Kerry Picks Edwards for VP

[shemp]

Kerry Picks Edwards for VP

(CBS/AP) Senator John Kerry was expected to name Sen. John Edwards as his running mate Tuesday, ending a search that began with about 25 candidates and a mandate to find a political soul mate who could "be ready at any moment" to assume the presidency.

Kerry plans to announce his choice on the Internet before a rally in Pittsburgh at 9 a.m.

The newly minted ticket will travel to battleground states this week, starting with Ohio and ending with the running mate's hometown, aides said. The pair will be formally nominated at the Democratic National Convention, which begins in Boston on July 26.

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

!

I am not familiar with all politicians in the US

this is not the John Edward is it of "Crossing Over"

I notice this fellow has an "s" in his name so likely not.

 

[Jocko]

Kerry Picks Edwards for VP

A prudent choice, though I was hoping for something more entertaining and unexpected for all the suspense he's been trying to generate. I still think Gephardt would be able to deliver more union members than Edwards could deliver southerners, but I guess time will tell.

I recall those two mixing it up pretty good in the primary debates... But then so did Reagan and Bush Sr. Should be a fun campaign!

 

[Tmy]

Funny. No matter how politically advanced we get most of politics still comes down to a candidates looks, race, gender, ethnicty, and neighborhood.

 

[Jocko]

Funny. No matter how politically advanced we get most of politics still comes down to a candidates looks, race, gender, ethnicty, and neighborhood.

That's not politics, Timmy, that's SOCIETY.

They do seem like a bit of an odd couple, though, just in presentation. Bush & Cheney are peas in a pod, but here you have a self-professed good ol' boy teaming up with an ivy leage child of privilege. But Edwards does offer the advantage of being the less Lurch-like part of the ticket.

 

[Tmy]

You miss there biggest advantage. Together they have SUPER-politican hair! A look at history shows that the better hair usually carries the election.

Clinton, Reagan, Carter,JFK won based on their hair alone. A balding GW and bald Cheney dont have a chance.

 

[Rob Lister]

That's not politics, Timmy, that's SOCIETY.

They do seem like a bit of an odd couple, though, just in presentation. Bush & Cheney are peas in a pod, but here you have a self-professed good ol' boy teaming up with an ivy leage child of privilege. But Edwards does offer the advantage of being the less Lurch-like part of the ticket.

I agree it was a good choice for Kerry. I never believed the McCain rumors. The biggest problem I see is the debates. Kerry and Bush in a debate will be entertaining but Kerry is not an original thinker/debater and it will likely end up like the Bush/Gore debates. Edwards, on the other hand, could open a serious can of whupass on Bush in a debate, simple because he is so articulate and stays so firmly on point. But at best he will debate Cheney who can more easily fend off Edward's practiced, talented even, debating tactics.

I predict Bush/Cheney win with 20 electoral-votes to spare.

 

[Bikewer]

Just woke up to hear the NBC news commentator make the following statement.
"The Bush administration says that Kerry's choice of Edwards was for purely political reasons."


???????????????

 

[Rob Lister]

Just woke up to hear the NBC news commentator make the following statement.
"The Bush administration says that Kerry's choice of Edwards was for purely political reasons."


???????????????

And I'll add my own ??? to that.

Of course, I'd like to know who it was in the Bush administration that said it. To phrase it the way you reported it, one would presume that it was the 'official' stance of the administration.

I suggest it that there is more to the context of that statement than meets the reader's/listener's eyes/ears. Either that or NBC just made it up.

 

[Brown]

But at best he [Edwards] will debate Cheney who can more easily fend off Edward's practiced, talented even, debating tactics.

A debate between Edwards and Bush would be boring. But a debate between Edwards and Cheney promises to be top-flight entertainment. I would not be surprised if Cheney tried to weasel out of such a debate, saying something like: "Nobody cares about the vice presidential debates."

 

[Jocko]

A debate between Edwards and Bush would be boring. But a debate between Edwards and Cheney promises to be top-flight entertainment. I would not be surprised if Cheney tried to weasel out of such a debate, saying something like: "Nobody cares about the vice presidential debates."

Well, a southerner-on-southerner debate is usually pretty dull until a certain minimum of beer has been consumed. But I think Cheney is an even match with Edwards - both are at ease in the pulpit of politics and well-spoken. I wouldn't take odds on picking that winner....

BTW, my call is Bush/Cheney by 13 electoral votes, with endless recounts in Michigan or Ohio.

 

[gnome]

1988 campaign posters:

BUSH - Quayle
vs.
Dukakis - Bentsen

2004?

Bush - Cheney
vs.
Kerry - Edwards

 

[Rob Lister]

A debate between Edwards and Bush would be boring. But a debate between Edwards and Cheney promises to be top-flight entertainment. I would not be surprised if Cheney tried to weasel out of such a debate, saying something like: "Nobody cares about the vice presidential debates."

If I were Cheney, I try something like that. Edwards is a killer at debate. While the ability to debate is probably not a a good measure of future job performance, it does happen to be one of the primary measures in use. Perhaps that's why both parties, in their primaries, attempt to minimize the debate impact by allowing the inclusion of so many participants.

The only reason Edwards didn't win the nomination was because the debates had far too many players, many of which having no prospect. Had it been just Edwards and Kerry, Edwards would surely have been nominated. Well, that's my opinion anyway.

Maybe both parties would profit from some sort of debate run-offs. I don't know how such a thing might be set-up given the subjective nature of what constitutes a 'win', but I'd like to see someone try.

 

[shemp]

Re: !

I am not familiar with all politicians in the US

this is not the John Edward is it of "Crossing Over"

I notice this fellow has an "s" in his name so likely not.

Um, no, but that certainly would have been an interesting choice. John Edward (no "s") might have helped pull in the Cook County vote. (This is another obscure U.S. political reference, feel free to request clarification if necessary.)

 

[shemp]

I heard some Bushite hack on the radio say something about the fact that John Edwards was a trial lawyer will make him unappealing to voters. Right, there aren't any lawyers in Washington, especially in Congress, and no lawyer has ever gone to the White House. Yeah, sure, ya betcha.

 

[Rob Lister]

1988 campaign posters:

BUSH - Quayle
vs.
Dukakis - Bentsen

2004?

Bush - Cheney
vs.
Kerry - Edwards

That is one of the most interesting, thought provoking, use of font size I've seen.

 

[Tmy]

I heard some Bus**te hack on the radio say something about the fact that John Edwards was a trial lawyer will make him unappealing to voters. Right, there aren't any lawyers in Washington, especially in Congress, and no lawyer has ever gone to the White House. Yeah, sure, ya betcha.

Yeah. I like how people smear him cause he "made his money as a trial attorney." Unlike most other politicans who earned there money the old fashion way. Thru old money blue blood former slave owning rum running familes .

 

[Rob Lister]

I heard some Bus**te hack on the radio say something about the fact that John Edwards was a trial lawyer will make him unappealing to voters. Right, there aren't any lawyers in Washington, especially in Congress, and no lawyer has ever gone to the White House. Yeah, sure, ya betcha.

I agree with you in principal but politics has a way of bringing new and improved evils to the forefront. Currently, lawyers are a favorite for whipping (as well they should be!) so there is some hay to be made here. Perhaps not as much as the Repubs would like. It depends on the cases with which Edwards has involved himself. The 'good' ones don't really matter because its the questionable ones that will come into focus.

A single whiplash case could all but destroy him depending on the circumstances.

 

[Jocko]

I agree with you in principal but politics has a way of bringing new and improved evils to the forefront. Currently, lawyers are a favorite for whipping (as well they should be!) so there is some hay to be made here. Perhaps not as much as the Repubs would like. It depends on the cases with which Edwards has involved himself. The 'good' ones don't really matter because its the questionable ones that will come into focus.

A single whiplash case could all but destroy him depending on the circumstances.

True dat. No one ever made it big in politics because they'd been a trial lawyer. In spite of it, sure, but never because of it.

I think a bigger issue will be Edward's experience... a one-term senate seat isn't much of a resume these days.

 

[American]

I bet they'll marry each other! HA HA HA HA HA!! It's legal in massachusetts, and Kerrry is FROM massachusetts. Oh my god they're really going to do it I think!