John Kerry and co.

Xandax · #1 (**permalink**) 07-06-2004, 10:21 AM

So - I've heard today that Kerry has chosen his VP candidate in Edwards.
Now they also said that Kerry and Edwards weren't excatly what could be descriped as "best friends" (to put it mildly).
But seeing as I don't know all that much about the candidates - what is the "peoples oppinion" to this choice.

According to what I do know - it seemed to be the only choice for Kerry, seeing as Edwards was his strongest competitor for the president-candidacy, so it would seem that Edwards might be able to bring in democratic votes that either would have been blank or not even given at all.

But anyways.... what is the US view on this nomination?

Gwalchmai · #2 (**permalink**) 07-06-2004, 10:34 AM

I think it was a good choice for him to make. Certainly better than when Bush Sr. picked Quail, and when Gore picked Lieberman. I think Kerry will want to run against W. Bush's social and economic record, and Edwards will be able to speak to that.

Xandax · #3 (**permalink**) 07-06-2004, 10:37 AM

I came to think, from your post Gwalchmai....
How did Edward's platform compare to Kerry's during the campaigns ? If they are pro and con the same issues?

fable · #4 (**permalink**) 07-06-2004, 11:06 AM

Now they also said that Kerry and Edwards weren't excatly what could be descriped as "best friends" (to put it mildly).

Few presidents and vice-presidents ever were. Thomas Jefferson cordially detested Aaron Burr (years before Burr's attempts to start up a breakaway nation) in a fashion he reserved for few people. FDR and Truman almost never spoke. Harding and Coolidge never did. Nixon regarded Agnew as a private joke. And it was the elder Bush, while running against Reagan during the Republican primaries, who coined the wonderful term about NeoCon financial theories, "voodoo economics."

I suspect that if Kerry gets elected, he and Edwards will complement each other nicely. The problem is that, for all of Edwards' vaunted charisma, he can't give an infusion of it to the man who could turn undead merely by addressing 'em. IMO, Kerry is as ponderous in uttering profound banalities as a Mack truck taking broken up marble to a rubbish dump.

Gwalchmai · #5 (**permalink**) 07-06-2004, 11:20 AM

Xandax: I don't recall any strong differences between Kerry's and Edward's platforms during the primaries - that was mostly a time when the candidates tried to tell who they were and how much they thought Bush was messing up. If anything, Edwards had a more positive message without a lot of mud-slinging.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable

IMO, Kerry is as ponderous in uttering profound banalities as a Mack truck taking broken up marble to a rubbish dump.

Fortunately, the American people are savvy enough to be able to see past a stilted public speaking style and see the substance of the message - if style were all that mattered we might as well just elect actors to the job! Oh, wait. We already did that....

Xandax · #6 (**permalink**) 07-06-2004, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable

Now they also said that Kerry and Edwards weren't excatly what could be descriped as "best friends" (to put it mildly).

Few presidents and vice-presidents ever were. Thomas Jefferson cordially detested Aaron Burr (years before Burr's attempts to start up a breakaway nation) in a fashion he reserved for few people. FDR and Truman almost never spoke. Harding and Coolidge never did. Nixon regarded Agnew as a private joke. And it was the elder Bush, while running against Reagan during the Republican primaries, who coined the wonderful term about NeoCon financial theories, "voodoo economics."
<snip>

It then seems to be the norm that the President and VP dosen't really get along. It was something of the perspective I also got from the Clinton/Gore constellation. But I don't know if it was only my perception playing tricks, or there were something between them.

I wonder if it is because they run against each other for the presidential spot, which causes this "antagonism" between them, or if infact it is "only" the personalities of the involved people that clash. It just seems to be happening to often for the latter, compared to the former.

Xandax · #7 (**permalink**) 07-06-2004, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gwalchmai

Xandax: I don't recall any strong differences between Kerry's and Edward's platforms during the primaries - that was mostly a time when the candidates tried to tell who they were and how much they thought Bush was messing up. If anything, Edwards had a more positive message without a lot of mud-slinging.

<snip>

Well - if they both appeal to the same segment of voters, it would be harder to draw in extra votes.
I head something in the latest newsbroadcast that they suspect Edwards would be more likely to draw southern votes to the constellation, then Kerry.
Why is that?

(sorry if I'm asking many questions - but I'm rather interested in politics ... well, the people behind the politics more then the actually politics themselves

, and it is just rather difficult to get much information, withouth having to search through US newssites, and I don't know their political viewpoints, which likely clouds their coverage

I actually find it easier to find more "neutral" information here at GB, then seaching newssites

)

Gwalchmai · #8 (**permalink**) 07-06-2004, 01:05 PM

Well, Edwards is from the South, and a popular statistic to be cited these days is that no Democrat has been elected in the last 40 years that wasn't from the South. I've heard that the Southern Democrats were put off by the fact that Gore didn't try harder to win in the South, and Edwards may help bring more attention to the South, and maybe win a few of those states over. Personally, I think it is a mistake to focus any campaign on a few battleground states. If you want to be president of the whole nation, then you can start by campaigning in the whole nation.

Shadrach · #9 (**permalink**) 07-06-2004, 02:06 PM

Just a few things....

Jefferson and Burr were elected separately. The fact that they detested each other was the main reason the Twelfth Amendment was passed, which forced the president and the vice president to be running-mates.

Edwards is a personal injury plaintiff's attorney. In other words, an amubulance chaser. This is frightening, since even other lawyers detest them. The fact that most of America would whine about the woman who sued McDonald's after spilling coffee on herself, then one of the same breed tries to take office and gets support....

is scary.

RandomThug · #10 (**permalink**) 07-06-2004, 02:52 PM

Who do you mistrust more? A Lawyer, politician or both?

Heh. Personally I think edwards is a good bet, he'll bring in woman votes (I mean the guy was listed one of the sexiest men) and help with the south given he is from n.carolina. (I think thats right).

All that nonsense about H.Clinton being his running mate made me laugh... its fun too also see how quick these rightwingers are bashing edwards.

And about personal injury plaintiff lawyers.... you can stereo type and judge but you don't know the mans record.

RandomThug · #11 (**permalink**) 07-06-2004, 05:23 PM

wasn't lincoln a trial lawyer?

Nightmare · #12 (**permalink**) 07-06-2004, 11:27 PM

I would've enjoyed seeing John McCain as VP, but of course, that would've never happened.

I'm following US politics closely, though I became very disaffected after the Dems' primaries, since I strongly supported Dean, and I severely distrust Kerry (Dean was right on the money when she said that Kerry was Bush lite). In my humble opinion, Dean deserves the credit for all the fundraising, excitement, and large support the Democrats have gotten over the past year or so. As an avid watcher of the show West Wing, there is a quote I like that is very applicable: "You don't nominate the guy that can win, you nominate the guy that should win".

But that's just me, and I'm a left-wing radical.

Georgi · #13 (**permalink**) 07-07-2004, 02:45 AM

Edwards wasn't Kerry's first choice - he wanted McCain (a Republican), rather than Edwards. Of course, the Bush campaign is saying that Edwards is too inexperienced a politician, he has only been in the business for six years, and I think that was probably a worry for Kerry as well. I think Edwards compliments Kerry quite well, he brings their campaign a bit of charisma. And appealing to the South can't hurt.

CM · #14 (**permalink**) 07-07-2004, 03:02 AM

He has only been there for 6 years? I see that more as an asset than a laibility. That means he is roughly an outsider and doesnt owe aliegences to any power group or lobby. That also means he is sufficiently dis-affected by the way work is undertaken at the government level.

Xandax · #15 (**permalink**) 07-07-2004, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CM

He has only been there for 6 years? I see that more as an asset than a laibility. That means he is roughly an outsider and doesnt owe aliegences to any power group or lobby. That also means he is sufficiently dis-affected by the way work is undertaken at the government level.

I agree- but with the perspective I have gathered of voters (in Denmark, as well as what I can gather from other countries), then many people that are less interested in politics usually goes for the "well-known" factor vs. what might be better or political standpoints.
And a track record of 6 years means that they aren't so well known.

We have to remember that large parts of the voters segments are likely to fall for populistic arguments and inexperience is certainly an argument that could be used and could sway some "undecided".