"John Edwards is a devastatingly effective VP"

We are now closer to the general, and we must win the election this fall. Time to rally behind the best ticket, and who the people already know and can get behind...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/0 2/politics/animal/main4147689.shtml

because Edwards said at one point he was not interested in VP, let me put this up, which basically reversed that statment
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15 /john-edwards-open-to-vice_n_101873.html

Mr. Edwards has carefully played down his aspirations for an administration role. In an interview in January, he said he would not accept a vice-presidential spot or Cabinet position. "No, absolutely not," he said, shaking his head emphatically when asked.

But privately, he told aides that he would consider the role of vice president, and favored the position of attorney general, which would appeal to his experience of decades spent in courtrooms as a trial lawyer in North Carolina; and his desire to follow in the footsteps of Robert F. Kennedy, one of his heroes.

EDWARDS WINS ON THE ROAD....SurveyUSA has been putting out an interesting series of Obama-McCain polls where they test possible VP choices. In some ways, the polls were badly done -- what's the point of asking people if they prefer Obama-Sebelius to McCain-Pawlenty in Virginia, where nobody knows who Sebelius or Pawlenty are? It might've been better to test, say, Mark Warner there. (You wanted Jim Webb? He's a good Senator and all, but you really need to read Kathy Geier on this.)

The one thing that the polls do show, though, is that John Edwards is a devastatingly effective VP choice for Obama. He performs equal or better than the other Democrats in their home states and helps Obama beat McCain's VP picks in their home states.

Take Pennsylvania, where Ed Rendell is a popular governor. But against any Republican pairing, an Obama/Edwards ticket does better than Obama/Rendell by 3 to 5 points, and leaves every other pairing far behind. There's no reason to consider Rendell for VP against numbers like this -- John Edwards can beat him in the state he's supposed to secure.

Or take Kansas, where Kathleen Sebelius is popular. An Obama/Edwards ticket does better than Obama/Sebelius against two opponents, while Obama/Sebelius does better than Obama/Edwards against two. There still is good reason to consider Sebelius, in part because her history of converting Republicans would reinforce Obama's message of national unity (which I find annoying, but whatever). But it's pretty impressive that Edwards is neck-and-neck with her on her home turf.

Now some will accuse me of beating the drums on this one, but let's face it, it is not going to be HRC, and the next most popular democratic candidate nationally and especially in red state blue collar states where Obama needs a boost, is John Edwards- heck he even got 7% in West Virginia.

He basically tied Wes Clark in Oklahoma in 2004 (whom I think the Clintons talked into running to blunt John Edwards appeal) and he can pull in more southern voters in states like Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and Mississippi.

As Mudcat Saunders said:

The Reagan Democrats want to come home, they are just dying to come home," he said. "All we just got to get a tent big enough to let them in."

Indeed, with Obama pulling in 95% of the Black vote in the south, and Edwards adding the white working class Reagan democrats, we could bring back into the fold the south, whom Lyndon Johnson knew the Democrats would lose for a generation with the voting rights act.
Well that generation has come today.
Obama-Edwards 2008

Tags: Barack Obama, John Edwards (all tags)



When is the last time

A VP pick made a real difference?

by RandyMI 2008-06-05 12:43PM | 0 recs
Edwards would make up for some of Obama's

inadequacies.. But I don't think Obama would pick Edwards for the same reason he would not pick Hillary, Edwards supports universal healthcare.

However, Obama is not above pretending he might pick Edwards, just as he has misled us on healthcare.

by architek 2008-06-05 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards would make up for some of Obama's

None of the candidates support UHC, unfortunately.

by terra 2008-06-05 01:12PM | 0 recs
We've already seen how Edwards

performas as a VP candidate. Not particularly impressive, IMHO.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-06-05 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: We've already seen how Edwards

actually debating Darth cheney was no easy task, Cheney lied repeatedly during the debate. also, the media froze out Edwards. In the end, Bob Shrum ruined the Kerry Edwards chances by his decision not to attack the swiftboat ads, which was against the advice Edwards gave.

by wade norris 2008-06-05 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: We've already seen how Edwards

I agree that debating Cheney isnt' easy. Still, it didn't make Edwards performance any better. And he didnt help  bring a single electoral vote to the ticker where he would supposedly help us. Add that to his poor primary showing this time out and I just dont' see what he adds.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-06-05 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: We've already seen how Edwards
um, white working class folks in places like West Virginia, where he still got 7% of the vote, even though he was out of the race for MONTHS.
Voters who liked neither Obama or Clinton.
by wade norris 2008-06-05 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: We've already seen how Edwards

Um, ZERO electoral votes in the south last time EDawrds, the "devatatating effective" VP nominee was on the ticket. Plus he won zero primaries this year.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-06-05 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: We've already seen how Edwards
Kerry had no appeal in the south.
I mean, he was quoted at Dartmouth in the summer before the general as saying
"we don't need the south to win"
while that might be true, you don't say that kind of thing.
by wade norris 2008-06-05 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: We've already seen how Edwards

That was stupid (although technically correct, as it is possible) but that larger point is, a VP candidate probably can't do much to bring voters to the ticket taht aren't inclined to vote for the presidential nominee. Obama hasn't got a lot of appeal there outside of African Americans, and that's probably not enough to put the south in play.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-06-05 01:12PM | 0 recs
Re: We've already seen how Edwards

But.... Kerry/Edwards was against Bush/Cheney. Bush had equally great identification among a lot of the voters who like Edwards. Combine that with the dislike a lot of the south had for John Kerry, and it was doomed to fail.

Of course, against John McCain... he has ZERO identification appeal among rural voters. Edwards could help a lot in this count when combined with Obama's equally populist message.

by vcalzone 2008-06-05 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: We've already seen how Edwards

I was originally an Edwards supporter, and I, too, am leery of these numbers. At this point, VP polls are just about name ID.  

Sure, if it's true and if it holds up, then by all means he should be the VP. But if there's so much support for him--enough to pull questionable states firmly into Obama's column--why the heck wasn't he doing better before he dropped out?

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-06-05 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: We've already seen how Edwards

mostly because all the air was sucked out of the room about the historical candidacies of a black man and a woman - way to big a story to cover and it has been shown in projections that if he had stayed in, he would have won some states like Oklahoma for instance.

by wade norris 2008-06-05 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: We've already seen how Edwards

I think his strengths speak to Obama's and also cancel Obama's weaknesses out. Obama's main problem is that people consider him to be inauthentic. Nobody can deny Edwards's street cred, no matter how much they'd like to. In a year where the economy is king, Edwards's poverty platform sounds especially good.

Combine Edwards as Veep with Webb or Biden as a close advisor (much like how Lieberman shadows McCain) and that's a good ticket.

by vcalzone 2008-06-05 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: We've already seen how Edwards

Edwards performance as VP was fine, it was Kerry people didn't get behind.

by vcalzone 2008-06-05 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re: We've already seen how Edwards

This time could be different.  States like Virginia and North Carolina are already in play.  Having Edwards on the ticket might bring in enough votes to actually swing those states to our side.

I do share your concerns about his performance as VP.  The New York Times made it seem like the problem wasn't just Edwards:

John Edwards, accepting his party's nomination for vice president, roused a cheering crowd at the 2004 Democratic convention with the kind of buoyant refrain that had become his trademark: "Hope is on the way."

The next night, wanting to give the American people something more tangible, John Kerry offered his own pledge, one intended as the ticket's new slogan: "Help is on the way."

But Mr. Edwards did not want to say it.

So the running mates set off across the country together with different messages, sometimes delivered at the same rally: Mr. Kerry leading the crowd in chants for "help," Mr. Edwards for "hope." The campaign printed two sets of signs. By November, the disagreement had been so institutionalized that campaign workers handed out fans with both messages, on flip sides.

To the end of their disappointing run, the two men were unable to agree on the script, whether for slogans or more substantive matters. And like so many political marriages, the one between Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards -- Senate colleagues who became rivals then running mates but never really friends -- ended in recrimination and regrets.

Kerry aides complain that Mr. Edwards never stopped running for president -- a Democratic Party official recalled some aides wearing "Edwards for President" pins at a fund-raiser long after they were working for the Kerry-Edwards ticket. Kerry supporters say Mr. Edwards refused to play the traditional vice-presidential role of attack dog even going up against a purebred, Dick Cheney. And Mr. Kerry had barely conceded the race, they say, before Mr. Edwards was aiming for 2008 and embarking on what one campaign aide called the "it wasn't my fault tour" around his home state to distance himself from the loss.

For his part, aides said, Mr. Edwards felt frustrated by Mr. Kerry's public agonizing over the war in Iraq and a campaign that seemed to change consultants and message constantly. To Mr. Edwards, Mr. Kerry seemed unable to get out of his own way. He ignored Mr. Edwards's warning not to go windsurfing, one aide recalled, which led to the infamous "whichever way the wind blows" advertisement mocking Mr. Kerry's statements on the war. And in the end, Mr. Edwards concluded that Mr. Kerry lacked fight for not filing a legal challenge to the election results.

I'm not a big Edwards fan, not by any means of the imagination, but the only thing I care about is winning.  If Edwards is the winning VP, the best choice, then I want him on the ticket.  Winning is the only thing.

by psychodrew 2008-06-05 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: "John Edwards is a devastatingly

Being a JRE supporter, I love the idea of him being VP.

by Spanky 2008-06-05 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: "John Edwards is a devastatingly

I dont have a problem with him as VP. I've got lots for him as a candidate.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-06-05 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: "John Edwards is a devastatingly

yep and he gets the votes where Obama is weak, white blue collar/rural

by wade norris 2008-06-05 12:50PM | 0 recs
Not a good track record

Two strikes already.

by soyousay 2008-06-05 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Not a good track record

he has better name rec than just about anyone else,other than HRC and Obama.

by wade norris 2008-06-05 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Not a good track record


by soyousay 2008-06-05 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Not a good track record

Since you are desperate for Obama to fail, I'd say your negativity is a plus in Edwards' column.

by terra 2008-06-05 01:13PM | 0 recs
He should go for it so I can have a good laugh :D

Great! I'm going to LMFAO if he does...but IMO, he won't. I give more credit to Obama and his campaign than you do.

I'm sure that everyone is sick of hearing the "two Americas" stump speech by now.

by soyousay 2008-06-05 01:22PM | 0 recs
John Edwards has name recognition

so we shouldn't rely too heavily on polls. Whether or not he is effective will be largely due to whether he has grown the spine needed to be a real attack dog. Maybe he has, he certainly was a different campaigner this year than in 2004. But you can't get that sort of info from a poll.

by Lost Thought 2008-06-05 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards has name recognition

Check the poll in Michigan, though. It added Hillary Clinton and Al Gore to the mix. Edwards STILL beat the shit out of all of them.

by vcalzone 2008-06-05 03:19PM | 0 recs

Look, there are any number of combinations that may or may not work.

perhaps Edwards would be a good candidate... hell perhaps Clinton would be a good candidate (I don't think so, but am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt if it was to occur).

But we are too close to the end of the primary proper to begin this in earnest. There is a team set up, we need to let the process play out. Given his actions the last few days I trust Obama is not going to be backed into selecting someone he does not want, so deep breaths.

(and btw, I do think Edwards would be good, I also think Richardson would put TX in play and that is almost worth the price of admission right there)

by notedgeways 2008-06-05 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: "John Edwards

I would be happy to see Edwards on the ticket.  As a true progressive he would appeal to me.  However I don't think he would appeal to many people outside of the group that supports Obama already.  And I think the fact that he was on the losing ticket last time around would be a negative too.

by JustJennifer 2008-06-05 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: "John Edwards
do you think people blame him for the 2004 loss?
I don't
by wade norris 2008-06-05 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: "John Edwards

As a progressive, I like him too.  I'd like him for AG a bit better, just because I don't know enough to know other great, aggressive candidates for AG.  I wouldn't mind Hillary as VP, but I'm pulling for Clark.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-05 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: "John Edwards

You know who Edwards would appeal to? Rural white voters. The very same ones who still voted for him in the WV primary. Not that he'd flip WV, of course.

by vcalzone 2008-06-05 03:20PM | 0 recs
I don't think you should rely on these polls

I think they reflect Edwards' name recognition and some positive residual feelings more than anything else.  In retrospect, I don't feel Edwards added anything to Kerry's ticket, and I don't think he would add that much to this one.  I also don't think he does anything to shore up the perceived weaknesses of Obama.  Obama would be better off with a "stronger" kind of guy like Webb or Wes Clark.

I know Edwards has many supporters, but Edwards also has a way of rubbing many people the wrong way.  There's just something about him (fairly or unfairly) that strikes many as opportunistic and a bit weasely.

by lombard 2008-06-05 01:10PM | 0 recs
I prefer him for Attorney General

I have 3 top choices of my own for VP - not in order of preference:

Sebelius, Clark or Webb.

Sebelius because she is a pro-choice Catholic, and daughter of a respected Ohio Governor, Webb because he can rumble with the best of them and had a son in Iraq, and Clark because he has a solid military background.  

by NeciVelez 2008-06-05 01:22PM | 0 recs

Edwards would compliment Obama in a way similar to Clinton-Gore in 1992 both young, both have different strengths

by rossinatl 2008-06-05 01:24PM | 0 recs
I like Edwards but...

Obama needs someone with military/national security credentials as well as "experience." I think Edwards would be a fantastic leader, but Obama needs someone to fill the perceived gaps.

I've been saying all along, Wesley Clark.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-06-05 01:28PM | 0 recs
Media will love it

If Obama picks someone with military credentials than the media will love it. All of the pundits will say "Of course Obama picked Webb (or Biden, Clark) because obviously he feels National Security is a major weakness of his". This will give the MSM plenty of opportunity to trounce Obama on being inexperience to be Commander in Chief. I guarentee you if Obama picked someone with military credentials we will hear nonstop for days from the media about his inexperience to handle a  terrorist attack, to deal with the Iraq War, etc. Instead of focusing on his weaknesses by selecting a VP to counter it, why not pick a VP who will strengthen Obama's message of change and reform? Running for President is kinda like a job interview. If you want the job, you do not walk into the interview talking about your weaknesses. Instead you talk about your strengths. Obama needs to focus on his strength which is his message and not his weaknesses.

by harmony94 2008-06-05 05:47PM | 0 recs
His wife Elizabeth's health is paramount....

Wade---I recognize your name from Edwards' blog---I was a regular over there and a longtime Edwards supporter...

    I think Edwards is not the best choice for VP mainly because of his wife Elizabeth's health....I realize her cancer is in remission, but I think Edwards at this point is fine cheering on Obama and his veep choice from the sidelines.   Edwards is still in a position to campaign for causes he cares for such as universal health care and anti-poverty initiatives...

    If he takes the veep slot his schedule will be much more demanding and controlled by the powers that be at the Obama campaign...

    Edwards will also be subject to be undermined by remnants of the Kerry candidacy that want to blame him for 2004's defeat (regardless of how true the assessment may be)...

     I think Edwards would be happier and better served hanging in North Carolina with his wife and children and doing what he can to bolster the campaigns of candidates such as Heath Shuler and Larry Kissell and whoever can take on Elizabeth Dole...

     I believe Obama would best be served by a candidate such as James Webb or General Wesley Clark or even Joe Biden (someone with a background in military and foreign affairs)...

     I would be surprised if Obama chooses Hillary for veep despite the Abraham Lincoln/Doris Kearns Goodwin "Team of Rivals" talk a few weeks back...

      If no clear-cut consensus candidate for veep emerges, possibly Edwards should be considered then, but I take Edwards at his word when he says he doesn't want the gig.

by Progressive Populist 2008-06-05 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: "John Edwards

Lincoln never tapped any of his rivals for the presidency to be his VP.  He brought them into his cabinet.  Think Obama is very serious about bringing Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Richardson, etc., into his administration in this capacity.

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-06-05 02:04PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads