Edwards Auditions For VP

(subscription required)

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/49_121/news/5489-1.html

Edwards Auditions For VP

By Chris Cillizza
Roll Call Staff

May 10, 2004

Seeking to remind Democratic campaign operatives of the national appeal that propelled him to a surprisingly strong showing in the presidential primary process, North Carolina Sen. John Edwards has set an aggressive schedule of appearances over the next month on behalf of Sen. John Kerry and several top-tier Senate candidates.

Edwards’ activity comes as word has leaked in recent days that he along with Missouri Rep. Richard Gephardt and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack are the current frontrunners to be selected as Kerry’s vice presidential running mate.

More so than the other two men receiving mention, Edwards must actually audition for the post due to his relative inexperience and the fact that he would be unlikely to help the Democratic ticket carry his home state if chosen, according to conversations with numerous party strategists and consultants about his prospects.

“He has got to show that he still has the juice,” said one Democratic consultant, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

“He doesn’t have the argument that he can win North Carolina. He doesn’t have the experience argument. He has the argument that want and need him,” the source added.

Others suggested that while Edwards short-term goal is the vice presidential nomination, his current travels may be more about his ambitions for 2008.

...more...

Even if he can't win it...He could help in TN as well...

Only neo-cons who will vote for Bush voted for Edwards in the primaries here.

Edited to add: To be fair, 72 percent of those who voted for Edwards in the primaries will vote for Bush in the fall. Just wanted to be factual. :P

I know several people who voted for Edwards and now support Kerry. I live in a very conservative area and I'm telling you, people are pissed at the current administration. I hear someone every few days comment about having voted for Bush the first time, but won't this next time. I think bush is in trouble here.

Now let's see how many I-worship-Wes posts we get here.

Interesting question about whether Edwards still has the "juice". Could he have lost it so quickly? Duh? Johnnie Reid was born with the juice!

By the way, I worship Clark too!!! He He. LOL. I really do love him.

he sure seems to remind me of Shakespeare's "sound and the fury, signifying nothing." And I think it's pretty much indisputeable that twenty "I love Clark" comments signify "nothing."

and mean-hearted. I just don't understand.

and i would also be happy with edwards getting the v.p. nod. we have a good field for kerry to choose from, and those two are my top hopes.

He doesn't stand as a conduit of wealth and power from one interest group to another (like to oil companies, or to the military industrial complex, or to the telecoms industry).

This is all he has to offer to become president.

Unlike JFKennedy, he doesn't even have a wealthy, powerful father to pull strings for him. Even Clinton had more connections (albeit, built by force of personality) within the Democratic establishment than Edwards has.

In other words, this is EXACTLY the kind of guy you want to be president.

So, more power to him. I hope this works for him.

exactly which VP candidates CAN "deliver" their home states beyond what Kerry is already likely to win?

I would like to be able to trust the party "leadership" to make a good decision on the VP matter, but unfortunately, we have many examples where they have shown less than stellar judgment and/or want to make deals instead of doing the right or strategically smart thing. I hope that they do the right/smart thing here.

appeal is democratic rather than party-mechanical (I can't think of the right word).

For example, I don't think Gephardt can deliver labor VOTERS, or any voters for that matter, but I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to pick him in order to balance the books on exchanges of political favors between the party and labor unions (few of which have done anything really great for actual laborers -- wages stagnant and pension funds and IRAs ripped off, thanks alot, here's your reward). And I wouldn't be surprised if, in Clark's new profession as a lobbyist for the defense industry he's building up contacts which the party finds more valuable than the ability to actually deliver votes.

And then we have Edwards over there and the ONLY thing that he can deliver is votes, and that's what he's trying to develop through all this "auditioning" which the media tries to sell as a perjorative, but anyone with sense should welcome as an example of how democracy is supposed to work.

Do we really want presidents who forgo the auditioning with the public, and, instead focus their auditioning with, say, oil companies, wall street banks, the insurance industry, the military industrial complex or the telecoms industry? Nope. We should still want politicians who care to audition with the people. They'll be the ones who aren't corrupted by the time they become president, and they're the ones most likely to run the government for the benefit of the people for whom the auditioned -- average Americans (in Edwards's case).

I think Edwards also can deliver some big bucks in fund raising as well.

I'm not sure if I was scared or comforted by the article I read that one of Edwards big money fundraisers telling Kerry that if he would pick Edwards as VP that he could personally raise Kerry 1 million by Sunday. This was on a Tuesday, I believe.

In any case, Edwards is out on the road right now and doing what he can for fundraisers for Democrats all around the country.

And that is a good thing. You can read the full story on this article over at Grassroots..

Here's the link.

http://www.jregrassroots.org/jre/viewtopic.php?t=1738&sid=ea9b85f7867ac3c4a5a87c217f9430db

see Edwards as the guy who is going to develove power down to the people and out of the power centers in America, and see Edwards as the guy who will deliver that. Also, there are a lot of upper middle class moderates who just plain like the guy because they want to see in themselves what they see in Edwards (a guy who did it himself, even though it's obvious that he did it with the help of public education and a society on the trailing edge of a committment to flowing power down to the people).

I don't doubt that Edwards as VP will bring in lots of cash for Kerry (Edwards raised a lot of money in the first quarter, and he had more donors from more different places than anyone until Dean caught fire in the second quarter).

But I think even Edwards's money is a sign of one of the reasons he might not be appealing to the power in the party -- his money doesn't really come from any of the traditional power bases in the party. It just comes from people, and the lawyers who benefit when people have power.

make this about political back-scratching (which is what I think describes what you're talking about).

It's far too important.

Edwards has one big advantage over the other contenders in that he strikes me as having more impact on the future of the party. It isn't just his youthful appearance, but his energy and message that seem to look more forward than many of the contenders.

I wonder, however, if the Kerry people might feel a little "upstaged" by his dynamic appeal. I think that in the end, they're going to make the decision based mostly on what helps us win. I hope so, at least.

I would like some leadership.

That is not the first thing that leaps to mind when one thinks of Edwards.

you've been and are able to make coherent, forceful arguments that persuade people to change their hearts and minds to do the right thing.

that he still thinks attacking Iraq was the right thinkg to do and has explained his position by articulating a threshold for war that is even lower than Bush's. Not "exactly" the guy I would want to be president... or vice president.

thing to do and, if the intelligence was bad, they need to investigate. Clinton said the exact same thing at the University of Arkansas last spring. He said that based on the intelligence he saw as president up to January 2001, it was warranted. He said that Al Gore wanted to do something about Iraq more than anyone else in his cabinet.

Edwards also says that they need to take the American face of this operation (he said that last December at the Commonwealth Club). I saw that Clark is making the same argument in the Washington Monthly article published recently.

He said he wasn't fooled by faulty intelligence and even knowing that the intelligence was bad, we were still right to go.

-----------

MATTHEWS: <snip> Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway”?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.

MATTHEWS: Did you get an honest reading on the intelligence?

EDWRADS: But now we’re getting to the second part of your question.

I think we have to get to the bottom of this. I think there’s clear inconsistency between what’s been found in Iraq and what we were told.

And as you know, I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it wasn’t just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. There is clearly a disconnect between what we were told and what, in fact, we found there.

MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?

EDWARDS: It wouldn’t change my views. I said before, I think that the threat here was a unique threat. It was Saddam Hussein, the potential for Saddam getting nuclear weapons, given his history and the fact that he started the war before.

MATTHEWS: Do you feel now that you have evidence in your hands that he was on the verge of getting nuclear weapons?

EDWARDS: No, I wouldn’t go that far.

MATTHES: What would you say?

EDWARDS: What I would say is there’s a decade long pattern of an effort to get nuclear capability, from the former Soviet Union, trying to get access to scientists...

MATTHEWS: What about Africa?

EDWARDS: ... trying to get-No. I don’t think so. At least not from the evidence.

MATTHEWS: Were you misled by the president in the State of the Union address on the argument that Saddam Hussein was trying get uranium from Niger?

EDWARDS: I guess the answer to that is no.

I did not put a lot of stock in that.

MATTHEWS: But you didn’t believe-But you weren’t misled?

EDWARDS: No, I was not misled because I didn’t put a lot of stock in to it begin with.

As I said before, I think what happened here is, for over a decade, there is strong, powerful evidence, which I still believe is true, that Saddam Hussein had been trying to get nuclear capability. Either from North Korea, from the former Soviet Union, getting access to scientists, trying to get access to raw fissile material. I don’t-that I don’t have any question about.

MATTHEWS: The United States has had a long history of nonintervention, of basically taking the “don’t tread on me and if you don’t we’ll leave you alone.” We broke with that tradition for Iraq. What is your standard for breaking with tradition of nonintervention?

EDWARDS: When somebody like Saddam Hussein presents a direct threat to the security of the American people and, in this case, the security of a region of the world that I think is critical.

MATTHEWS: A direct threat to us. What was it? Just to get that down. What is it? Knowing everything you know now, what was the direct threat this guy posed to us here in America?

EDWARDS: You didn’t get let me finish. There were two pieces to that. I said both a direct threat to us and a direct threat to a region of the world that is incredibly dangerous.

And I think that with Saddam Hussein, they’ve got nuclear capability, it would have changed the dynamic in that part of the world entirely. And as a result, would have created a threat to the American people. So that’s what I think the threat was.

MATTHEWS: Do you think he ever posed a direct threat...

EDWARDS: Can I say something? You sort of-implicit in that question was that the assumption that I believe that the Bush policy on preemptive strike is correct. I don’t.

I don’t think we need a new doctrine. I think that we can always act to protect the safety and security of the American people. And I have said repeatedly that Bush-President Bush’s approach to foreign policy in general is extraordinarily bad. Dangerous for the American people. He doesn’t work with others. He doesn’t build coalitions. We were promised...

MATTHEWS: Wait, wait.

EDWARDS: Let me finish. We were promised a coalition on the ground right now. And we were promised a plan for what would occur at this point in this campaign in Iraq. Well, neither of those things have occurred. And as a result, we’re seeing what’s happening to our young men and women.

MATTHEWS: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how you would have been different in president if you had been in office the last four years as president. Would you have gone to Afghanistan?

EDWARDS: I would.

MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq. I don’t think I would have approached it the way this president did. I don’t think-See I think what happened, if you remember back historically, remember I had an up or down vote. I stand behind it. Don’t misunderstand me.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

EDWARDS: No, I was not misled {by the Uranium/Niger claim} because I didn’t put a lot of stock in to it begin with.

As I said before, I think what happened here is, for over a decade, there is strong, powerful evidence, which I still believe is true, that Saddam Hussein had been trying to get nuclear capability. Either from North Korea, from the former Soviet Union, getting access to scientists, trying to get access to raw fissile material. I don’t-that I don’t have any question about.

Edwards's position has been that they got a lot of intelligence, some of it clearly not trustworthy, and other evidence that there was no good reason not to trust.

Clinton, at the UoA said that you can't just read intelligence reports and say "I chose not to believe this today, because I have a hunch." You have to have good reasons not to believe it. The Uranium claim on its face was bad -- the person who signed the document wasn't even in office on the date the document was signed.

Edwards has said that the other evidence -- the evidence they had not good reason not to believe -- was the reason Democrats in the senate were convinced. He has said that if that evidence were bad, they need to have an investigation.

EDWRADS: But now we’re getting to the second part of your question.

I think we have to get to the bottom of this. I think there’s clear inconsistency between what’s been found in Iraq and what we were told.

And as you know, I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it wasn’t just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. There is clearly a disconnect between what we were told and what, in fact, we found there.

that Edwards has a lower threshold for war than Bush.

What is so wrong about saying that, if the intelligence were correct, then there was a good reason to act, but if the intelligence were wrong, then we need to look into the issue?

---------
MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?

EDWARDS: It wouldn’t change my views.
-----------

He's a war pig. Accept it.

But investigating the intelligence -- as Edwards has said should be done -- would prove whether the intelligence was right or wrong.

The US made a policy decision to stop searching for weapons. Hussein could have moved them all over to Saudi Arabia (who paid for the weapons he did have).

NOT FINDING the weapons isn't proof of bad intelligence. It's compelling evidence, but it's not enough to criticize the intelligence. A full investigation of the intelligence is what would prove whether Bush deceived Congress.

That's what Edwards wants.

His point is the same as Clinton's: you can't just decide one day top not believe your intelligence without good reason. That would be irresponsible, and you could bet the RW fascist black ops would MAKE SURE someething bad happened so that Bush could point a finger at every elected Democrat and say, look this is the classified evidence we showed them and they still wouldn't vote to protect American citizens.

And you'd have to be pretty naive to think that that wasn't a back-up plan. I guarantee you, just as Edwards says in this interview and elsewhere, they saw plenty of good evidence (that I'm sure is classified) upon which they based their votes, which was good on its face (and could only be proven bad with the sort of investigation Edwards advocates, and not merely by the fact that the US couldn't find something it wasn't even searching for).

And the only reason we hear only about the bad evidence is because it drives a wedge in the left which you so happily embody.

...I think whoever is chosen, we all must support the decision.
There's plans for this man I'm sure and good men like Wes Clark.
I specially like Kerry's selection of
Campaign Senior Advisor Jamie Rubin who will be on Crossfire today.

Hi William...:hi:

what Vilsack does. We can win Iowa without him. I don't think anyone in Ohio or Missouri are going to vote for us just because Vilsack is from the Midwest. They need someone who helps overall get independents etc. Out of Gephardt, Vilsack, and Edwards. Edwards is clearly the best choice. His appeal can help throughout the south and Midwest. I think he could help especially in FL, ARK, and LA.

Kerry's Running Mate Still a Guessing Game

By Lois Romano
Monday, May 10, 2004; Page A06


"Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack appears to be the hot name of the week in John F. Kerry's secretive search for a running mate, having been spotted with the right people recently.

~snip~

"But back to Vilsack: The Iowa governor, whose wife, Christie, was a public Kerry supporter during the caucuses, is being vetted, which means interviews and intense reviews of his tax returns and public statements. Vilsack, sources say, has recently spent much time with James Johnson, an investment banker who is running the selection process for Kerry.

"Vilsack, 53, is known to appeal to the Kerry campaign because he is a new face on the national scene and, just as important, he wouldn't overshadow the Massachusetts senator on the campaign trail. As head of the National Governors Association, Vilsack has been a high-profile voice for the party. He could help Kerry in the Midwest, and perhaps in electoral-rich Pennsylvania, where he grew up. He also offers a compelling hardship story that dramatically contrasts with Kerry's privileged background. He was left on the steps of an orphanage and adopted by an alcoholic mother who routinely beat him."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12863-2004May9.html

Vilsack- pretty much unknown, but would guarantee Iowa and that's a big plus

Edwards- great showing in the primaries, young, great stump speaker. But can't guarantee a state. I'd still go with him

Gephardt- Dem veteran, well liked across middle America as a union guy. Might put Missouri in the "very likely" category though it won't be a lock


Hillary? Clark? landrieu? etc......get real. If Kerry interviews any of them it'll be out of politeness.

The campaign has only so far investing resources into vetting the 3 "plausible" candidates you listed above, and Clark

Even though I don't think Clark wants the job that badly, it's clear that recent events--improving economy, worsening disaster in Iraq--have made Kerry

Gep would be a disaster, BTW. His alleged union support and midwestern appeal couldn't buy him 15% in Iowa, a state he's been campaigning in for 10 years. He wouldn't carry Missouri. He would suck the life completely out of Kerry's campaign and provide Nader with a massive boost.

If those are the choices, then it's over folks.

Wake me up in 2008 when Bush is no longer president.

A Shakesperian actor auditioning for a bigtime broadway musical. He can't sing and he can't dance.....but he can act the hell out of "Hamlet", as his stage mother (the media) keeps repeating. He's only been in a couple of plays his whole life...and prior to that brilliantly operated the stage lights. His appearance fits the part, and his fans are convinced that he deserves the starring role.

If the casting director (johnson) and the Executive producer (Kerry) give the actor the role, the musical will close right after opening night in a Broadway minute.

Cause It's not "Hamlet" they are casting for......

Meanwhile, the triple threat talent (acts, sings and dances)who has previously played a powerful Othello is waiting in the wings. He has also starred in numerous Broadway sucessfull musicals such as Les Miserables, Phamtom of the Opera, and Oklahoma. Problem is, he has no stage mother, and Prior to acting, was a reknowned accomplished director. He looks the part just as much as the other.

If Broadway only ever hired people who had a long list of credits, we'd never get any new, exiting talent, and the average age of the cast would be 85.

Who says Edwards doesn't have the talent? Your analogy isn't about talent. It's about resume.

America works best because he give people who work hard and are talented the job every once in while even if they don't have the long list of credits.

Furthemore, that's a funny argument for a Clark supporter to make. Clark has never been in a play. Basically, the argument for Clark is like, hey, this guy was a great quarterback, so let's cast him this Broadway play...or a pantyhose commerical.

is wayward.

Clark has been in a play for the last 38 years......i.e., public service. That is all government workers are....and the VP is a government worker.

Edwards has been in public service a few years only....and was auditioning for the role of President most of that time. Prior to that, Edwards was manning stagelights.

Clark has been Commander in Chief before.....been in an executive position. He's been a lead actor. He has negotiated, lead and commanded...hence, the triple threat.

Has Edwards? No.

Unfortunately for Edwards, the producers cannot take a chance with this play......they have invested all that they had in it and their continued livelyhood depends on it. They must cast an experienced actor that can sing, dance and act. They must be assured a return on their investment.

The bottomline is: It's not about doing a passable audition by memorizing a few lines....it's about which actor will do the best job in playing the actual part, night after night......

Also note that a resume is culmulation of one's life accomplishment....which in itself show you the long term talent. Did you know that actors have to submit a resume along with the Head Shot?

I bet Rove can't wait to start calling him another flip-flop. He is a risky pick too

No problem!

It's not a good analogy.

Your problem is that you don't rate the sort of experience Edwards has -- which I find to be brilliant experience, not unlike Abraham Lincoln's.

That's fine.

We have different views of what America's all about.

Spin Edwards's character and experience any way you please (I happen to find what you say a little insulting since it discredits a great deal of what many good Americans have done with their lives).

Let's take it to the voters.

Look at how bad a campaigner he was.

craft any time soon.

It's a repug talking point frequently repeated by right wing pundits and Edwards supporters. He's learned extremely fast. Just look at the reports about his campaign events for Kerry. He gets rock star reception every time and brings in record amounts of money.

http://www.newsobserver.com/election2004/story/3576707p-3178849c.html

Poll shows that support for Edwards was increasing

The more voters across the country learned about Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, the more they supported his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, a new study says.

A group of political scientists put together a scientific sampling of 750 voters across the country and provided them with information about the candidates. The voters received position papers, saw campaign TV ads, posed questions to nonpartisan experts on issues and talked with each other through Internet hookups. In return, they were provided a free computer.

...

The survey found that support for both Kerry and Edwards rose nationally, just as it was doing in the primary states. "But Edwards was gaining so fast that even though it was a dead heat, the slope of increase was so great, if it had gone on, it was clear that Edwards would have won," said James Fishkin, a communications professor at Stanford University who oversaw the study.

Fishkin said the poll showed that Edwards was winning support for personal qualities because voters viewed him as intelligent and sincere and because they believed he thought like them. But they also liked his stand on the issues, especially his criticism of foreign trade deals and outsourcing of jobs. ... Edwards had much more support among Republicans and independent swing voters than Kerry. While the poll had President Bush and Kerry in a dead heat, it showed Edwards leading Bush by a 48 percent to 37 percent margin.

I said that Clark is a good campaigner. I support Clark because of many other qualities he brings to the ticket. I don't want to repeat everything that has already been said about a 1000 times. I just can't stand the misrepresentation of Clark's campaigning skills. Yes, he made several mistakes during the primary season but he improved greatly, and he has a very good stump speech. Many of his supporters love him so much because he stirred more emotion than anyone since JFK. Of course, a lot of people support him because of pragmatic reasons. But it is simply not true that he cannot generate excitement or he cannot campaign.

that some people insist on calling him a failure b/c he never learned to "play the game" as well as some others. I think it's quite funny that he is criticized b/c he didn't perfect the ability to speak in meaningless slogans and cute little catch phrases. That was one of the things I admired about him - that he did not "talk down" to us and buy into the "dumbing down of America" syndrome. It's quite sad, actully, what it REALLY takes to be elected to a leadership position in this country. You would think that, seeing where it got us, people would be looking for something besides gimmicks and "good campaigners".

...a game. It's about 90% of what a politician does. They don't do that in the military. They do it in courtrooms. It's an important skill and anyone who seriously wants to be president wouldn't view that part of the job description as a game.

He doesn't use meaningless slogans and catch phrases as democtratreformed mentioned. Some view that as a flaw which I can't comprehend. But he is very good at "communicating compelling ideas and creating consensus."

Here is what a Dean supporter said last November (only 2 months after Clark entered the race):

Monday night, Wesley Clark demonstrated on a stage in De Moines that he wields one of the most lethal talents any politician can ever hope for which is the ability to break down and communicate complex and even unpopular positions in a straightforward and engaging manner. And there is a refreshing, but subverting quality when Clark speaks; he does not sound like a politician and he doesn’t talk down to people.

Clark speaks in easy to understand sentences and he does so with power. In just seconds, Clark turns the current conventional wisdom that the Bush Administration has made America secure upside down with an unassailable assertion that the White House’s “sideshow” in Iraq diverted the West from rounding up Osama bin Laden thereby making the U.S. less secure. Clark effortlessly recasts the narrow culturally polarizing subject of gay and lesbian unions into a far larger context of America’s sense of fairness and tolerance, thereby appealing to the better nature of our citizenry.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=777592#779927

is the "game" part of politics and forgive Clark for not being good at it (they're right here in this thread).

Yes, there is a part of campaigning that is the "game" part of politics. Like repeating that "I am a son of a mill-worker" a gazillion times and giving the same answers to 5 different questions. And I admit that Clark is not so good at that part. But he is a "persuasive and talented communicator" which is the much more important part. Actually, refusing to repeat slogans (or trying to minimize the use of them) makes him look much more sincere and trustworthy in the eyes of his audience.

...reciting it verbatim on DU is not a game. It's how you win elections. If you seriously want to win so that you can change America, you master those skills.

You don't just dismiss them as some game which is beneath your candidate to master.

without sounding PHONY. It's about balance. Clark could add a little more repetition, Edwards could get rid of some and add some substance instead.

I feel like no matter what I say, you're just going to deny it.

I don't think Clark himself would even deny that Edwards really hit his message home and was a very effective campaigner, and that he (Clark) wouldn't have been really happy if he had been able to reach the level of, um "phoniness" (read, hitting home the message) that Edwards achieved.

Furthermore, there was a tone of substance in what Edwards was saying. Why do you think that informed voter study had him doing so well?

Do you think that the candidates with more substance do better the less people know and think about them? Or do you think the candidates who really have something to say do better as more people are exposed to what it is they're trying to say?

Have you actually read my posts? It's like talking to a wall.:shrug:

"I feel like no matter what I say, you're just going to deny it."
LOL! I wanted to post something like that long ago...

I concede that Edwards is a good campaigner. I don't particularly like his style but never said it otherwise. You are the one who is not willing to listen to any argument about Clark's campaigning skills.

I give up. You win. Hope it makes you feel better.

However, I think the Stanford/UT study really makes a very clear statement of the fact that the more informed voters were about ALL the candidates, the more they liked Edwards.

I bet it didn't include the many points that the Republicans will hammer home about Edwards if he's picked for VP.

The only two candidates to fully participate were Kerry and Edwards. The results only applied to Kerry and Edwards. Why do you insist on implying (I'm being kind here) that the study applied to "ALL" of the candidates. The others did not participate to the conclusion.

It started on Jan 19th before the results were known in IA and finished on Super Tuesday.

If you look at the materials at the PBS site, you can see that the participants did ask Qs about Clark (asking questions was one of three main activities of the participants, including talking to each other, and reading info given to them about ALL the candidates).

Why would the participants ask about Clark if they weren't given materials about him? Why in the world would the study have only studied the two Johns if it started on Jan 19th?

n/t

On edit: I definitely think it's a game. As do many others.

That's a right-wing media meme and an outright lie.

He's continuing to draw phenominal crowds in, of all places, Kansas, and in Arkansas and I bet he will tonight in Alabama.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but anyone who raises $14 million in four months (way more than your guy) is NOT a bad campaigner.

And don't blame the media for all of Clark's campaign mistakes.

Edwards only real "talent" is acting... like Reagan.

He sure as hell doesn't have much else going for him.

And Clark's proved himself repeatedly. He has both talent and resume.

Anyway, I can imagine Shrum pulling for Edwards cause he's the perfect near-empty suit to fill with words.

speaker on the stump. A guy who can get a crowd excited. I'm not sure Wes Clark does that.

...not that Wes isn't. He gives the ticket the warm and fuzzy feeling it needs and I think he could raise a lot of money.

This is a war!!

Jeez!!

Excellent job, AP!

hadn't gone to West Point, Oxford, Vietnam and Kosovo?

I mean, they think he's basically a good guy motivated by the right things, and that that is more important than his resume, right?

Say Clark had gone to public universities in Arkansas, had worked hard, and then became, oh, say, a lawyer representing people injured by the negligence of large corporations. He'd still be the great guy his is today, with conviction and a desire to to do the right thing for people, right?

I mean, people who support him do think that he's basically a good guy who'd be good no matter where his life and circumstances took him. No?

And certainly there are plenty of people you'd never want as president who have CVs like Clark's (West Point, military service, lobbyist for military industrial complex), right? It's not the resume itself which makes Clark a good guy. Right?

a "lobbyist for the military industrial complex."

Put up or shut up.

AMY GOODMAN: Why don't we go in alphabetical order. Wesley Clark.

CHARLES LEWIS: Wesley lark, we didn't have any career patrons, he announced September 17th and we turned in the manuscript. He has since raised $13 million. We are watching it, but we have to wait a few weeks to figure that out. The most interesting thing about Clark that we found is that he was a registered lobbyist at the time he announced his candidacy for a company called Axiom trying to get government contracts. While he was an analyst on CNN, and during the Iraq war, he was trying to get Homeland Security and airport security and all kinds of other government contracts, and including reportedly met with Dick Cheney in 2001 and 2002 on behalf of that company. On one hand he is creating a leadership committee to run for president basically to begin the process of that, and simultaneously, he is on the air as an expert retired general. The other part of it is he is doing what many generals do, cashing in and helping a company get contracts. It's a part that's not in the resume ads right now in Iowa.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/09/1541218&mode=thread&tid=25

That would be the best use of his skills.

he was a negative or positive influence in terms of providing the government a service as a private citizen in return for a reasonable fee.

...like that one from Sacremento (not a federal lobbyists, but a state lobbyist) who donated ot John Edwards. Some DU'ers used the fact that she was a lobbyist to discredit Edwards. Other DUers looked up whom she represented, and they were liberal children rights organizations which only lobbied the state gov't. She seemed like a pretty good lobbyist, bringing value to citizens in return for a no doubt low fee.

And then you have the lobbyists who are lobbyists for the military industrial complex who are always, um, providing the government a valuable service in return for a reasonable fee in that free market which is knows as buying inflluence with politicians and getting that brass ring which is middle class income tax subsidized government contracts.

snide or not the fact is, Clark was trusted to represent a company in Washington D.C. Nothing to be ashamed of. I don't care what you think of lobbyists or personal injury lawyers frankly.

since he seemed incredulous.

Axciom is a commercial database company, not a weapons system, therefore to attempt to link it to the MIC or DoD is specious at the very least.

http://blogs.salon.com/0002556/2003/09/28.html

http://blog.forclark.com/story/2003/12/11/15514/136

I presume it makes a big difference to you or you wouldn't have said 'put up or shut up' as if I were defaming the guy.

Now that you have the info, what does it change for you?

It shouldn't change anything right?

...to law school, and represented people suing corporations, and Edwards had gone to West Point, Oxford, served in the military, and became a lobbyist, would you prefer Edwards over Clark?

Is it ONLY the resume that matters? Or is there a character, conviction and experience issue that goes beyond simply what you did for money after the age of 21?

I really expect more enthusiastic defenses of arguments I'm challenging, but I don't often get them.

But leave up to some of the Clark supporters to come in every thread and disrupt it.

posts in it from pro-Edwards posters.

Hmm. Interesting.

as long as Edwards had the character and integrity that Clark does, plus it would help if he had opposed the invasion of Iraq as Clark did.

I do believe that a special set of skills and experience is required in a VP at this time.

AND Edwards has none.

He's pure, dripping politico. He's not even the son of a mill worker, he's the son of a mill stool pigeon who made his money spying on the other workers for the boss. Some "populist."

:puke:

That's a pretty funny typo.

call Edwards an "ambulance chaser", and I really don't like to attack other people's candidates.

I get more and more sorely tempted.

who are working hard for the rights of ordinary citizens and who ensure that money is flowing the right direciton in our society (ie, NOT to huge corporations making money from their own negligent behaviour).

Psst. Clark makes money these days working to transfer money the other direction, to corporations. So, I'm not sure you want to found an argument against Edwards and for Clark based on for whom they have worked and for what principles they have worked when they've been in the private sector.

I'm having an impulse to refer to Edwards with insulting characterizations in response to certain Edwards supporters doing it to Clark. I would never use that reference out of the blue.

I do think that it's at least as accurate a characterization of Edwards as "lobbyist for the military industrial complex" is of Clark.

My post was not intended as an attack on Edwards, but as a protest at how some of his supporters are attacking Clark.

It seems awfully childish to lash out at a large segment of a traditionally Democratic population simply because you think your candidate is being treated unfairly. Especially when supporters of your candidate are the ones doing the provoking.

You think personal injury attorneys are bad people? I can refer you to an article I've written: PI lawyers are virtually the only segment of the legal world that represents the bottom two-thirds of wage-earners in civil litigation. If you hate poor people, it's okay to hate P.I. lawyers. Otherwise, It's probably best not to showcase the bigotry and/or ignorance to the world.

Personally, as a law student, I find the pejorative "ambulance chaser" highly offensive. While there are a handful of lawyers for whom the term may be appropriate, Edwards and the vast majority of plaintiffs' attorneys are not among them.

without apparently having read it.:)

Perhaps there is something you misunderstood... It seems apparent to me that I responded to the right poster about the right topic. This concerns your attempted exculpation for your anti-liberal pejorative "ambulance chaser."

I would appreciate a substantive response.

corp. Why did they hire a former general? Which of his contacts do you think they were exploiting?

And, Edwards, in fact, has never chased an ambulance in his life.

Care to post a link or two to back up your claim?

But as a businessman, Clark has been involved in helping companies sell the Pentagon and the Transportation Security Administration technologies that may threaten the civil liberties and privacy rights of Americans. In a recent profile, the Wall Street Journal reported that "Since retiring from a 34-year Army career in 2000, Gen. Clark has become: chairman of a suburban Washington technology-corridor start-up, managing director at an investment firm, a director at four other firms around the country and an advisory-board member for two others. For most, he was hired to help boost the companies' military business. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Gen. Clark counseled clients on how to pitch commercial technologies to the government for homeland-security applications."

http://www.counterpunch.org/donahue10012003.html

And from Google, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58300-2004Jan28

Clark's lobbying was one of many business activities that, by his account, boosted his income almost 20-fold in the 42 months between his resignation from the Army and the start of his presidential campaign last September. An examination of those activities, including interviews with business associates and a review of public and private documents, shows that although Clark spent only 51/2 years of his adult life in Washington, he made some of the money in a time-honored way in the capital -- by trading on his name.

...

Beyond Messer, Clark's corporate affiliations generally reflect his fascination with new technologies, particularly those with military or domestic security applications.

...

Clark had modest success helping these firms make contacts in the federal government and the military.

...

"We were doing some work with the FBI . . . and we contacted Wes again to get his ideas on how best we could help," said Acxiom chief Morgan. After the initial shock of the {9/11} attacks, Clark and Acxiom saw the opportunity to make money, Clark as a lobbyist for the firm and Acxiom as a federal security contractor.

...

Clark also joined the boards of half a dozen other firms either seeking or holding military contracts, including WaveCrest, a start-up developing electric propulsion systems.

You criticized me for saying that Clark was (1) a lobbyist for (2) the military-industrial complex.

I don't know what more you need to see to accept that he was.

and what's in his heart. Enough said. Oh, yeah, and Gert doesn't hurt either. Great lady, she is.

competes incredibly well.

Good job cryingshame, I was thinking the exact same thing.

You Edwards people don't read or listen.

Just the other day someone asked why all the Edwards fans voted for Clark in the CNN Veepstakes, but all the Clark fans voted for Graham.

YOU HAVE NOT BEEN LISTENING.

Clarkies don't want an unexperienced, all-flash-no-substance, unleared candidate who has no foreign policy experience in the White House. We have that now and it's an unmitigated disaster.

Therefore, any argument given by an Edwards fan on this blog is subject to easily being discredited by their failure to pay attention.

I just think that if you were in France in the 1790s you'd be arguing that the people have no business running government and that we should leave everythign to well-bred royals.

Why can't the experiences of the average person constitute relevant experience for heading a democracy?

qualifications you think are so important?

Some of these arguments about why Edwards isn't qualified to be president are similar to those made about why blacks, women and poor people shouldn't have access to more power. Sometimes, it's important to have people who have been traditionally shut out from power have more power so that those insular institutions can be opened up to new ideas and new perspectives.

And, again, what is there inherent in Edwards's character and biography which precludes him from being able to exercise power for the benefit of the vast majority of Americans? His experiences, biography and character are very similar to Abraham Lincoln, who held America toghether at a time when America was confronting the biggest threat of destruction, and he did it with skills born from his experience and biography -- through persuading Americans that the values of democracy (which allowed him to realize his full potential) were worth fighting to preserve.

point, but as long as illogical posts abound, it bears repeating:

It is laughable that the few people who refuse to count any of Edwards' successful and lengthy private sector experience because it's "irrelevant" are the same people who want the rest of us to count all of Clark's experience, none of which is in elective office. Listen up, folks--you are being illogical. Military experience is not the same as experience as a politician, as the campaign clearly showed. It does not provide campaign skills, and it differs in many significant ways from the life of a President. When you have two candidates whose careers have been spent largely outside of elective office, you cannot logically nor persuasively make the argument that we need to completely ignore these differences for one but exaggerate them for the other.

Yes they both had careers spent largely outside elective office, so what? Edwards was a personal injury attorney. Clark on the other hand has a very impressive and distinctly different resume.

...for not using this thread to attack Edwards.

Your post was very refreshing.

but I know my father won't. He sees in Edwards what all too many others see... that he's a total phony.

Informed voters like Edwards...a lot.

http://www.newsobserver.com/election2004/story/3576707p-3178849c.html

informed voters are already definitely voting Kerry regardless up whether they like Edwards (which is up for debate)... so if that's your reason for wanting Edwards it's not much of a case

And my reason for wanting Edwards is, in part, captured by that study: the more people know about Edwards, the more they like him.

I'm not using him to prove something factual about Edwards, I'm using him to show how people like him (undecided voters) think about him. To show what undecided voters think I don't have to show that the undecided voters are "credible."

Anyways, what is it that you say we need to know about Edwards that would definitely make us like him?

perspective is reasonable.

I'm saying that there aren't many like him and that his opinion was not all that reasonable.

And I'm citing that Stanford/UT study. People who were informed (and the article sets on the information they had, if you're curious) liked him a lot.

The more people know about Edwards the less they like him.

and John Edwards is the Antichrist.

How much more evidence do you really want to give us that you exists in a parallel world in which the exact opposite of reality on this world takes place?

The more informed voters (in the Real World) are the more they like him: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/polls.html

I don't know a SOUL who supports Edwards.

And, considering where I work and what I do and who I hang around with - that's saying A LOT. We're all very informed (even if some are informed by Faux News, which is like not being informed at all.)

:puke:
eom.

:-( but not :puke:

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

What the article doesn't mention is Edwards' charisma, affability, energy, and broad appeal. And his "audition" may be to see if he still has the fire in the belly.

My first choice would be Clark, but Edwards would make a fine VP nom.

I'll hold my nose and vote for a Kerry / Edwards ticket. But that's all I can do. I do not think Edwards would be a good VP choice. There are far better choices out there, and I have seen nothing about Edwards that makes me think any better of him.

Sorry if that offends some people. While I'd prefer Clark in the VP position, (I believe strongly he brings more to the ticket than Edwards can and does), there are many other, better choices for VP than Edwards.

I'll hold my nose and vote for a Kerry / Clark ticket. But that's all I can do. I do not think Clark would be a good VP choice. There are far better choices out there, and I have seen nothing about Clark that makes me think any better of him.

Sorry if that offends some people. While I'd prefer Edwards in the VP position, (I believe strongly he brings more to the ticket than Clark can and does), there are many other, better choices for VP than Clark. *




* See how easy that is to do, and how lame it sounds when you substitute the name of the guy YOU prefer? :hi: