Dems find favor in Edwards

[chimpymustgo]

Sunday, June 20, 2004 
Dems find favor in Edwards


By JOHN WAGNER, Washington Correspondent

GREENBELT, MD. -- At a breakfast Friday morning, U.S. Rep. Al Wynn of Maryland said a few kind words about John Kerry, his party's presumptive presidential nominee. But it was nothing compared with the praise he heaped on another Democrat, U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, who was on hand to help Wynn raise money for his re-election bid.

"Some of you know I've not so quietly been pushing to see if we can help him be vice president of the United States," Wynn said.

He is not the only one. In recent weeks, buzz about Edwards' vice presidential prospects has reached a crescendo.

-snip-

Edwards recently finished atop an Associated Press poll of candidates whom Democrats would like to see on Kerry's ticket. Pundits are speculating more about Edwards' prospects than other possibilities on political talk shows. And a growing number of Democratic politicians are speaking on his behalf.

Wynn, whose fund-raiser drew about 400 people, recently collected the signatures of 22 House colleagues who would like to see Edwards on the ticket. Several Democratic senators are also urging Kerry to pick Edwards, The New York Times reported this week.

-snip-

"It's been a while since I've seen a consensus so broad and so deep on behalf of one person," said Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant, a panelist on the show.

-snip

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1350217p-7472886c.html

************

Regardless of Kerry's choice, it is Oliphant's observation that points out the Edwards' phenomenon.

[Doosh]

1. no! no! you lie! none of this ever happened!

it's clark dammit!:cry:


It's gotten to the point where the democratic party will be deflated if Kerry picks one of the more uninspiring rejects (vilsack, clark)

[MontecitoDem]

29. Calling other candidates "uninspiring rejects"

is ridiculous and divisive. Can't wait til Kerry chooses so that I don't have to read this kind of crap on DU anymore.

Of course then there'll be all the new crap about how stupid Kerry is for not picking the right guy. This place is getting plain ol' stupid.

[venus]

49. Your comment makes me wish Edwards will lose out

to anyone else now. So much for good logical debate.

[bluestateguy]

2. I hope that helps

It looks like Clark is slipping, so I back Edwards. If nothing else, you groom a strong challenger to Hillary in '08 if Kerry loses.

[AP]

3. "U.S. Rep. Al Wynn (D) watches too much Fox."

I'm just trying to anticipate the inevitable posts from ess-brigade.

[Doosh]

4. it's a conspiracy I tells you, it's all Sheltons fault!

[AP]

6. Where is the S-Troop?

Usually they get here by post 4.

[Darkamber]

21. you guys make me laugh...

thanks for making my day...:)

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chimpymustgo]

5. You so crazy.

Okay, maybe we got the right wing media stuff out of the way.

[Cuban_Liberal]

7. That just HAS to be RW media lies

No actually LIKES Edwards, right?

;)

[spooky3]

8. I hope that this strategy does not backfire.

It's great to see the support, and to see how much people appreciate everything Edwards is doing to help not only Kerry, but also those running for Senate & House. Kerry needs to have a Dem.-controlled Senate at the very least. But if Kerry feels they're trying to pressure him, he may do just the opposite of what they want, which would be very disappointing.

[Doosh]

9. I've never seen

Such a public outcry for a VP before as now where the entire Democratic party is settles on Edwards. I hope this doesn't intimidate Kerry into thinking Edwards will outshine him, otherwise we'll have Gephardt as VP. I like Gep and wouldn't mind him, but Edwards is the one the people want.

[Scoopie]

38. I don't think the ENTIRE Dem Party

has settled on any one person. Might you be just a tad overstating.
And, if this *is* who the ENTIRE Dem Party has settled on, then they have no earthly idea how the hell to win an election.

[venus]

50. Yes the media and all "the people" want Edwards.

Good thing Kerry agrees with "all the people" and the media.

[AP]

10. I think Kerry has to accpet that if stories are leaking about meetings

with Graham and Gep, and if people inside the campaign are saying that FP now matters the most, these stories will give rise to people who are passionate about Edwards speaking up. How else would Kerry know that this sentiment exists?

If Kerry is stringing out the inevitable Edwards decision to get press and build up good feelings in Miss, Fla, and Ark, then he won't mind. If Edwards isn't on top of the list, then he needs to know the facts.

And if these congresspeople are seriously concerned that Edwards might not be on the ticket, and they really want him, what else can they do?

[spooky3]

33. maybe do it more privately. Tell the media that they

can't say anything right now out of respect for Kerry's wish for privacy and to make the decision on his own time, and out of respect for all of the people who may not be picked.

But I don't have any information that suggests this would be any better than what they are doing. I'm just raising it as a fear that I have.

[Crachet2004]

11. I can live with whoever John Kerry finally chooses...

But I wonder if we run the risk with Edwards, of allowing the corporate media to choose our candidate.

When I think about it, Gep is still beginning to make more sense to ME.

Among other things, he will bring a battleground state with him-FOR SURE.

He is not flashy, but no Southern politician-except Jimmy Carter-really represents Democratic values-for example, Edwards comes from a right-to-work state, and I have never heard him disavow this concept. I have got a real problem with our nominating and electing people who do not reflect ALL of our core values.

Edwards may be great, or not. Gep is solid. I don't want any more pigs in a DLC poke, thankyou very much. We need to differentiate ourselves from the GOP...which is why a lot of our natural constiuency is disaffected-they see us slopping from the same trough as the GOP.

And that thing about Edwards attending the most recent Bilderburger meeting turns me OFF.

Okay, I have just decided: all things considered, I think it should be Gep...but I can live with just about anyone for VP, except Dick Cheney.

[chimpymustgo]

15. Please read this article about Gephardt. It's tough, but true, IMO.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleI...
**********

See Dick Run, Part II
On Wednesday, Matthew Yglesias listed the reasons Dick Gephardt should not be vice-president. He was right -- but he forgot a few.

By Garance Franke-Ruta
Web Exclusive: 06.18.04


-snip-

The choice of Gephardt would reinforce every negative stereotype about Kerry in current circulation while muddying the picture of what he actually stands for. Put Gephardt on the ticket and suddenly, instead of an experienced moderate leader with a progressive bent, you have a pair that can be caricatured as two aging, pro-tax creatures of Washington, both of whom backed the president's war in Iraq for purely opportunistic reasons and both of whom want to transform the American healthcare system with a massive government give-away instead of balancing the budget. Or so some will say, and be able to argue with newfound plausibility.

Nor does Gephardt bring those benefits to the ticket that one might typically want. It's not entirely clear that he can deliver his home state of Missouri, and there's even less polling data suggesting he would bring an electoral bump to the Kerry campaign nationwide. Indeed, the latest data point -- the latest six data points -- we have say that Dick Gephardt is an electoral loser. Under his leadership, the Democrats lost the House of Representatives in 1994, and then failed to regain it in four successive elections. Undeterred by party losses in 1996, 1998, and 2000, he took them to defeat again in 2002 -- the first mid-term election in which a first-term president's party gained seats since 1934 -- and then left his leadership post to run in the 2004 presidential primary, which he once again, inevitably, lost.

Gephardt didn't just lose the Democratic primary. He was trounced. In Iowa. He came in fourth in a state he had won 16 years earlier and in which he'd maintained a polling lead or strong second for most of the year. His collapse was more spectacular than Howard Dean's -- and more total, revealing that not only did he have no base in Iowa, he had no base of support outside that state that could buoy him when he lost it.

John Edwards lost with grace, withdrawing from the race after mounting a surprisingly vigorous challenge against Kerry in the South and inspiring many Democrats with his powerful message about "two Americas." Dean lost, in effect, in a torrent of sound, his scream speech in Des Moines putting the penultimate nail in the coffin built by his Iowa implosion. But he chugged along with persistence and newfound humility before finally giving up the ghost of his campaign in Madison. Lieberman's withdrawal from the race was as unremarkable as the Lieberman campaign itself, and Wesley Clark withdrew from the race the same way he entered it, in a chaos of decency and confusion.

-snip-

Most importantly, Gephardt is the single Democrat most associated with enabling President Bush's intervention in Iraq. With the Democratic base and independent voters increasingly turning against that war and seeing the intervention's costs as having outweighed its benefits, and with the entire national-security justification for the war having collapsed, choosing the Democrat who did the most to get us into this mess seems like a bad move. If Nader were not in the race, it might be a different story. But so far, it seems that Nader is already drawing more support than he did in 2000.

Furthermore, Gephardt and Dean may have made up by the end of the primaries, but during his campaign to destroy Dean, Gephardt was responsible for the only unforgivable act of the entire primary season. Gephardt's cronies put together a 527 committee that hid its donors and ran a TV advertisement in South Carolina effectively comparing Howard Dean to Osama bin Laden. There are few lines any longer in politics, but Gephardt's allies crossed a pretty big one. Most people have probably forgotten this ad, but -- trust me here -- many Dean supporters have not. Rather than bringing the leftmost wing of the party back into the fold, a Gephardt candidacy would drive anti-war voters and not a few former Deaniacs right into the waiting arms of Ralph Nader. That he'd be able to do this while simultaneously turning off moderates and failing to rouse anyone outside of the unions would be a neat trick, indeed.

-snip-

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleI...
 

[AP]

16. There's very little in Edwards that any large, evil corp would like.

But if you care about a functioning capitlaism that delivers the wealth it creates broadly and ensures a level of decency to all Ameircans, leaving nobody behind, then Edwards is your candidate.

Have you read his real solutions?

A second tier for cap gains. Putting work before wealth (ie, rewarding work with wealth rather than rewarding wealth with more wealth at the cost of people who work for a living). He calls the middle and working class the engine of american economic growth and says we can't put ALL the weight of pulling America out of this rut on the middle and working class alone, or they won't be able to do it.

He's the antidote to the sort of fascism that we're in the midst of, and if the corporate media wanted him on the ticket, they would have made him president rather than VP, because it wouldn't have taken much. They gave him no coverage until a week after Iowa when it was too late to put him at the top.

Look at the news from Fla yesterday. Drug companies have convinced the state that to prosecute people who are shipping Canadian drugs to old people. The state is insuring the huge and unfair profits of corporations. That's fascism. Edwards is totally against that, and put his opposition to that sort of protectionism front and center in his campaign. Do you really think the coprorate media is pushing THIS guy on voters?

Don't you think it's probably the case that millions of Democrats are pusing him on America?

[Crachet2004]

18. Yeah, and so does he believe in 'a right-to-work'?

If he does, I am against him. I am done with people who do not reflect ALL our core values.

And I know Gep is a fizzle in many ways, mostly in the pizzaz dept. But it does no good to win, if our core constituencies do not gain thereby-like with Clinton. Look how he rewarded Labor-with Nafta, and Gatt.

Look, Labor is a powerful segment of the Democratic core, and cannot be blamed for distrusting a virtually unknown (until about 6 months ago) North Carolinian, from a right-to-work state.

And by the way, the reason corporate media and Rove JUST MIGHT like an Edwards candidacy, is because he is definitely going to be easy to demonize as a trial lawyer (read, ambulence chaser) and he is a lightweight in governmental experience-especially foreign affairs. One term in the Senate does not qualify someone to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency, especially in a time of war.

I am going to support the ticket this Fall, no matter what, but I have got a hunch, maybe wrong, that many people would like to see a return to the old days, and some of the old ways. Gep.

And at least that way, even if we get beat this Fall, we will stand as a clear alternative to the GOP, when they finally have made enough of a mess of things that the American People finally DO cast them aside. And eventually, they will.

[AP]

22. suffices to say, I think you're totally wrong.

But answer me this, if Edwards is so eays to demonize, and that's why the media wants him on the ticket now, why didn't they spend all summer propping him up instead of Dean.

Judging from this study, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/polls.html , it would have been incrdibly easy to get people to vote for him. Had the media given him more attention, he'd be on the ticket.

And, consider this, if it's so easy to get people to like him, as this study reveals, then why not take on the risk of the trial lawyer persona. Clearly it didn't bother the people in this study.

Don't we want the candidate who is easiest for people to like?

As for being "right-to-work" judging from Edwards's policy positions, it's absurd to think he's pro 'right to work'. I can't believe you'd hold against him his state citiizenship. That's silly.

[spooky3]

34. Unfortunately, labor is no longer a powerful segment of the Dem. core.

If they were, Gephardt would have won Iowa at least. They are a smaller and smaller part of the workforce and the electorate. I think this is bad for the US economy, and I personally am pro-union, but the declining influence of unions is a fact. Consequently, I do not blame organized workers for wanting candidates who are supportive of their interests, which I think Edwards is. But they cannot expect to dictate the platform or even influence it as much as in the past, because their proportions are not large enough to do so. It is a big tent and the concerns of everyone have to be taken into account.

[Cuban_Liberal]

12. 85% of the IL delegation wants Edwards as VP.

The delegation was polled last weekend, just to get a sense of their feelings on the subject. The results were so conclusive in Edwards' favor that the State chairman felt obligated to pass them on to the Kerry campaign.

[Darkamber]

23. wow...that is amazing...

And it shows again that his support is not only in the South, but in the Midwest too. This is the point that I hope that Kerry sees. Edwards provides a broad support in all areas.

The war is too fickle an issue. It could turn to Bush's favor in a moment if the transfer goes well. Then how will an anti-war General help the ticket? Edwards appeal is much broader and that CBS survey showed that including Edwards with Kerry on the ticket, Edwards actually increased Kerry's military support.

[Cuban_Liberal]

26. Absolutely!

Clark is a 'one-trick pony' as VP; Edwards isn't.

[Darkamber]

36. I wouldn't go that far...

However, I think it is a risky direction to go. I'll say one thing though that the ads that we are being hit with in this semi-swing state in WA by Bush is that Bush represents hope and optimism and Kerry is pessimism. That view would blown away with Edwards on the ticket with Kerry.

And no matter what anyone says, I don't want this election to focus on the war. I want focus on Education and health care. These are issues that impact my daily life.

My parents are having a hard time trying to pay for their medicine and Bush cut Vet. benefits disqualifying my dad for benefits. Our state Universities are over booked and understaffed that they are turning away students with 3.5 GPA's.

I want my children to be able to go to college and my parents to be able to afford their prescriptions and make their house payments and groceries. These are the issues I want talked about and the issues that are important to me.

[Scoopie]

39. Self-edited

But I still don't believe Clark is a one-trick pony.
Only to some who haven't bothered learning about him, I suppose.

[funky_bug]

40. Scoopie, with all due respect

This is EXACTLY the kind of response certain posters on this thread were hoping for. Please don't give them what they want. They look sillier when they're stuck at the top of the thread mocking the air.

Let them have their party in peace. Clark doesn't need us to defend him. Some here were born to hate, others have learned it from us.

[Scoopie]

41. That one-trick pony comment

just sent me over the edge.

You have to understand that my son is half-Arabic and this issue is intensely personal with me. I really cannot stand that some people can't see how important it is for us to have someone in the upper echilons of government who actually understands the Middle East - and not just Israel's side. The whole region is so much more nuanced than Edwards can even begin to understand - it's many a reason why there is even an al-Qaeda. The only way to "beat" it is to understand and educate.

And, apparently there are some here who aren't willing to learn.

I'm just frustrated.

[funky_bug]

42. I completely understand, I do

But you and I know that Clark is FAR from a one-trick pony. Comments like that don't even need to be addressed, especially among a few who don't care for him in the least bit.

I agree with you, and others agree with you, and those who won't, quite bluntly, won't. Take a deep breath, and go hang out at Fark for awhile ;)

:hug:

[Scoopie]

44. I self-edited

:)

[funky_bug]

46. Way to go, girl

:yourock:

[julialnyc]

13. I don't want Foreign Policy inexperience a heart beat away

"Oliphant's observation that points out the Edwards' phenomenon."

The only Edwards phenomenon is that he is the media darling (the big business owned media). Edwards DOES NOT HAVE THE EXPERIENCE IN A TIME OF WAR to be a heart beat away from the Presidency!

[Cuban_Liberal]

14. They must have blown the bugle over at the Clark blog.

To arms!

:eyes:

[Scoopie]

45. Actually, it's just lunch time

and I didn't go out for lunch. :P

[funky_bug]

47. Tsk Tsk

Just because it's YOU, I'll turn the other cheek.

O8)

[AP]

17. Did you have a problem with Clinton?

[julialnyc]

19. No but we weren't in this mess

Edwards could have been okay in a different time, but thanks to George Bush, Edwards time is not right now. The stakes are too high and if God forbid something happened to John Kerry, the likely hood is that it would need to be responded to with extreme knowledge of foreign policy.

John Kerry is an excellent candidate and will be great, but according to polls (because some people are lazy and haven't researched all of Kerry's FP experience) the only place he doesn't beat Bush is in FP. The VP should help mend this problem. and yes, I like Wesley Clark, but I could name others that would be good choices too, I like Biden, Graham,etc.. too. This isn't personal against Edwards, this is personal against George Bush.......I want to beat Bush more than anything.

John Kerry needs to pick a VP who will be his greatest helper and thanks to George Bush and his insane war and horrible diplomacy his VP should be there to patch things up with world leaders, fix this mess in Iraq, finish up in Afghanistan, be there to help with any new threats from abroad, and protect us at home. This is his most difficult task (and I really hand it to Kerry for wanting the job, it will not be easy).

[AP]

20. We're always in a mess. We'd be lucky to have Clinton as president today,

even if he were just coming off of being the governmor of Ark.

[julialnyc]

24. but we've only had 1 9/11

Sadly our world has changed after 9/11. If Bill Clinton ran today (after being Governor)I bet his VP would have allot of FP experience to help him not only win, but also lead.
Anyway, I love Bill Clinton....those are years that I get homesick for sometimes, but I am very happy with John Kerry. He is the right man at the right time.

[AP]

25. I wish Bill was president on 9/11. Nothing that happened that day makes

a person like Bill Clinton any less qualified to be president. We'd be lucking to have someone with his convictions governing America at a time like this.

[julialnyc]

28. I wish Clinton were there too

Of course I would wish Clinton rather than GWB had been there that day...and the days that followed. I would take any democrat over GWB. I really do love President Clinton, but he's already been President, but now it is John Kerry's turn and he is looking forward with all resources for a time after 9/11...and Iraq...ect.....

I wish we lived in the Clinton years, but our world has changed dramatically and we have to look forward instead of with hindsight. We will never know what could have been, but we can try to make our years to come as safe as the can be.

[AP]

30. The threat of fascism increases the need for presidents more like Clinton.

[julialnyc]

31. No one on Kerry's team would increase the threat of fascism

only George Bush raises that fear

[AP]

32. I didn't say that he would. In fact, I think one of the reasons democrats

turned towards him and Edwards after Howard Dean and Wesley Clark led the field in Dec and Jan was because they were looking for someone more like Clinton, LBJ, JFK, Truman and FDR.

[Scoopie]

43. Actually, Clinton's VP DID have a lot of

FP experience.
Al Gore was in Vietnam and served on several foreign relations and policies committees (for many, many years - not just a couple) and had worked with world leaders after spending many, many years as a senator and the son of a senator.
He also believes we need an injection of foreign policy experience on the Democratic side:
http://www.alben2004.com/foreignpolicy/index

[AP]

52. Why is being the son of a senator FP experience?

He was a senator for a couple terms and sat on some committees. Not much more than Edwards.

Although I will grant that Gore was very interested in nuclear disarmament and the environment on a global scale which gave him an international perspective, I'm not sure the number of hours Gore spent thinking about those issues means that he has a qualitative advantage over any Democrat who has a well integrated set of ideas about America's role in the world and the proper role of government, and of the differences between fascism and democracy.

I think Clinton's appreciation of democracy and belief (like FDR) that a strong democracy, a strong middle class, and valuing work is about 90% of what makes good foreign policy. The point of a liberal internationalism is to protect those interests. It's not like you're suddenly speaking latin when you're talking foreign policy (which is why Blair and Clinton had such an easy time negotiating the problems for the US of a stronger EU).

[spooky3]

35. Link please? The polls I have read show that Bush has a clear margin

in the "war on terrorism", not "foreign policy." I don't get that but that's the way a lot of Americans view it. The more important points are
(a) where is the evidence that ANY of the people touted as VPs are viewed by prospective voters as shifting this edge to Kerry? I'm looking here for polls or other evidence, not individual views of DUers here; and
(b) the vast majority of Midwesterners, which is the primary swing area right now, are not one issue (i.e., they aren't just concerned about Iraq OR terrorism OR the economy OR gay rights, etc.) voters. The economy is one of the things that matter to them. Polls also show that people do not have a clear view of Kerry and his policies at this point. Anyone who can help show them what the Democrats stand for, and motivate them to get to the polls--that their votes will make a difference-- would be of help to him.

[Gloria]

27. Clinton had an interest in FP before running for President...

He studied foreign affairs at Georgetown, worked in Sen. William J. Fulbright's office, then spent time in Europe at Oxford and traveling, and for his troubles, had Bush Sr. rooting around his FBI files because he actually went to Moscow.

Clinton already had a world view before running for President...I'm sure he could have named the heads of state in the news, unlike Chimpy...

[flaminbats]

37. What Edwards could bring to the ticket...

Alone he would not be a great candidate. But with Kerry's focus on reforming healthcare and improving national security and Edwards' focus on economic growth and protecting personal liberty, this ticket would have a popular message.

[citizen snips]

48. Another great article from the N&O.

A Kerry/Edwards ticket is tied in North Carolina against Bush.