2
   

It's kerry and Edwards

 
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 09:06 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Miller wrote:
Edwards was an extremely poor choice for VP. Has anyone read the WSJ today? Seems the Journal isn't a fan of Edwards, either.


I should think they don't like Edwards. Edwards will represent a section of the American public that goes to work everyday, not that reads the WSJ in an office. Believe it or not, the REAL majority of the country doesn't read the WSJ.


The fact (?) that they don't, is really their loss. I consider it to be the best paper out there. Razz
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 09:08 am
How is that "all wrong"? Ultimately, Edwards was Kerry's first choice, obviously. Graham, Vilsack, and Gephardt were the other top contenders. From what I've read, Gephardt was his personal preference, but then he was trying to figure out the best choice, politically. I believe that Graham was up there. But "all wrong"?

I think one of the strengths of Edwards is he can be both sunny and cutting. "Two Americas" is potent.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 09:08 am
Wonder what the WSJ would have said about Gephardt ... or Clark ...
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 09:08 am
The only way, Edwards could be a good choice, is if Americans want Bush to win in 2004.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 09:09 am
nimh wrote:
Wonder what the WSJ would have said about Gephardt ... or Clark ...


I haven't read anything, about them, so far.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 09:09 am
Miller
Miller, the WSJ has good reporters, especially if one is business-oriented. The WSJ Editorial page is the worst, most biased in the country. Even worse than FOX news.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 09:12 am
sozobe wrote:
How is that "all wrong"? Ultimately, Edwards was Kerry's first choice, obviously. Graham, Vilsack, and Gephardt were the other top contenders. From what I've read, Gephardt was his personal preference, but then he was trying to figure out the best choice, politically. I believe that Graham was up there. But "all wrong"?

I think one of the strengths of Edwards is he can be both sunny and cutting. "Two Americas" is potent.


Kerry's first choice was McCain. Razz
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 09:13 am
Re: Miller
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Miller, the WSJ has good reporters, especially if one is business-oriented. The WSJ Editorial page is the worst, most biased in the country. Even worse than FOX news.

BBB


Compared to which papers?
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 09:15 am
sozobe wrote:
How is that "all wrong"? Ultimately, Edwards was Kerry's first choice, obviously. Graham, Vilsack, and Gephardt were the other top contenders. From what I've read, Gephardt was his personal preference, but then he was trying to figure out the best choice, politically. I believe that Graham was up there. But "all wrong"?

I think one of the strengths of Edwards is he can be both sunny and cutting. "Two Americas" is potent.


Most successful trial lawyers are. Ask any MD, who's been sued for medical malpractice and has lost. Confused
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 09:15 am
Yeah, McCain was first.

I think it's a mistake to think Edwards can help much in the south.

Kerry is the most liberal senator, Edwards is the fourth most liberal senator.

This doesn't seem to be a winning ticket for southern states, at least on paper.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 09:17 am
Brand X wrote:
Yeah, McCain was first.

I think it's a mistake to think Edwards can help much in the south.

Kerry is the most liberal senator, Edwards is the fourth most liberal senator.

This doesn't seem to be a winning ticket for southern states, at least on paper.


True Cool
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 09:18 am
Miller
Miller, McCain was not Kerry's first choice. It was a little media game these two friends were playing to demonstrate that they were trying to unify the country. There never was a chance that McCain would be Kerry's VP candidate, something the Democrats wouldn't stand for. McCain is a republican first and always. He may detest Bush et al, but he is loyal to his party and is a patient man who will wait for it's members to come to their senses. Besides, his wife's health is not good and he did not want to be away from his family on the campaign trail at this time.

BBB
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 09:21 am
Sox
People close to Kerry have said that he and Graham are very close friends with great trust and compatibility with each other, and Theresa likes Graham. That made Graham rate very high with Kerry. But Graham had to be able to carry more states than Florida, something they both agreed he probably could not do, hence he was not included in the final group cut from which Kerry made his decision.

The relationship between Edwards and Theresa Kerry will be interesting to watch as she considers Edwards too ambitious to be trusted. She reminds me of Nancy Reagan in that respect.

BBB
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 09:30 am
BBB
The most fascinating thing going on in this campaign at this time is the Bush and Cheney relationship.

Bush obviously can't function without Cheney guiding him behind the scenes. But Cheney is becoming such a negative lightening rod that Bush must be faced with replacing him as VP candidate for a second term. Unless he finds another Cheney-type to pull the puppet strings, he is caught on the horns of a dilemma. While McCain-Bush team might be a winning combination, Bush would never take advice or direction from McCain. Rudy Guilliana would be a good candidate, but he doesn't have the type of experience that would save Bush's butt from behind the scenes.

And Bush 43 doesn't listen to Poppy 41. And since God isn't available, what does he do now? Select Karen Hughes, whom he will listen to? Hey, that might be a winning combination. Why hasn't Bush thought of this gem of an idea?

BBB Laughing
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 09:36 am
Quote:
Miller, McCain was not Kerry's first choice. It was a little media game these two friends were playing


Oh I think Kerry sincerely wanted McCain. Woulda been quite the coup. And it would have been his "Sister Souljah" moment, a chance to show off that, despite his image, he would not be a prisoner of the liberals in his party and steer his own course. For example, by juxtaposing harsh criticism of the Iraq war with an attempt to fire at Bush from the right on the war again terrorism (not focused enough, not determined enough).

McCain would have been an ideal running mate for that - and of course also for highlighting the American ideal of bipartisan co-operation, in contrast to the Bush clique's bitter, partisan paranoia. Of course it would have yielded Nader some extra Dem votes - but that would have been more than compensated for by the coup Kerry would pull off among independents and even some Republicans.

But McCain apparently didn't want to ... whether it was because of party loyalty or because he realised that on domestic, socio-economic policy they had little in common ... who knows.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 09:40 am
I love this.

Quote:
As a result, many Democrats said Tuesday, this highest-profile decision of Mr. Kerry's public life was as instructive about the party's presumed presidential candidate as it was about Mr. Edwards. It was the move of a candidate who is proving to be methodical, discreet, coolly pragmatic and exceedingly self-assured; one who is so intensely focused on victory as to be presumably unruffled by the unflattering stylistic contrasts that will surely be drawn whenever he and Mr. Edwards share a stage.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/07/politics/campaign/07ASSE.html?hp

Very encouraging, all in all.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 09:50 am
Soz
Great article, Soz, which which I agree. I found the following to be most instructive:

Before Mr. Kerry even alerted his supporters of his decision in a mass e-mail message on Tuesday morning, Mr. Bush's camp began pounding Mr. Edwards's qualifications, invoking the words of skepticism Mr. Kerry had voiced about Mr. Edwards during the primary. Michael Nelson, a political scientist at Rhodes College in Memphis, suggested that the selection of Mr. Edwards had the effect of guaranteeing that Mr. Bush would not push Vice President Dick Cheney off the ticket because of the contrast between the two on national security.

"To the extent that you can get voters to concentrate on another terrorist attack and who is going to be there in the cockpit if the president is on the road somewhere,'' Mr. Nelson said, "that's exactly the kind of frame in which Cheney looks impressive."
[/b]

Bush is a dud re foreign policy and needs Cheney to think for him. If Edwards can knock off Cheney, Bush is in deep doo doo.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Jer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 09:57 am
Re: Soz
Quote:


"To the extent that you can get voters to concentrate on another terrorist attack and who is going to be there in the cockpit if the president is on the road somewhere,'' Mr. Nelson said, "that's exactly the kind of frame in which Cheney looks impressive."[/i]


I'm hoping that Kerry won't be "on the road" nearly as often as Bush (read: taking holidays) so it shouldn't be nearly as much of an issue.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 01:41 pm
McGentrix wrote:
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040706/lester.gif


It is not lost on me that the bush supporters approve of a big dick for vp...speaking of fake enhancements.....if you're dickless...run with a big dick...now there's a campaign strategy with legs...three of 'em as a matter of fact......
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 02:12 pm
Precarious perspective Polar Bear. Perhaps his predecessor presented a precedent that prescribed the president has to publicly present his penis to prove its presence?

Ps. Btw, is this dislike for those with big dicks a jealousy issue with you? Razz
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/18/2021 at 06:43:42