this is the Dukakis/Bentsen model: make people wish that Edwards was at the top of the ticket. After Dukakis' poor showing in the first debate and Bentsen's "I knew John Kennedy" quip, many people in Dukakis' own campaign were wishing the Texas senator were the nominee. If Karl Rove is smart, he will use images of a dynamic Edwards to picture Kerry as a Dukakis retread.