MyDD :: Edwards Open To VP After All?

Edwards Open To VP After All?

by Todd Beeton, Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:51:52 PM EST

John Edwards has been pretty clear about not wanting to be considered for Obama's VP, stating earlier this month:

Former U.S. Senator John Edwards has ruled out being Barack Obama's running mate on the Democratic presidential ticket, according to interviews carried by two leading Spanish newspapers...

"I already had the privilege of running for vice president in 2004, and I won't do it again," Edwards was quoted by El Mundo as saying. El Pais, the country's other leading daily, carried similar comments.

Well, turns out that strong statement actually required some clarification. From today's This Week with George Stephanopoulos:

Edwards, a candidate for president in this year's primaries, stepped back a bit on Sunday.

"I intended it to say that this is not a thing that I'm seeking. I think Senator Obama, first of all, has earned the right to make this decision for himself. I think he has enormous choices available to him, really great choices available to him," Edwards said on "This Week" on ABC. "And I think he'll go through this process in a thoughtful, orderly way, and he'll decide who he wants to be his running mate. And that's exactly how it should be done."

Asked whether he'd rule out the possibility, Edwards said: "Well, I'd take anything he asked me to think about seriously, but obviously this is something I've done and it's not a job that I'm seeking."

Personally, I take Edwards's original statement as his real feelings on the matter. At least I hope they are. Edwards was fairly useless as the VP candidate in 2004 and while he was a much more aggressive and progressive presidential candidate this time around, it seems to me picking John Edwards, or John Kerry for that matter, both of whom were recently revealed to be on Obamas shortlist, would go against the very rationale for Obama's candidacy, wouldn't it? (Edwards less so than Kerry, obviously, but picking Edwards would be a step backward to the past, Obama claims to be about the future.)

It's amazing to me, so many people get up in arms about the possibility of Hillary Clinton as VP because she "represents the past," represents "business as usual in Washington" and voted for the war, etc., yet there isn't the same outrage when it comes to John Edwards, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, or Joe Biden's being on Obama's shortlist. If Obama actually picks one of these guys for VP, 3 out of 4 of whom have been sitting senators since the 70s or 80s and all of whom voted for the war, I suspect for many he's going to have some explaining to do as to why this guy and why not Clinton.

Tags: 2008 presidential election, vp, barack obama, john edwards (all tags)

Permalink :: 110 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

Its twisted logic.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:57:09 PM EST

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

Yeah but for Todd to make the argument that Hillary would be the best VP pick (and I think she would be very good) but Edwards goes against his messaging is a little bit out there.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:59:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

Kerry and Biden would . Edwards not so much.

However Clinton is a far better option than Edwards in my opinion.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:04:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

I think the "short list" was a fake, perhaps to test public reaction to some of the names. There's just no way some of those people actually could have made it this far in the consideration. And the glaring omissions (Richardson, Schweitzer, Rendell) only convince me further.

Or it could've been a head fake, so when they pick someone not on the list, it'll be seen as a big enough "surprise" that it'll get even more attention and result in a bigger bounce.

I really don't like Joe Biden (D-MBNA) as a VP. Secretary of State or something like that, sure. But not VP. On the other hand, Dodd gets major kudos from me for being at the forefront of FISA, torture and net neutrality. He may have been around for a long time, but he's become a real progressive voice in the caucus.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:03:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

I agree about Edwards not so much as Kerry or Biden. He really has been about let's do this differently for a while now. Maybe I am biased since he was my first pick for the nomination.

I'd kinda like to see him as A.G. or Sec. of Labor too though.

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

by lockewasright on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:04:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed! (none / 0)

Obama would raise many eyebrows if he choose Kerry or Biden. There are better candidates out there for Veep, for goodness sakes!

I do like Edwards, even if the one time I heard him speak, I could barely make it through his accent.

His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?

by RisingTide on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:42:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

Hillary Clinton is a terrible choice for VP. I don't mean that as a slight of her as a person or a politician. I think she's too much the alpha personality to be Obama's VP. She was damn near the person to be our next president and he'd have an entire constituency of people to govern who believe that she's the better person. On top of that, Bill Clinton is the former president and clearly someone who would be Hillary's counsel.

The perception that a Clinton VP would create would be enough to make it problematic. The perception of Bill Clinton being around the scene would also make it problematic.

The Clintons, to their credit, built a formidable political machine. Obama has his own and he's building it by the day. Those teams don't really overlap in many places at this point, and the merging of those machines, with very different styles, would be chaos.

I think she would have been a fine president, but let me put it this way....

Obama chose not to make his photo-op, rally-the-nation appearance for Midwest flooding near the worst of it. He chose to do so because the amount of press and logistical considerations for the appearance would have hampered rescue and recovery efforts. The Clintons near the White House again would have the same type of effect. It would create unwanted media attention to the personalities and it would overshadow the things that Obama is trying to do.

She can be much more effective from a distance and so can he.

by mikeplugh on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:27:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Even a Cabinet post would be better (none / 0)

Give Clinton her own domain, a place where she gets to be queen.

The VEEP is so ill-defined, that she would have a voice on everything, and I'm not so sure that she would be, could be as focused as Gore was.

We don't need another Cheney, and I'm sure that some of Hillary's backers see her as a possible new Cheney, owing favors and scratching the same backs.

His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?

by RisingTide on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:45:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Even a Cabinet post would be better (none / 0)

I think comparing Hillary Clinton to Dick Cheney in any way is completely lunatic. They are in no way similar.

And I do believe that Clinton can easily be more focused than Gore. I've never heard anyone question her ability to focus; it's one of her great strengths, in fact.

by Michigoose on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:12:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

Well I don't think ANYONE thinks Obama is seriously considering Kerry despite him being on the short list.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:57:38 PM EST

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

makes you wonder if it's not a show of respect or a symbolic thank-you or something.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:04:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

Yes I think your right it's just out of respect.

by Politicalslave on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:14:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

The thing about Edwards is that he has a pattern of losing. He lost during nomination process in 2004......he lost as VP during the 2004 General......and most recently Edwards never really made a dent during the 2008 primaries.

by newmexicodem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:10:51 PM EST

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

He beat Clinton in Iowa. He definitely had a huge impact shifting the debate in the Democratic primary to the left. And to accuse someone of losing as a VP candidate is ludicrous. He's an excellent attack dog, he really beat the tar out of Cheney in their debate in 04. But more important than any of that, he's pretty. Putting him on would give us the most telegenic ticket in history, And that's what really matters.

Yes, I'm aware there's a possible misogynist reading of the myth. Sorry.

by Endymion on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:41:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

I disagree that being "telegenic" is all that matters in VP selection. I think ability to debate effectively is far more important than looking nice.

But really, if you're rejecting Clinton as a candidate because she "represents the past", then a rich white guy politician who was already on one failed ticket is an even worse choice. I, however, think the whole "represents the past" is a load of bushwah. If you believe in it, though, then Hillary Clinton has to represent the "past" of Bill Clinton's presidential term, the last good decade we've got, one with no wars and a balanced budget. I'd be quite happy to see THAT past well represented.

I think fondly of the days when the only worry we had about our President was whether or not he was getting blow jobs from slutty interns, not whether or not he was passingly illegal "laws" making torture of prisoners allowable, or starting hugely damaging wars based on utter lies, or any of the other deadly disasters Bush has been responsible for. It's a positive mark of Clinton's years that the worst thing the Rethugs could come up with was a witchhunt about his sex life. (What would they make of JFK's string of mistresses?)

by Michigoose on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:20:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

You are so classy Todd.

[im serious]

"Rankles and Rush Limbaugh, ruining the chaos brand since 2008."

by alyssa chaos on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:16:53 PM EST

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

Edwards just doesn't connect with voters.

His support of Obama seemed to have little if any effect on blue collar voters, the group he claims to represent. In the end they flocked Clinton's way.

My take is that his image clashes with his message. He claims to represent the little guy, yet he's a slick, handsome, sooth talking lawyer....perhaps the "little guy" just doesn't trust him.

by mjc888 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:17:22 PM EST

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

Edwards got between 10-20% of voters in the primaries where he ran, and while that's not enough to win it's not shabby. He does connect with voters, just a particular kind (and if McCain and Obama don't, and they're swing voters, and he can bring them over, even if it's a few %, that's more than most VPs could do).

by IncognitoErgoSum on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:19:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

The kind of voters he does connect with are the ones who don't like Obama. Look at SurveyUSA's polling. Even factoring in that John Edwards has national name recognition, he is CLEARLY by far the most popular choice in battleground states all around the country. The only one he doesn't beat or become competitive with is Hagel in Nebraska. He nearly beats Sebelius in a poll of KANSAS. What does THAT tell you?

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:25:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (2.00 / 1)

More popular than Hillary in the battleground states? I haven't seen those polls.

by mjc888 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:45:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

Granted, SurveyUSA only polled in Michigan against McCain/Romney (who is very popular there and led in all the polls), but Edwards beat both Clinton and Gore. They really should include Clinton in more head to head polls, but that result shocked the hell out of me.

You can see all their polls at their main website if you scroll down and browse older posts: http://www.surveyusa.com

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:53:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

And by "you can see all their polls", I do mean that you can see VP polls for at least a dozen states.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:54:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

All that polling was done prior to Obama securing the nomination officially. Wait about 3 more weeks to a month and get back to me with new numbers.

by mikeplugh on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:29:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

Why?

Obamacans have been saying, 'Just wait until...whatevevah!' and The One will poll great....'

Doesn't seem to be happening.

Right now after all the 'securing of the nomination...' furahhh...ha..ha... is when he should be seeing a bump.

No bump..

How odd you say.

Wake up and smell the coffee pal. Obama is in deep trouble against a really weak ReThug.

You wanted it you got it.

Enjoy.
.

by Pericles on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:10:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Some people's children... (2.00 / 1)

It's astounding. You just don't know how to behave in polite society do you? I bet you lurk in doorways and eavesdrop on phone conversations as well. Let's start with a small lesson, no need to try and completely rehabilitate you all at once: We're not 'Obamacans,' we're 'Democrats.' Say it with me, Dem-o-crat. Dem-o-crat. Good. You can join us and be a Democrat too, we take all kinds, it's a lot of fun. You do need a high tolerance for being patronized whenever you act like a fucking asshole, though.

Yes, I'm aware there's a possible misogynist reading of the myth. Sorry.

by Endymion on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:52:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some people's children... (none / 0)

Speak for yourself. I'm an Independent. Say it with me: "In-de-pend-ant." Doesn't it feel good not to be stuck with the Demicans and the Repubocrats? I can be very liberal and yet not have to take whatever crappy candidate the Dems decide to shove at me. (Or the Greens. Ugh.)

It's a great feeling. You should try it. Vote for who you want, not for who the Party orders you to. Be a real American. Be free. Don't let anyone take your vote for granted. It's a great feeling.

Imagine if ALL voters were Independent and the candidates had to craft truly inclusive platorms, rather than just saying, "Well, we're not THEM." Oh, for the candidate who can be strongly pro-choice but also fiscally conservative. Poor thing could never survive in our crappy two-party system. Neither side would have her.

by Michigoose on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:26:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (2.00 / 1)

Snore. Concern trolling is unbecoming. Obama is doing just fine against McCain. Just look up at the top left corner of MyDD's homepage. The electoral map looks pretty great considering McCain had months to get his shit together and the Dems were beating each other into oblivion.

I will enjoy. First, I'll enjoy watching Democrats overwhelm the GOP in this historic election. Then, I'll marvel at how lucky we are that our party had a female and African-American candidate as the last two standing and the chosen candidate stands as our president. Finally, I'll enjoy watching people like you stew in their juices.

Then I'll get back to work helping to repair the Bush tragedy with the rest of the committed Dems. You can do whatever it is you plan to do. Maybe kick animals or shout at small children.

by mikeplugh on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:05:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's polling over McCain (none / 0)

2% higher than Bush EVER polled over Kerry.

Read a news paper or something.

John McCain, maverick

by lojasmo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:20:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's polling over McCain (none / 0)

But a fair amount of that margin is in states he already has locked up. Earning more votes there doesn't help him at all. It just proves that the liberals like him better than they liked Kelly (not hard to do. I respect Kelly, but he's not good at meshing with the public, which Obama generally is.)

It really is his standing in the swing states that matters, not who votes for him in Massachusetts or who doesn't vote for him in Montana. The best sign would be that he's polling better in the swing states than Kerry or Gore did during their runs.

The raw poll numbers are not nearly as important as the state-by-state numbers. Those are what will determine who wins.

Otherwise we're going to be looking at a repeat of "wins the popular vote, loses the election." Which is no good.

by Michigoose on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:31:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama is putting many states in play (none / 0)

Where KERRY got beat and even some in which Kerry got absolutely crushed. Obama's ahead in a lot of states where Kerry got toasted too.

John McCain, maverick

by lojasmo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:35:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

hmm well I can see your point here; I don't have much enthusiasm for Obama & while I liked & supported Clinton my first choice was Edwards for the nomination.

by jrsygrl on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:30:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

Edwards rebranded himself after Kerry's loss in 2004 (and if that sounds too cynical my opinion is these do reflect bona fide changes in political philosophy on his part). As Kerry's VP, Edwards was a pretty face. As Obama's VP think he'd bring more to the ticket. Not saying I'm a huge Edwards fan, but think this would be a reasonable pick.

by IncognitoErgoSum on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:17:35 PM EST

Clinton is (none / 0)

the only acceptable choice among Senators who voted for the AUMF.

I would personally prefer to see someone from outside Washington-but I have to concede that she would still be a strong choice.

I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.

by JDF on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:18:13 PM EST

Re: Clinton is (none / 0)

Clinton comes with billions of pages of oppo-research. Clinton comes with all the baggage amongst conservatives and independents that Bill Clinton earned, plus some of her own.

A VP's job is solely to not hurt the ticket. Clinton potentially hurts the ticket. That's why potentially Edwards and not Clinton.

John McCain wants to stay in Iraq.

by ihaveseenenough on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:22:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton is (none / 0)

I don't agree that Clinton is a bad choice, but I do agree that the GOP has lots of negative attacks that have been on standby since she first ran for Senate.

Edwards is much harder to paint a bad color, because he's one of the only politicians who kinda is exactly what he says he is. He DID grow up lower middle class, his dad DID suffer serious health problems that made him be a lawyer, he really did build himself up from not very much. And he really has dedicated himself wholly to helping people who have been damaged by the system. He has the exact same quality Bush does, that people can identify with him. They can see themselves in him. He's not the smartest or most qualified candidate, but he's sincere and honest. And unlike Bush, he's not faking it.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:31:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

he doesn't come across as sincere and honest (none / 0)

some of us do NOT like the country lawyer shtick.

He's a good man, a man of his word (even when it hurts), but... the man does come across as fake.

His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?

by RisingTide on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:49:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he doesn't come across as sincere and honest (none / 0)

Again, though, less so to the people that Obama really needs to get.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:52:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton is (none / 0)

To be fair, she also potentially helps the ticket. It's just hard to tell what the net effect of her being on the ticket would be.

Of the names listed there, I think Kerry and Edwards are non-starters. I like both Biden and Clinton.

Of course, they both voted for the AUMF, so... I say go with the dark horse... Barbara Boxer.

by Y Knot on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:33:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton is (none / 0)

Barbara Boxer is a political pygmy. I say that as one of her constituents.

There are two giants in the Democratic party today, like it or not: Obama and Clinton.

Now, there are two questions: does Obama have the guts to pick someone with a stature as large as Hillary's to be #2?

And do the true believers inside the Obama echosphere recognize that the New Politics is the Old Politics with pretty new packaging?

My guess is the answer to both questions is "No."

by InigoMontoya on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:47:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Older than the Old Politics (none / 0)

it's back to 60-70's politics, before the Right went crazy. and some of the Republicans are yearning for that, just like some of the Democrats are as well.

When your neighbors were your neighbors, and everyone pitched in.

I don't think that it is Hillary's stature that compromises her... so much as how vehement her backers have become. (NOT her supporters). Her backers hate to lose influence, and would try to influence the new administration through her loyalty to them.

She had other backers, people with less committment to having "all power be theirs". They supported Obama, will continue to support Obama.

But some of her backers (republican or democrat it makes no difference, you got money you want influence)...

His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?

by RisingTide on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:52:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton is (none / 0)

But all those stories are old news.

Just like Obama's stories about the flag pin, etc. Hillary did him a favor (albeit unintentionally) by drawing out these negatives early.

Bringing them up again will be a snoozer and will seem desperate. McCain just recently brought up that "clinging to guns" quote again. Yawn. We've heard it all before. Whoever is p.o.'d about it is either still mad or getting over it.

by mjc888 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:48:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (2.00 / 1)

The fact that a person was around in the past - Dodd, Biden - does not mean they held true power in the past, or are responsible for the past. A former de factor White House Chief of Staff holds much more responsibility for past administrations and laws than do former Senators who have spent considerable time in the minority party.

The Wayward Episcopalian

by Transplanted Texan on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:27:16 PM EST

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

First off, despite all the chatter about Obama's VP choice, the evidence is pretty strong that IT DOESN'T MATTER. Voters don't vote for the VP and history shows that the VP candidate NO MATTER who it is DOESN'T MOVE VOTES.

That said, the reason that Biden, Edwards, Kerry and even Byrd would be more acceptable than Hillary is that none of the above is married to Bill. Bill's role as "second gentleman" holds too many unknowns. (Not to mention known unknowns and unknown knowns.) Also he's "earned" way too much questionable money in the last 8 years for his wife to be a "clean" candidate in 2008.

by vermontprog on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:32:12 PM EST

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

I don't know about that. Gore really got a boost from picking Lieberman. I don't recall what the hard numbers were, but I'm pretty sure it lifted him out of his polling doldrums.

I just don't think you can compare past elections to the present anymore. The prevalence of the internet and the endless talking-head cable coverage means that stories are magnified considerably. While picking a VP might've been a rather ho-hum exercise as recently as '88 or '92, it's going to utterly dominate the coverage for a while as a million pundits analyze it to death.

The announcements of Edwards made an impact, albeit a smaller one because he was the expected pick. The buzz kind of died down on that one over time because it was a rather obvious selection.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:10:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

Also because the people who liked Edwards really didn't like Kerry. Given the choice between him and Bush, with Iraq still fairly young, they chose Bush.

Worth noting is taht when Obama's advisors told him to go duck hunting in 2004, he said no, because he wouldn't pretend to be something he wasn't.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:16:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

This situation is unprecedented, so discussions of "history" are meaningless in this context. The party has NEVER been so evenly split between two strong candidates with passionate bases.

I find it hard to believe you'd think that it would make no difference if Barack had Hillary on the ticket versus Janet Napolitano on the ticket. Janet Napolitano never had the hearts and souls of half the Democratic party.

by Michigoose on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:35:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

Todd your claim that Edwards brought nothing to the ticket last time is just not the case. Vice Presidential selection is far from an exact science and as has been pointed out repeatedly, is far from the top of reasons voters choose to support a ticket. Yet remember July 2004 for a moment and think about what it was like then.
Kerry's message was essentially that he could keep the country safer than Bush by both supporting the military, but also by being smarter in the war on terror (going after Bin Laden instead of being diverted toward Iraq, rebuilding our alliances). This was actually a fairly effective message that allowed him to gain following the debates. What he lacked was excitement and passion. Edwards brought both of those things. There was palpable excitement among democrats after the edwards selection and during their subsequent tour before the convention. Indeed they got quite a bump after the selection (something they didn't get after their terrible no-bush-attacks convention). Remember the other top choices? Vilsack, Gephardt, and McCain. McCain was unacceptable because he's a republican and a fraud even though he would have been electorally very smart for kerry (you've got to have principles right?) and Vilsack and Gephardt, while both great people (I supported gephardt in 04) brought nothing to the table that kerry didn't already. Neither was flashy or particularly interesting and both would have been weak picks. It's true that Edwards didn't bring much to the table after september, but i can't see how anyone would have in an election with concerns about national security so high. Edwards' value was that when you heard "Kerry-Edwards" or saw them together, you got both the sense that we'd have good policies and a steady hand guiding the ship (from Kerry) but also that excitement that we were taking back our country again.
None of this is to say that this makes Edwards a good pick this time around. I'm ambivalent even as an Edwards 08 supporter. I completely agree that as the 04 VP candidate he directly contradicts the obama message of a new way, a new type of politics, of no more of the same. However, too young, attractive, exciting, candidates with some fire and good progressive policies is a very attractive option.

by wjr24 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:33:12 PM EST

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

In '04 I was fairly active. I worked for a 527 in the last weeks before the election. I had strong political opinions and strongly political friends, and I felt the excitement you're talking about, and for all that, I only went to one 'debate watching party' that year. It was the Edwards-Cheney debate, and it was awesome. I don't share your ambivalence. I think that the way he has reinvented himself as an assertive populist(from a quiet, go-along-to-get-along populist)could provide a strong narrative parallel to Obama's message of reinventing national politics. And I've seen the polling that indicates he's the best choice for swinging the swing states, and I've always felt that if people were able to talk about forcing an Obama-Clinton ticket then we should be able to talk about forcing an Obama-Edwards ticket.

Yes, I'm aware there's a possible misogynist reading of the myth. Sorry.

by Endymion on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:05:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

Um Todd, have you seen this, from Paul Rosenberg?

But the even more glaring oversight here (and almost everywhere else) is that HILLARY HAS NEVER BACKED DOWN FROM HER AUMF VOTE! That's why she lost as well.

"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from."

And that's what the electorate did.

by midvalley on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:48:54 PM EST

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

I have no good sense of who Sen. Obama will select and I hope it is not Edwards in that I like him for AG.

But thanks for posting this link and sparing me the effort I was just beginning to undertake.

Frankly, I am rather surprised to see any involved political blogger such as Mr. Beeton making these claims without at least acknowledging and refuting the careful work Rosenberg is compiling on exactly this topic. It is hard to take mere assertions seriously against such efforts.

Mr. Beeton: Care to engage Rosenberg's analysis with some of your own?

"We live entangled in webs of endless deceit, often self-deceit, but with a little honest effort, it is possible to extricate ourselves from them". -- NC

by Trond Jacobsen on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:19:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

She did back down from her AUMF vote.

Read the OH debate transcript - she stated that vote was a mistake and she would like it back.

my god, I am SICK of people who don't keep up with the news and play all the old smear jobs.

by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:56:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

eep! (none / 0)

thanks for the citokate.

;-)

His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?

by RisingTide on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:56:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

So she was the very last Dem candidate to say it was a mistake, is what you're saying?

by midvalley on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:03:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It will be an Edwards (none / 0)

but it will be Elizabeth Edwards.

That would be the smartest political pick he could make as it dovetails to his message AND brings back some Clinton supporters to his side.

by Coldblue on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:51:19 PM EST

Re: It will be an Edwards (none / 0)

As much as I like Elizabeth, she is unfortunately stricken with incurable breast cancer.

No arguments that she is brilliant though.

Obama/Sebelius '08

by evantakesall on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:18:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It will be an Edwards (none / 0)

Incurable, but treatable.

It isn't a death sentence by any means.

by Coldblue on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:26:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It will be an Edwards (none / 0)

Treatable actually does mean just that pretty much in the world of cancer - it isn't what you want to hear - trust me. Also she is stage IV I believe which is as bad as it gets. I love her but she isn't a good pick for the ticket.

by jrsygrl on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:32:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There are some (1.50 / 2)

that don't fit the statistical model (where statistics are somewhat weak). But I know what you are saying.

Now from a purely cold and calculating perspective, Elizabeth Edwards being on the ticket would likely unite the party better than anyone I can imagine. The bottom line is about getting elected.

by Coldblue on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:47:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are some (1.00 / 1)

From a purely calculating position, no it wouldn't. My future mother in law won't even consider voting for Edwards, and one of the reasons is because his wife has terminal cancer.

I think it's one of the most despicable opinions I know of, though I don't say it anywhere near her. Likewise, suggesting Elizabeth Edwards as VP because she is terminally ill is despicable. I don't think you meant to be, but yeah, this was bad.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:50:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You have missed the point (none / 0)

It isn't because she has cancer that people like her. If you think that is what I was intending, then you had better sharpen up.

by Coldblue on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:11:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You have missed the point (none / 0)

No, but you said that it could be a positive, which meant it could be exploited. Which is true, but the whole thing is just really awful and saying that she could run on her illness is extra bad. She has the good grace to not mention it in public any more than she has to, and it struck me as offensive. I'll take back the HR.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:28:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Once again (none / 0)

it isn't about the cancer. I never insinuated that. In fact, I would assume she would be attacked in the media for having cancer as a VP nominee.

What is positive about Elizabeth Edwards is her ability to reach the common people substantially better than her husband has been able to do. She resonates with us, she looks common like we do, she brings her life experiences in a way that we can relate to.

I don't think that I'm exploiting her affliction.

by Coldblue on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:51:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Once again (none / 0)

I doubt the media would attack her openly for her cancer. They'd be too busy trying to figure out who would replace her if she died in office.

Your post on how putting Elizabeth on the ticket strongly insinuated (intentionally or not) that people would vote for her because they feel sorry for her and expect her to die. Whether or not that's how you meant it, that's how it came across.

by Michigoose on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:40:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are some (none / 0)

What I am saying is I have been in the room when the phrase treatable is used. That could mean leaving for several years getting treatments. But the bottom line is the phrase "treatable" means it is worst case scenario. The treatments alone would likely render her unable to serve. And that would be a reasonable issue to raise, unfortunately. Like I said I like her as a person, but she would not be an a good choice.

And stage IV which I believe she has - means it has spread & metastasized - I am honestly surprised she has been able to speak this much publicly given this. It is very bad.

by jrsygrl on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:42:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are some (none / 0)

My grandpa had stage 4 colon cancer and died within a few months. So I definitely know that it isn't something that you can take lightly.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:54:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are some (none / 0)

I'm sorry to hear that - I have had more then one person who I care dearly for get diagnosed at Stage IV level. Sometimes months is a generous time allowance. Sometimes the treatment they give is so bad but the hopes are in a weird way that that leads to your death versus the cancer progression. It is so horrible. Sometimes treatments can delay the inevitable for years - nothing is guaranteed. Usually in those scenarios you go through years of on again/off again treatments until it is finally over...Not a pleasant way to live but sometimes you get periods of "remission" where you can function better. Bottom line is that is rarer, but even if that were the scenario an individual could not even reasonably be asked to put themself into a normal work situation much less the job of VP. And there would be reason to doubt the ability of an individual to fulfill the position fully as well given their unique and major life circumstances.

by jrsygrl on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:07:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It will be an Edwards (none / 0)

Indeed, this would be the most awesome thing ever, and I don't care that I can't tell if you're full of snark because I am dead serious.

Yes, I'm aware there's a possible misogynist reading of the myth. Sorry.

by Endymion on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:06:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It isn't snark (none / 0)

She would unite the party better than anyone I can imagine.

by Coldblue on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:13:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

Well, I thought of this site when Open Left had this piece recently about the dip in your readership due to the horse you decided to back in the primaries. Glad to see my staying away these months after being banned was the right choice.

Are you saying you don't see any difference between Edwards 2004 and 2008?

Are you saying that in order to be beyond the past you must be a different person- not just different views- but person?

Are you arguing there is no difference between the way CLinton approached her vote and Edwards?

There are several questions I would want to ask- but this sort of gets the gist of them.

by bruh3 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:52:33 PM EST

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

PS. I think I will just go back to lurker status now. Thanks.

by bruh3 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:54:11 PM EST

The only explaining Obama will have to do is (1.00 / 2)

how when the Republican party is less popular than colon cancer and they run a corpse for the president can the "transformational" Obama lose the election?

Does Obama have any clue as to how many people will bolt the party if Hillary isn't on the ticket?

We know that he is in a dead-heat with McCain. We know that people are afraid of being thougt of as racists so a percentage lies and says that they support Obama when they really don't. We know the Republicans, through 527's, will be running ads on TV highlighting the race-bating that Obama employed against the Clinton's in an attempt to win McCain votes from Hillary supporters.

Edwards couldn't get the white working-class votes in 2004, why do we think he could get them now?

Two light-weight senators does not a good ticket make. Obama needs someone with foreign policy experience and the ability to win him some states, preferable red ones. Hillary delivers AR and she helps in OH, FL and PA to name a few. She is well respected by the generals.

Obama's decision is a no brainer. If he doesn't choose Hillary I will not forgive the man and I will leave the party.

by mmorang on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:54:44 PM EST

Re: The only explaining Obama will have to do is (none / 0)

Then leave. Shut the door behind you.

by Makey on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:14:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The only explaining Obama will have to do is (1.00 / 2)

Your post is pretty insulting not only to the progressive agenda, but Hillary Clinton herself, a leader I not only hold in high regard, but someone I believe has a vested interest in heralding new leadership in the party, female and otherwise.

I believe Hillary's strengths and high profile are more valuable outside of the vice presidency at this point. She has molded herself into a force to be reckoned with, and will do much good in the Senate or wherever she chooses to land.

Obama/Sebelius '08

by evantakesall on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:14:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The only explaining Obama will have to do is (1.00 / 2)

The original post was not insulting. It was her/his opinion that has a lot of validity to it. Your umbrage is laughable. Hillary doesn't not need to be in the Senate. She needs to be in the White House. She is the one and only Democrat that can defeat John McCain.

by Demogrunt on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:51:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Get a grip (1.50 / 2)

She is the one and only Democrat that can defeat John McCain.

You cede entirely too much power to that old husk. No offense to Hillary, but she's not alone in that distinction.

by Bee on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:58:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Get a grip (none / 0)

And you give entirely too much credit to the purveyor of hope and unity.

by Demogrunt on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:16:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The only explaining Obama will have to do is (2.00 / 1)

You put candidate over Party? You put the glory of your Strong Leader over the desires of the cooperative entity that is the Democratic Party, the exultation of your Hierarch over the need for logical and deliberate action. Perhaps you consider yourself a feminist, many of Clinton's devoted do. If that is the case, I would beg you to remember that "No Gods, No Masters" does not mean that a Mistress is acceptable. You must pursue your liberation thorough your own actions, not via proxy.

Yes, I'm aware there's a possible misogynist reading of the myth. Sorry.

by Endymion on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:22:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The only explaining Obama will have to do is (none / 0)

The party better get its act together and not have any more rigged elections.

Why was SC moved up and FL and MI taken out of the game? Why were ALL of the delegates originally stripped from FL and MI when the rules state that half should be stripped?

Why did the Democratic party "leadership" (Polosi)weigh in and state that it's the pledged delegates that matter when that's not what's in the rules? The SD's can use whatever criteria they choose, like the popular vote.

Hillary was royally screwed by the party. She and the former president were FALSELY accused of race-bating. No one in the party leadership said a peep about it.

by mmorang on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:05:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The only explaining Obama will have to do is (none / 0)

"I will not forgive the man"

Wow, you manage to sound both bitter AND sexist, in one small phrase! Obama does not need to apologize for beating Hillary. Sorry, the nomination was not "stolen" from her.

Enjoy your McCain nougaty goodness.

by ProgressiveDL on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:23:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The only explaining Obama will have to do is (none / 0)

How do I sound sexist? I'm a man myself. I'm referring to another man who I generally respect but I know he FALSELY accused the Clinton's of race-bating.

Bill Clinton can lose and still be gracious. He is diametrically opposed to just about everything Bush has done yet he's been "respectful" as an ex-pres should be. Bill Clinton hasn't stood by Obama's side and endorsed him. He would have if the guy didn't PERSONALLY ATTACK HIS WIFE'S CHARACTER and play the race card on the both of them.

That isn't a hard foul, it's a career-ending flagorant foul and I don't respect it.

I'm just waiting to see if he does the right thing and puts Hillary on the ticket.

by mmorang on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:10:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (1.00 / 3)

I think it does indeed need to be someone who complements Obama's core message, which is why my shortlist is basically Kathleen Sebelius, Mark Warner and Jim Webb.

I think Sebelius gels best with his message, and she and Obama have a lovely rapport on the campaign trail.

I think seeing Sebelius and Clinton campaign for Obama together would be a watershed moment for Democratic leadership.

Obama/Sebelius '08

by evantakesall on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:00:04 PM EST

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (2.00 / 2)

It really bugs me that everyone suggests there's now this sort of unspoken rivalry between Sebelius and Clinton, and it makes me even more mad is this assertion that Sebelius should be disqualified because she's a woman.

Folks, Clinton is an adult, she's also a professional politician, and most importantly, she's not Obama's ex-wife. Sebelius has 22 years of experience, including 6 years of experience as a governor of a deep red state. She's just as qualified as Strickland and Rendell. If Obama thinks she's the best person for the job, it's silly to think that picking another woman would somehow break poor Hillary's heart.

Sebelius is qualified. She's a very appealing candidate. She and Obama get along great. Disqualifying her over gender is the very definition of sexism.

by Stroszek on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:19:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

It wouldn't break Hillary's heart, but it would break the heart of most of Hillary's ardent supporters. They would be livid. Livid. So angry that them voting for McCain would be the least of our problems. It's all about perception. The perception would be that Obama just picked the best non-Hillary woman he could, that he wanted to avoid Hillary at all costs. That would be true, probably because of her high negatives. But the perception would be that he avoided her because he didn't like her or was angry about her campaign.

by ProgressiveDL on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:26:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (1.00 / 1)

Sebelius is far less qualified then Clinton. Clinton just received 18 million votes, Sebelius didn't. Sebelius doesn't have foreign policy experience.

So, picking her would be pandering of the worst sort and it won't work.

Yes, Hillary is a professional who worked her ass off not only running for president but in all the decades leading up to the election. She is prepared to be president. She is a foreign and domestic policy expert. The generals have enormous respect for her. Why in the hell would you throw all that away for Sebelius? Just because she endorsed Obama?

Obama made the campaign personal by PERSONALLY ATTACKING THE CHARACTER OF BOTH CLINTON'S. If Hillary isn't on the ticket, McCain will win.

The Republicans are less popular than colon cancer and they are running a corpse for president, yet Obama is only tied with McCain. He's gotten no bounce after clinching the nomination. That should tell you something.

Keep in mind the Bradley Effect. Obama is actually doing worse than people think.

Good luck!

by mmorang on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:19:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

I just don't think picking Sebelius is a smart choice. She has poor communication skills, is a relatively unknown to the rest of America, and she runs the risk of adding salt to the wound of disaffected Hillary supporters. Same thing applies to the other fringe VP candidates such as Janet Napoloitano and other female politicians.

I am also not too confident that Hillary Clinton would be willing to accept a subordinate position to Sebelius. Clinton doesn't strike me as the type of person who is willing to campaign state-to-state as a "back-up singer". I mean....what does Hillary gain by doing so. She stands a better chance by simply staying on the sidelines AWAY from the public and political atmosphere for the next 5 months. After the results of the November election....she then has a perfect opportunity to take credit or gloat....depending on the outcomes.

by newmexicodem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:29:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (2.00 / 1)

This is exactly the kind of sexism that bothers me.

So Clinton would be comfortable being subordinate to a man but not to another woman?

Yeah, not a whiff of sexism there...

by Stroszek on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:33:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

I strongly disagree that her communication skills are poor. I mean, Sebelius was elected and re-elected again to the highest office in Kansas of all places. She offers a different kind of low-key communication skill set that is a nice juxtaposition to Sen. Obama's. She is Ohio-born and raised, Midwestern and plainspoken, not prone to political grandstanding. It is a perceived weakness that I believe would ultimately be a strength, especially when coupled with Obama's soaring speaking ability.

Her SOTU response cannot be the only measure used to judge her rhetorical skills either. And in any event, that speech was directed to the independents and middle of the country, not intended to be a fiery response to move the already-pissed left.

I respect Hillary's supporters (and intelligent progressives in general) enough to have faith that they themselves will recognize not only the need to support a progressive agenda, but to embrace a leader with a stunning resume, ability and long career working towards the same goals, regardless of gender.

Sebelius reminds me so much of Gore '92 in her ability to strengthen the message of the nominee.

I would take issue with Napoloitano on certain grounds (particularly immigration), and would state (sadly) that she won't be nominated to the veep position for the same reason Lindsey Graham and Charlie Crist won't be.

I don't see how Clinton would be Sebelius'"subordinate" on a campaign, first of all, and would further move that we don't share the same respect for Senator Clinton. I believe she would be thrilled to help usher in new leadership in the party. I simply refuse to believe Clinton is, at her core, a selfish human being.

Campaigns are tough and have a way of distorting the immediate reality, but I think we all know that if Clinton herself hadn't run, she still would've enthusiastically offered her support to Obama the same way she and Bill did when Obama ran for the IL Senate.

Obama/Sebelius '08

by evantakesall on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:04:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

We can't predict what the Clinton's will do during the next 5 months. I am just going by what I have seen during the 2000 Gore campaign and the 2004 Kerry campaign. I felt they were given the cold shoulder during those campaigns and our nominees during 2000 and 2004 underestimated the power of the Clintons

The Clinton's definitely endorsed BOTH Gore and Kerry....however....they never really got on board as campaigners. They were pretty much invisible during those campaigns and had little influence on the conventions.

I know the Clinton's are willing to lend a hand.....it is just a question on what strategy Obama wishes to implement.

by newmexicodem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:21:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

To be accurate, Gore deliberately kept the Clintons away from his campaign because he thought that was a smart political move, given Bill's recent "issues."

by ProgressiveDL on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:28:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

another poster spoke about Gore (which was Gore's decision to keep BC away from his campaign)

as far as Kerry goes - YOU DO remember that BC had fucking heart surgery 2 months before the election?

what is wrong with you people?

by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:59:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (1.00 / 1)

Normally, both Clinton's would do anything you asked them to do, not just for the presidential election but for house and senate seats.

But this is different. I don't think Bill Clinton is too eager to help Obama after having the race-card played on him and his wife.

Yes, both campaigns had surrogates say stupid things which they have apologized for. I'm talking about the Obama campaign deliberately playing the race-card on the Clinton's. You can convince people on this site and the general public that the Clinton's were guilty of race-bating, but you won't convince Bill Clinton of that nonsense.

All I can say is good luck to Obama if he doesn't put Hillary on the ticket. She's not just extremely qualified she also delivers red states in the south (Arkansas) and swing states. She's probably the most qualified person period. She's by far the most qualified female.

If she's not on the ticket I will bolt the party. I'm embarrased at the way the Clinton's have been treated.

by mmorang on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:29:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Poor Communication Skills? (none / 0)

about the woman who convinced most of the Republican brass in her state to become Democrats???

trollish much?

His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?

by RisingTide on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:59:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

You tell me why you zeroed out a legitimate comment and I'll remove your zero rating. We're having a discussion here. There are equally strong opinions against Clinton as VP that no one is zeroing out. Remove your troll rating if you want to be treated with respect. Thanks.

by Jeter on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:34:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

Oh... happy days are here again. Snark.

by Demogrunt on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:14:33 PM EST

You keep beating that drum (none / 0)

We get it: you really really really really want Hillary to be veep. Sheesh.

by mikeinsf on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:36:30 PM EST

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

"It's amazing to me, so many people get up in arms about the possibility of Hillary Clinton as VP because she "represents the past," represents "business as usual in Washington" and voted for the war, etc., yet there isn't the same outrage when it comes to John Edwards, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, or Joe Biden's being on Obama's shortlist."

It amazes me that you don't get this. None of the other senators you mention made asinine statements about "the commander in chief threshold" or openly questioned Obama's credentials or ability to win the way Hillary Clinton did. These statements would serve as a constant distraction on the campaign trail.

And Edwards isn't viewed as a Washington insider, despite his term in the senate, I was at first skeptical about him as VP, but was swayed to favor it by a very good series of writings on OpenLeft by Paul Rosenburg.

by ArkansasLib on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:59:52 PM EST

Pro war 2+ term senator? (1.00 / 0)

Someone who voted for the war and has been in the senate longer than Hillary?
No, sexism has nothing to do with it !!!

John McCain says he would stay in Iraq for 100 years? That's crazy talk!

by kosnomore on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:01:04 PM EST

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

The more I think about it, I think Obama's pick has to be a governor, or an outsider (thinking someone like a Wesley Clark).

It really needs to be somebody who doesn't reek of Washington, if Obama's going to continue with his stated goal of changing Washington.

And I'm not any more thrilled about Edwards or Kerry as VP choices than I would be about Hillary. They were terrible candidates for their respective offices in 2004. I'm not sure how much better they would be this time around. And Kerry is yesterday's news even more than Edwards at this point.

by DesertRat on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:05:31 PM EST

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

I think we need to beat the drum for Clark. I'm hoping he's the pick, for many reasons.

by ProgressiveDL on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:29:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

me too, but it ain't happening (none / 0)

His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?

by RisingTide on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:00:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Open To VP After All? (none / 0)

The one name I wonder about, and isn't getting a mention at all is Claire McCaskill. She's been in the Senate about the same length of time as Barack, and frankly, she was his most voca