Kerry or Edwards?

If it came down to a choice between these two for the 08' nomination, who would you choose and why?

in a mili-second. Kerry will be my choice of last resort.

As much as I respect Kerry, he is yesterday.

I somewhat object to referring to possible candidates as if they were the fashion of the day. "Oh, NOBODY would be caught DEAD supporting KERRY. He's so... yesterday."

I financially donated to Kerry and had a Kerry/Edwards yard sign up until six months ago when it fell apart.

He is yesterday.

This early out, no one is dead in the water. I mean, a couple of months before the Iowa primary, Kerry polled below Al Sharpton. I think it would be unwise to count anyone, let alone him, out.

I just know my gut feeling and how others around are viewing Kerry.

I would be honored to have Kerry as the president but he's been marginalized by the press and by his own remarks and actions.

And make no mistake the media will swiftboat ANY candidate we put up.

I know you like Kerry but "bad press" is not something unique to him - the whore press corps is eagerly waiting to tear apart any Democrat who looks like they are going to get the nomination.

'I may've botched a joke, but they (the Admin.) botched a whole war.'
Puts it all in perfect perspective. JK needs to just keep repeating it.

I'd vote for him too...WITHOUT hesitation.

The voting machines, however, need fixed...so the TRUE winner wins THIS time 'round. Kerry is NO 'loser.'

That, if he continues at this rate, he will have eaten himself whole by 2008.

getting equal scrutiny of their word by BushInc as Kerry has gotten the last few years who will have a ratio like that. I doubt you can - they ALL misspeak quite often, especially on the campaign trail.

If you are so fragile that you can't handle a dropped pronoun, maybe you should toughen up - because it will just get MUCH WORSE than a dropped pronoun in a joke for many Dems.

behind him. He has been interviewed -just this past Monday- by the Baker commission and he has been all over the news.He has become a go to person on the Iraq issue and the "joke" is a thing of the past. After all, it was just dirty politics and he never said what was reported. Actually, those I have spoken too, have moved along past this flub and have a more positive view of him.

stickers that I use to replace the older ones on my families cars.

even better equiped to handle to rough spots.

There was a stepladder poll on another site and I placed Kerry above only Mike Gravel. It can't be understated how low Kerry's support would be in the primaries. I just hope he realizes it and stays away.

Edwards was my guy in 2004 but I'm undecided heading toward 2008, after Mark Warner pulled out.

He's an honest advocate of open, reform government, he has a real plan to bring our troops home, and he is committed to tackling health care for all and alternative energy policies. Also, in the intangibles department, I just trust him to always have America's best interests at heart. He has put up with crap from every corner of politics for 40 years because he wants to enact change.

You're a fan of his, so I guess you know more about him than I do. While I certainly agree that he has put up with shit that no one should ever be subjected to, his response is a major reason for my disfavor. Especially the Swift Boat bullshit. He never levelled with us. He never looked us right in the eye and said, "That's patently ridiculous. Those are all lies and I am not going to play that game." He could have been honest with us but he wasn't. Then of course there's the fact that he supported the war. I mean, I was just fourteen when I supported the war; it was inconconcievable that the President could actually lie about something concerning his official duty. I had never heard of the Tonkin Gulf. But Kerry was an adult. He knew exactly how wars worked; he saw it first hand. He knew that any time the government attempts to build up war hysteria they are lying, but he just went along with it. I mean, even if the WH gives you fabricated evidence of WMD, anybody being honest could not in good conscience have voted for that war. The weapons inspectors were in the country and any idiot who paid attention (and I should hope that a Senator would be doing so) could tell that the war was illegitimate. I can't trust somebody that went along with the war like that. As for Edwards, he's a rich lawyer. I just can't trust someone like him either.

:shrug:

He did say it was lies. That's revisionist history. It gained legs because the media made it a "he said/she said" situation instead of honestly reporting that there was no factual basis for the Swifties' claims.

As far as the war, I assume you also have enmity for Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, and every other liberal Democrat who "voted for" Vietnam? Your take on the beginning of the Iraq War is filled with hyperbole and I have a feeling you wouldn't be receptive to an actual point by point breakdown of the timeline or actual causes of the war, so I won't waste my breath.

I enjoy Edwards, and am quite fond of him. But John Kerry is the better candidate of the two.

Kerry, Edwards, Gore, Clark, and several others. We have a great group to choose from.

:popcorn:

to get him out of the hospital. He is rumored NOT to have chosen to concede. He wasn't in the senate long enough to speak senator-ese. That is, the working class can understand him.

He won it consistently in the primaries too. It is complete bullshit that working people don't understand what he's saying. I suspect the people who think that's true haven't had a real conversation with a working person in years, if ever. The recent thread about "acknowledging" service people was quite an eye opener for me. Apparently most DUers don't even KNOW working people, yet pretend to be experts on what working people think. :eyes:

post and if Kerry gets the nomination for 2008, I want you to send it back to me. The 2004 primaries were not so long ago. I swear I believe it was Iowa picking someone and everybody else just went along. I swear I remember it that way.

Maybe with the rules changes, other regions will be able to influence who gets the crown. If, as Kerry primary supporters want to believe, if it were all Kerry, Kerry, Kerry, then nothing will prevent the masses from turning out for him again.

You really believe all these people were too stupid to make up their own minds? You think he won Iowa and then nobody had to do a thing in order for him to continue to win?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/dates/02/03/index.html

I talked to people in 2004, from all over the country. They were voting FOR Kerry. What they choose to do in 2008 will depend on the needs of the country at the time. MO, AZ, ND, NM - just 2 weeks after Iowa and Kerry won them all. What difference would another primary and caucus have made? There wasn't anybody else that offered everything Kerry did and that's why overwhelming numbers of people voted for him. That and people who saw him, LIKED him and told their friends and family they liked him too.

it needs to be fought. He's been dealing with these groups since the late '80s when he started investigating BCCI. He's also been big on controlling nuclear proliferation and loose nukes. We live in a dangerous world and his tenaciousness to fight al Qaeda and all of the splinter groups will save lives. He said in 2004 that sometimes fighting terror will involve military operations, but mostly it is about intelligence gathering and law enforcement. He was right then, and now nearly everyone acknowledges he was right.

Other reasons:

1. He'll get us out of Iraq, but afterwards he won't forget about Iraq. He never forgot about Vietnam, and due to his work with POW/MIAs and bringing about normal relations with Vietnam, the country is doing a WORLD better than it ever was before.

2. He's a pay as you go senator. Either cutting spending or raising taxes he'll be about fiscal sanity.

3. Energy independence -- he'll be aggressive with this and also be able to pursuade with dual arguments -- good for the environment AND national security.

4. His healthcare program -- it will get more people than ever insured by using the EXISTING federal employees program instead of reinventing the wheel. First priority are the children -- 11 million of them are uninsured.

5. His honesty and integrity. I have read about and studied him carefully, and in my view, you don't get much better than Kerry. And off the radar screen, he is very kind and considerate to people, but he does so privately which makes his good deeds that much more praiseworthy.

6. International vision -- tying in with Iraq and fighting terrorism, he has a true internationalist view, but that includes that America is a real leader, and that means leading by example including observing human rights. He believes only in "just wars", which actually must meet certain criteria. He will always use diplomacy before ever taking this nation to war; but he will not flinch from war when it truly is a last resort to protect our national security. His service in Vietnam shows he understands the gravity and responsibility of being this nation's Commander in Chief.


Only thing I have to say about "personality" is that Senator Kerry is very presidential. He would know he has a job to do, he would do it, and he would tell the American people the truth as much as he could on what he was doing. Breath of fresh air that would be.

are phenomenal too. Kerry has spent his life trying to create sanity in the Congress.

none.

Former Senator Edwards is a fine man I am sure, but for me he just isn't what I want in a President of the US.

Aside from all the other reasons I stated in the nearly-identical poll regarding Kerry or Clark, I admire Kerry for generally just being himself. I know there was a lot of pressure for him to photo-op during the 2004 campaign. But in general, he doesn't try to position himself as anything but the person he is. That shows a lot of personal integrity.

I compare this to Edwards, who has a tendency to want to convince people that despite his fortune, he's really just your average suburban middle-class guy. I remember awhile back there was something about them saying that they understand how hard it is to be poor because they were "only" making upper 20K in 1976 or so. The thing is, my dad--teaching English at a junior college in the Midwest at the same time--made about a fourth of that. And our family was definitely lower middle-class, but even then we weren't actually "poor." We had a house (albeit a tiny one) and a car (albeit an old clunker) and I don't recall ever going hungry or lacking in clothes (even if they did come from garage sales and thrift stores.)

But still, with that experience, I tend to react with some suspicion when the Edwards try to empathize with being on the less wealthy side when even back then, they were making enough money to put them in maybe the upper middle class at least. I don't see why they feel the need to posture like this. It makes them look like they lack integrity when they try to come across as something they aren't.

And, to me, experience, good ideas, and integrity are three of the most important elements I want to have in a president. Edwards doesn't have as much experience as Kerry. I won't speak to his ideas, since I haven't studied his statements in-depth. And the integrity issue is where I see the biggest difference. If Edwards isn't comfortable being himself without trying to frame it as something else, how can I trust him to lead the country in a direct and unframed manner?

He seems like a really nice guy, and his wife seems nice, too. I think it's sad that they aren't confident enough in who they are just to embrace it without trying to spin it.

Kerry got my vote the last time. I wanted Edwards, but Kerry had it wrapped up by the time they got to Texas.

I think a Populist like Edwards will do better this time around...

but of the two I'd choose Edwards: Kerry simply does not connect with voters. He is not a compelling campaigner. He has what it takes to be president, but not what it takes to be a candidate.

I've got many reasons for this, from their professed policies to their disgreement over how to handle the stolen election. But one reason stands out, even though it's wrapped up in my reason for not supporting either of them.

They both have offered weak apologies for their support of the Iraq War. The difference is that when Edwards apologizes, he says, "I regret voting for the war." In Kerry's statement, he said he regrets voting for the Iraq War Resolution.

It might be a small detail, but it's a good summary of why Kerry will never have my support again (assuming he doesn't somehow get the nomination): He's still trying to have it both ways. Is he against the war, or just the resolution? And when he cast his yea vote, was did he know he voting to go to war or did he think it was just another random piece of legislation?

Kerry knew exactly what he was doing when he cast that vote: he was giving a sociopathic moron the power to attack another nation. Edwards statements of "I regret voting for the war, and I accept my responsibility for that decision" are barely adequate. Kerry's continued fence-straddling of this issue is inexcusable.