Way back during the primaries, I predicted this one- despite protestations by Edwards himself.

So-

Is this the best pick for Kerry?

I noticed that the regime immediately said McCain was the first pick, and Edwards the second- you think this is true?

I think it is a good pick. Cause honestly I like the guy(aside from the remark he made that SUV owners are un-american).

I will probably get blasted by my conservative/republican comrades for this, but if it were Edwards first I would most likely vote for him.

Politics at its worst, pick a candidate based on what you think people will vote for rather than based on what you feel is the best person for the job. Edwards only got the nod because he's Southern, which has absolutely nothing to do with what's best for the country.

Is this the best pick for Kerry?

Out of the available candidates, yes I think it is.

- second strongest polled Democratic candidate, so he has good support
- southern democrat, could possibly appeal to some southern voters
- has a more personable quality than Kerry does, seems to be able to appeal to the common man
- opinions on policy closely align to Kerry
- Relatively new politician (with no baggage) and he should be able to come off much better than Cheny in debates.

I read this in the newspaper this morning and thought it was pretty funny:


He hasn't even been the VP Candidate but for a few hours and the Republicans have already started in with the name calling, nice. Who was the negativity party again?

Is this the best pick for Kerry?

Yes I believe it is a good pick, personally, I would much prefer it the other way around Kerry for Vice Pres. and Edwards for Pres.. It may serve to engage the on the fence moderate like myself. Personally a Vice Pres. choice does not normally serve to sway me as I don't vote for the number 2 guy normally.

Edwards is a good choice for Kerry, I think.

Gephardt would have be a loser, no question. He's too tied to the beltway for many Americans to relate.

McCain would have been the best pick if the Dems wanted to commit political suicide. It would have basically implied that the only way for them to win the White House was by taking a Republican along for the ride. Bad move, no question.

Edwards adds some qualities to the ticket that are sorely missing with Kerry-- personality, positivity, charm, charisma, good looks and he is down-to-earth.

I saw him speak, and he impressed me. I actually am glad that Kerry got the nomination because, in my opinion, Edwards could have beat Bush and Kerry cannot.

The weak point for Edwards is going to be that he is inexperienced. He's a first term junior senator from NC with no other political experience. This will be the major obstacle for him to overcome-- just ask Kerry. I read a quote from the primaries yesterday where Kerry claimed Edwards was too inexperienced to be President. Of course, I can't find it-- but I will. It will come back to haunt him.



Both.

Mike

Actually, Mike, Edwards is the SENIOR Senator from North Carolina (Elizabeth Dole is the junior Senator).

Of all the Democrats, Edwards impressed me the most. He seemed honest, not the typical politician.

All things considered, I think Edwards is the strongest pick Kerry could make. I am sure it was all about strategy, since Kerry believes you need to earn a nomination by serving in the government for a longer time. Kerry picked Edwards despite having some reservations.

I find it ironic that people focus on the political inexperience of Edwards (1998-2004 as Senator) when our sitting president had roughly the same tenure of experience as Governor of Texas (1994-2000).

Some people, like Dick Cheney, grow into leadership by experience and service. Some people are natural leaders (like Edwards). Experience is nice but since 1776 we've seen very effective inexperienced presidents and ineffective experienced Presidents.

Where I think Edwards will be challenged is articulating his & Kerry's position on the issues. This is in part because I think they are still defining them (one of Kerry's greatest weaknesses) and also because it was viewed as Edwards short straw as well. With his "populist" appeal, he's in his element on social issues but will need to muscle up on economic and foreign policy discussions.

That being said, I think this was the best choice Kerry could have made. It also makes North Carolina (my home state) now a battleground state. Without Edwards, polls showed Kerry losing NC by 7 points. With Edwards, its a dead heat.

Doc

In terms of getting elected? Yes, Edwards probably was the best candidate for Vice president. It shows how serious Kerry wants to be the president next fall. If I remember correctly, Edwards did the best among independant and 3rd party voters.

I think McCain was a good idea. It was so hyped, in a sense, because it was a bipartisan ticket. I know Chris Matthews wouldn't stop bringing it up. However, to say that McCain was the number one pick would suggest that the Republicans have an idea of Kerrys VP choices. Judging on how secret the process was, I doubt that Republicans can say with certainty that McCain was number one.

Nevertheless, you'll be seeing a lot of McCain on the Republican side.

Here's what Bush has to say about Edwards

Yeah yeah, you got me there...

He is a first termer, though, with little other political experience. He doesn't have the... <clears throat> gravitas that was a sought after quality just a mere four years ago.

It will be interesting to watch this unfold...

Mike

I highly doubt the term gravitas will come up in this election.

It would shock the living daylights out of me if Edwards' was accused of lacking gravitas.

Of course, I never heard the media's acknowledgement that they were wrong about Bush's ability to project himself on a global level.

Edward's lack of experience is offset by his enthusiasm and his personal charm. Two things that Kerry sorely needs.

Lots of good points here, I think.

Is this the best pick for Kerry?
Honestly, I don't think it really matters. I think Gephardt would have helped gain some support in the Midwest and with the unions. I think Graham would have thrown Florida over the top. And, I think Edwards helps to, for lack of a better term, 'sex' up the campaign a bit.

So, as far as actual impact I don't think that Edwards, Gephardt, Vilsack, or Graham really are that much different from each other.



I was at the rally this morning where Kerry announced Edwards. I mentioned that exact same thing as the only detracting quality of the man--I mean, literally the exact same thing. He seems very dynamic and passionate--which sort of is a way of saying he lacks gravitas.

But, uh--what's this:


I think that most people in the world hold a rather negative point of view about him. I don't think that he projects himself very well. Not in an intelligent sense, not in some so-called 'gravitas' sense.

I don't think Edwards' five or six years in the Senate will be seen as not enough to do the VP job. I do think that Cheney's long-term insider experience could work against his reelection.

I'm expecting to see "Cheney / Haliburton '04" bumper stickers soon.

Yeah, and I'm really looking forward to the Edwards/Cheney debate. Wonder if Dick will tell John to go "stick" himself? And then John comes back with how Dick really knows how to "stick" people a lot better.

Yep, this will be fun.

Oh hey, what if Edwards runs agains Colorado's guv Owens at some future date? Oh man, that would be good too! It's pretty well known here that Owens is getting groomed for a 2008 run, should GWB get another four.

I had hoped for Gephardt originally (because Missouri could be fairly decisive), but more recently I've come to agree that Edwards adds the most to the ticket electorally. He brings charisma to the ticket, and the attacks directed against him seem likely to backfire- as a Senator, he is arguably more experienced in some policy areas to be a VP than Bush was to be Pres. in 2000; the tort lawyer slur can be answered by trotting out some sympathetic clients; the "McCain said no" attack is met with ample evidence that McCain "secretly" loathes Bush, etc. Finally, he's a rags-to-riches Southerner, a good complement to a Boston patrician.

This is a good pick. Edwards is sharp and if this doesn't pan out he will be in a great position for 2008. If he grabs San Frans ?MAyor? 2008 will be interesting.

Now if only Kerry would "lose" his voice and just let Edwards do the talking,,,,

Edwards is a great pick.

Though Gephardt is from my home state he wouldn't bring the rural voters to Kerry and the City voters are likely to go Kerry's way anyway. As for the Labor vote. Regardless of who the Democrat is, he/she can count on the Labor vote. As a member of organized labor I don't always agree with that, but it's reality.

I agree with others who said they would have preferred Edwards to be at the top of the ticket.

Edwards is not quite as conservative as some believe (based on his voting record in his limited time in the Senate) but he is a heck of alot more middle of the road then Kerry.

He also brings his youth, wit and charm. CHARISMA should be the new catch word as the Kerry ticket was sorely missing it prior to Edwards joining it.

There are those on the right who will gasp, but if Edwards was on the top of the ticket, Trial Lawyer Career and all, I would have likely voted for him. I simply have too many issues with Kerry to pull the lever for him, with or without Edwards. Unless of course he discloses that he has some sort of rapid terminal illness.

Seems like the Libertarian Candidate (or another third party depending on my research) will get my vote this year.

Edwards is a likeable guy. He put forth some interesting ideas in the primary and he has CHARISMA. Kerry is far from likable, seems to have no ideas for the future, and has the CHARISMA of a dead fish.

Edwards makes this ticket viable, with or without the ABB crowd.

But, as I stated before, I really wish he had been on the top of the ticket. Seems the Republicans are not the only party that considers "who's turn" it is where the Presidency is concerned. the GOP had Dole, the DNC has Kerry. Interesting how similar these two are personality wise.

Hey, Kerry got one right this time. Way to go! Who was the last guy to pick a rival as a running mate and go on to win? Ronald Reagan and Bush Sr?

John Edwards is a very good pick. Some pundits gave Kerry credit for picking a running mate that is more charismatic than he is. But Kerry is no dope. With Edwards on the ticket, the South is definitely back in play and the Bush Campaign will have to devote some resources to an area they have figured they had locked up.

On today's Tavis Smiley Show on NPR, Donna Brazile, Al Gore's campaign manager pointed out that Edwards does very well with black voters and most of them reside in the South. Edwards, unlike Kerry, can visit those churches on Sunday mornings, thump the pulpit and get people excited for a Kerry/Edwards ticket. Black voters are already overwhelmingly in Kerry's corner and Edwards can help arouse their enthusiasm to get out and vote.

Edwards also helps Kerry with the progressive wing of the party that gravitated to Edwards' populist message after Howard Dean flamed out. It could also be helpful with Nader voters because even Ralph recommended Kerry select Edwards.

Of course, the GOP sees Edwards as inexperienced and trial lawyer background as a big fat juicy target. During the primaries, Kerry himself took a swipe at Edwards over his lack of seasoning (bet you won't have to wait long to see that quote in an attack ad). But as Brazile points out, put Edwards up against Dick Cheney and he doesn't look so bad when you point out Cheney was the biggest cheerleader for the war in Iraq, has continued to pound the drums for WMD's and links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein when no solid ones have been found and Cheney's Haliburton connections that lead right into the White House.

It's gettin' HOT in here! Looks like we're going to have a real interesting election, don't you think? Just as the Republicans like their team in the fall, I feel much better about my team's chances as well.

(I told you so... )

Like nighttimer, I'm pretty happy about Kerry's choice.



Doclotus answered the criticism about inexperience well:

Exactly. And how about the idea that the one "heartbeat away from the Presidency" will be a much healthier one than Cheney's?

It will be quite the contest, Old Halliburton Cheney vs. the Infamous Trial Lawyer! If the Vice President isn't careful, Edwards might come out of it smelling like a rose in comparison. Edwards is a self-made millionaire who came up from humble roots and has not forgotten the working class. Cheney has his work cut out for him.

Good job, Senator Kerry!

Well, safe choice if nothing else and now we have liberal/liberal-light running on the Democratic side. Works for me. Reading through Ron Brownstein's analysis in the LA Times, and he's a pretty hard core Democrat in my opinion, I really don't see much there there. He went back and looked at the exit polls in the South and rural midwest to see how Edwards did there in the primaries and it turns out that Edwards didn't do particularly well there, almost the way he did everywhere else. But, it was a safe choice and protects Kerry from criticism from the Democratic Party for his choice. I really got the impression that Brownstein wasn't thrilled by the selection of Edwards and for me, that is a good thing.

As a Bush supporter I'm pretty comfortable with this selection. I would have been concerned if Kerry had actually done something bold with this selection and picked someone nobody expected, but true to character, Kerry took the safe way out. That's a good thing for the Republicans. Edwards brings nothing new to the table, he's almost as liberal as John Kerry and other than adding much needed charisma to the Kerry campaign, I don't really see where he does much else. But, hey! If it makes my Democratic friends happy, that's a good thing.

Nope, the Edwards choice will not bring in the committed Republican vote. What a shocker.

But Edwards will bring in the younger, first-time voters, especially if the idea that Edwards will run in the top slot at some future date comes through. I don't see the Bush/Cheney ticket attracting young first-timers, or maybe any of the younger vote due to the emphasis on war and the possibility of a draft.

Since bringing something new to the table has been mentioned, I do think that Edwards does this. Ignoring the code word "liberal," Edwards brings an energy in that seeks out better ways of doing things. It's pretty hard to talk specifics right now since the convention hasn't happened yet, and that's where the party platform gets hammered out.

Now consider this: Edwards has made it his career to think up ideas and promote them through argumentation, i.e., being a lawyer and politician. My expectation is that he will exercise this influence from the slot of running mate and likely future VP. This can result in a non-violent revolution in this country, ala the following:

Primer For A Revolution

One should also consider VP face offs. Edwards vs. Cheny is going to be no contest, Edwards will win hands down.

- Edwards is obviously far more pleasing to the eye and younger than Cheny, appearances count for a lot for some voters.
- Edwards doesn't have some shady past like Cheny does, I would highly doubt the GOP will be able to dig up any dirt on him. Edwards looks like a saint compared to Cheny.
- Edwards was a trial lawyer and will probably, quite frankly, mop the floor with Cheny in any debates they have.

But as has been stated, it is highly doubtful Edwards will sway any Republicans, but well all knew there was no one who would do that. The trenches have been dug and the only people that haven't taken sides are some independents and groups of people that haven't voted before.

Interesting note for this debate, though I think this was a good pick for Kerry, the polls would seem to disagree.

Normally, when a candidate picks a running mate and announces it they get a "bounce" in the polls. Best as I can tell, there has been no effect at all. Not sure why.

But another interesting question is: Is Kerry the right pick for Edwards?

Edwards has alot of things going for him, and he has a real political future ahead. But is taking a chance on Kerry worth the risk? If Kerry / Edwards ticket fails to win, what will happen to his political aspirations beyond senator?

I can't think of single vice presidential candidate, who didn't win and when on to greater things in politics. Several went back to there old political jobs, but none that I can think of (though I just finished a 14 hour work day) went on to gain a new political position.

Would it not have been better for Edwards, to decline, and if Kerry looses, gain another 4 years of experience (aasuming he is re-elected which would probably be a safe bet) in the Senate and run as the VP under Hilary in 2008?

I can understand why Kerry choose Edwards, but I can't fathom why Edwards choose Kerry.

From the american research association to Zogby to MSNBC, the Edwards pick has gotten anywhere between a 2% to 8% bounce. With the exception of the Fox news polls (AP) which shows Bush ahead of Kerry by 4% (46 to 50), all the other polls show Kerry ahead of Bush. Poll

I think that this year is unusually political which means there will be less of a bounce. A lot of people have already made up there minds, which means there are less people able to make a difference in the polls. If the election year is dull, a bounce is more likely to occur because the issue will suddenly be brought to the viewers attention. Whatever brought it to their attention will be a big factor in how they feel about the election. Because a larger than average amount of people are following this election, these little stunts of picking a vice president and holding a convention don't seem to have the effect that they normally would.

What the Kerry campaign got from the VP choice was expected, not spectacular.

Like BecomingHuman I think any bounce this year will be minimized. However, it would be worth taking a look at this link.

This site summarizes all of the major polls out there. If you'll notice all of them have Kerry leading the race by as much as 5% and as little as 1%. The Fox News poll is not yet included for the post July 4th period.

From a Newsweek Poll conducted on July 8-9 MoE 4%.



There is also a NBC News poll on 7/6 MoE 5%. (same link as above - scroll down)

Is this the best pick for Kerry?

Yes, I do. I saw Kerry and Edwards and their wives interviewed on 60 Minutes last night, and I am pleasantly surprised by what Edwards brings to the team. Edwards doesn't hesitate to speak his mind, and I think he's loosening up Kerry's lockjawed politispeak.

This may be a topic for another thread, but if you saw the interview, didn't it seem more belligerent and confrontational than ones with Bush, Cheney et.al? I thought there were some cheap shots (that were deflected nicely by Kerry and Edwards).

I noticed that the regime immediately said McCain was the first pick, and Edwards the second- you think this is true?

I personally believe that the whole McCain thing was never an issue - except for the Republicans, who delighted in deriding Kerry for having to "cross the line" to find a candidate for running mate. I don't believe Kerry ever seriously considered McCain as his running mate, but take that for what it's worth-I can't read minds.

He's a great canidate and I think he will be a great vice preisdent.

I stand corrected and apoligize. I am confident more then ever that John Edwards is the best canidate for vice president. He was, my first choice for president, in fact. He has worked hard in his 6 years and I have read this Four Trials book which I suggest to anyone. He has a large family which he is raising which appeals to myself since I come from a large family. The most important thing he brings to the ticket is he appears to be the common man. As much as I do support John Kerry, I would be lieing to say he appears like the common man.