Choice Is Pragmatic, Undramatic

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-assess7jul07,1,3327566.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Choice Is Pragmatic, Undramatic
Edwards has wide party support and has been campaign-tested. But can he lure swing voters?
By Ronald Brownstein
Times Staff Writer

July 7, 2004

WASHINGTON — With the selection of North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Sen. John F. Kerry tapped a running mate who combines obvious strengths with subtle risks.

(snip)

His selection may signal that the Kerry campaign is serious about contesting President Bush in several Southern states. But that could prove a poor use of Kerry's resources if Bush still dominates in the region.

Ultimately, the greatest peril surrounding Kerry's decision may be that he chose the man many considered the front-runner for the job all along.

Although generating an enthusiastic response from Democrats, its also means the pick may not be dramatic or surprising enough to help win Kerry a new look from undecided voters.

(snip)

My comment:

I read this article... the author doesn't state what alternative picks would have been "dramatic" or "surprising" to better entice swing voters. Evan Freaking Bayh? Vilsac?:shrug:

The bit about wasting resources in the South as a gamble doesn't hold water either, by my reckoning. Because Edwards is a candidate with broad appeal, I think he helps us across the board. His value is not predicated upon swaying southern states.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Edwards appeals to working folks

wherever they live. And, as for the South--personally I think the best thing that has happened for Kerry are the multiple missteps Bush and Cheney have taken. Southerners I talk to are ashamed of the way the prisoners were treated in Iraq, mad at the way our soldiers have been treated (especially local Guardsmen), and shocked at the way Cheney cursed in the Senate. Don't get me wrong-most folks I know understand and use four letter words. But not in certain places. To many around here, Cheney's language was out of place-it was like cussing in church and then saying it was ok because the preacher wasn't in the pulpit!

[Cheswick2.0]

2. does the author have to give you examples for you to agree or understand

his point?
I can give you some general examples... a woman, a minority, some one who is actually progressive rather than another big moeny centrist democrat.
As much of a conservative jerk as Lieberman has turned out to be, the choice to put him on the ticket in 2000 was a better choice than Edwards now. There is one reason... because it was time a Jewish person was given that place. It was bold and it made me proud to be a democrat and proud of Gore for doing it.

Edwards is nothing more than the other whitebread democrat male.
Boring.