Edwards leads exit polls as VP preference

Florida
John Edwards 44%
Bob Graham 19%
Hillary Clinton 17%
Wesley Clark 7%
Dick Gephardt 4%
Bill Richardson 2%
Mary Landrieu 1%

Louisiana
John Edwards 31%
Hillary Clinton 23%
Mary Landrieu 22%
Dick Gephardt 8%
Wesley Clark 6%
Bob Graham 2%
Bill Richardson 2%

Mississippi
John Edwards 43%
Hillary Clinton 27%
Wesley Clark 9%
Dick Gephardt 8%
Bob Graham 2%
Mary Landrieu 2%
Bill Richardson 1%

Texas
John Edwards 43%
Hillary Clinton 27%
Wesley Clark 7%
Dick Gephardt 6%
Bill Richardson 4%
Bob Graham 3%
Mary Landrieu 2%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/dates/03/09/index.html

A surprising 19% for Graham in Florida... I would have expected much more. And a solid 3rd place for Landrieu in Lousiana...

Kerry/Edwards looks like the popular choice.

...he is the only name that has been mentioned in the news for nearly a month. Big deal.

Still isn't going to happen for him. Kerry camp stated specifically they would choose a VP with foreign policy experience and not someone with legislative only experience. That isn't Edwards.

probably a very good man but I can't have him and Kerry
both. This ABB is the only way but it will be HARD with
a capital H if its him too.

And the only experience Kerry has in politics is legislative, so it'd be odd for him not to rate legislative experience (and it would dramatically limit the field).

He doesn't sit on the Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee at all (no such committee exists). And he doesn't sit on a Senate foreign relations committee.

He sits on the "Select Committee on Intelligence", has the next to the lowest chair, and they essentially govern the CIA, and report CIA findings to the Senate. Then the Foreign Relations Committee decides what they want to do with the reports. The 'Select Committee on Intelligence' is nothing more than a legislative babysitter for the CIA, and is not even a primary committee. This is what they do:

"Created pursuant to S.Res. 400, 94th Congress: to oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government, and to submit to the Senate appropriate proposals for legislation and report to the Senate concerning such intelligence activities and programs. In carrying out this purpose, the Select Committee on Intelligence shall make every effort to assure that the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States provide informed and timely intelligence necessary for the executive and legislative branches to make sound decisions affecting the security and vital interests of the Nation. It is further the purpose of this resolution to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States."

That isn't "foreign policy experience" OR "military experience" OR "diplomatic experience".

Now, had he been on this committee, you might have a case...but he isn't, and never has been:

http://foreign.senate.gov/about.html

JURISDICTION

Created pursuant to S.Res. 400, 94th Congress: to oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government, and to submit to the Senate appropriate proposals for legislation and report to the Senate concerning such intelligence activities and programs. In carrying out this purpose, the Select Committee on Intelligence shall make every effort to assure that the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States provide informed and timely intelligence necessary for the executive and legislative branches to make sound decisions affecting the security and vital interests of the Nation. It is further the purpose of this resolution to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States.

http://www.senate.gov/~intelligence/juris.htm

That sounds like good experience to me.

obeys the rule of law. That's all.

He is qualified to be CIA director, though. But not VP.

And no matter how you phrase it, it is NOT foreign policy experience.

I don't know where you all get your information.
The members of the Intelligence Committee (all of whom are equal in rank except the chair and ranking minority leader) have a great deal of foreign policy experience. Edwards has visited Aghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East, NATO, etc. as a member of that committee. He has met with leaders on these visits and he visited with the US intelligence operations in these places. The Intelligence Committee does not hand over its information to Foreign Relations. You are simply wrong about that. There is shared information back and forth with Foreign Relations and Judiciary for example, but the members of the Intelligence Committee are more restrained in what they can share than the other way around -- so more information flows from Foreign Relations to Intelligence than the other way around.
If you don't like Edwards, just say so. But mis-information is no better in our hands than in Republican hands. And by the way, I seem to remember a lot of people touting Bob Graham's foreign relations experience -- which was on the Intelligence Committee. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

on what people like Al Quaeda are doing to threaten national security?

I'd rather have that kind of experience then, say, being able to speak italian and having spent a couple years at a swiss boarding school.

Spokespersons for the campaign a few weeks ago.

Also, Harold Ford of Tennessee on one of the cable news channels, and the Ohio Chair to me personally.

I don't believe it

Clark has been rejected by Dem voters, nobody wants him as VP(just look at these polls) and it would be foolish for Kerry to pick him because he would receive no boost. Edwards is the only one that adds real weight to the ticket, unless you're talking about Hillary

Clark can go work in Kerry's cabinet if he wants military advisement, but Edwards is the rising star in the party now and the best hope for 2012 should kerry get elected. He's the best campaigner and orator, and the overwhelming choice for VP.

I am not going to even waste my breath.


:ignore:

go ahead, try to justify that 7%. What's the point?


quit getting your hopes up, haven't you learned already?

...except maybe that I never run in to unreasonable people again.

Oh, and I do have something to say regarding the previous snarky remark you made:

CNN, MSNBC, and Harold Ford are not 'inside information', as much as you would like to believe or imply they are.

Good night, sleep well, see you (NOT) at the inaugural ball!

The Kerry campaign has said the VP will be a Southerner with STRONG FP/NS experience. That ain't Edwards.

Cleland and Graham do fit the description, but not nearly as well as Clark, and they have other problems as well.

Clark is already out campaigning for Kerry, for instance the Kansas Ad Astra dinner in Topeka Friday night. He drew a SRO crowd and raised big bucks for Kerry--his autographed tie alone brought nearly $3500.

Finally, Clark and Kerry have real chemistry together. The funny, down to earth & charming Kerry that people who've dealt with him one on one often describe, replaces the Senator Stiff the public sees too often.

Then there's the hint Kerry dropped the day Clark endorsed him:

"General Clark is not going to stand behind me, he's going to stand beside me in this great battle to take America back."

So I think you should quit getting your hopes up. Haven't you learned already? :evilgrin:

...Kerry camp stated specifically they would choose a VP with foreign policy experience and not someone with legislative only experience. That isn't Edwards.

And that isn't going to get him the margin of victory that will make the election Rethug-proof. And that certainly isn't going to give us an eight-year head start on 2012. If Kerry's smart, he'll look at these numbers and do one of the flip-flops that Bush has tried to accuse him of!

:headbang:
rocknation

I think John McCain would be a good pick for VP. It would nail the coffin shut on "the war president" and cut into the "young white male" pie. Arizona's in play (Nevada too) and it would open up a retug senate seat. It would also make saying "I'm a uniter not a divider" real. But I don't think McCain would do it. He's too loyal. But you never know.

make it happen Mr. Kerry!

Nearly all of the primary voters in these states are going to vote for Kerry in the general election regardless of who he picks to be his running mate. I'm far more interested in the opinions of (1) registered Democrats who are likely to vote in the general election but didn't vote in the primary and (2) independents. I suspect that Bob Graham would probably have more pull with non-activist Dems and independents in Florida than Edwards would. Ditto for Landrieu in Lousiana.

...the media name recognition, that is all.

Edwards isn't qualified to be VP without FP experience, and you are right...home state'ers are better for home states than anyone else could be. Though I don't think it will be Graham, either, I know for sure it won't be Edwards.

ticket, is it wise to ignore that?

It's sort of like a compact that has been established. The response to Edwards's campaign by people who didn't want him on the top of the ticket was that he'd make a great VP. If he doesn't get the VP, people might feel like it's the first promise broken by the Democrats. It could turn people off.

for someone who didn't run, and especially in these southern states. it shows how popular she is.

That's pretty suprising.

has no Foreign Policy experience is absurd. The VP doesn't necessarily have to have any. Kerry has it.

ass President?

Shouldn't we care a little about that?

insistence on a Southerner with heavy duty FP/NS experience is "absurd."

Holy Bejeebus, that IS surprising! :)