Why Clark is much stronger for VP than Edwards

This is not an Anti Edwards Post but it is Pro Clark. I actually think that Edwards would be a good choice for the Vice Presidential nomination, it's just that I think Clark is a better choice.

Face it. The Presidential nominee will get the vast majority of all major media coverage. Kerry is the one who will deliver the Party message to the masses. There will be no more dueling stump speeches. It isn't the same running for VP as it is for President, you have to play second fiddle and attack dog as a VP candidate. What Edwards had to offer as a Presidential candidate once isn't as valuable in a potential VP running mate. Edwards would have to tone down some of his "I grew up as the son of a" references. It won't be about Edwards anymore, and how Edwards uniquely feels the pain of the down trodden workers. Kerry has to be the man who best understands America's needs now, the one who feels our pain.

Kerry does not need another U.S. Senator to run with. That would allow the media to research for each and every issue they voted opposite on while in the Senate together. It would be a non ending source of distractions from focusing on the campaigns message. Edwards, for example, would constantly need to retract comments he made about Kerry and free trade, but there would be a dozen other past conflicts dug up from recorded votes as flak to be fended off. Clark had no major disagreements with Kerry, and he has no voting record that contradicts Kerry in any way. That gives Clark clear sailing to stand in for Kerry and fully represent him on the stump.
Aside from Clark the other leading VP candidates all offer classic Democratic arguments on various social woes in more or less compelling voices, but Kerry has his own voice there, and he's the lead vocal, the one who gets the solo. A Governor for VP may offer some Executive heft, and the claim that s/he understands problems being faced on the State level at least. Edwards doesn't offer either.

Here's what Clark can do for Kerry. He can say "I know National Security. I've done National Security all my life. I recognize good National Security when I see it, and I see it in John Kerry." No other potential VP nominee can shore up Kerry in that critical area. If the Repubs attack Kerry for his Anti Viet Nam War organizing, and they will, it would be best if Kerry could mostly stay on message and above it. That's the type of crap that the VP candidate handles. So, who is better positioned to deal with that attack on John Kerry than Wes Clark, eh?

But it goes beyond that. The VP is assigned to solicit support from target groups too narrowly focused, or too small in number, to risk or warrant having the standard bearer exposed to. The VP can also be a scout, testing the waters in various Red States to see if it's worth the effort for Kerry to drop in for a swim. So, how do Clark and Edwards compare? Well, Clark can do veterans any time, anywhere seven days a week. Sure Kerry could also, though he will confront some Republican arranged Jane Fonda fueled ambushes from time to time if he does. But Kerry can't afford to devote so much of his time to one constituency. Not so for the VP. Clark can ace this one, but Edwards can't. How about faith based groups and core Christian populations? Edwards might do fine, but Clark is a master there. I hear Clark talk about religion and I find myself cheering along with the fundamentalist standing next to me. If you knew me you would know how remarkable an achievement that is. Yes Edwards can campaign in the South for the ticket. I give him a draw or even edge over Clark there, but not much of one. Clark has southern roots, and he has his faith and the flag going for him. But Clark also resonated in the South West more so than Edwards, and consistently polled better on the West Coast than Edwards, prior to dropping out. Same for Wisconsin by the way. Same for North Dakota, same for Kansas. Edwards always was more of a regional candidate than Clark. Clark is a more versatile asset to Kerry's campaign.

Remember how Edwards campaigned on being positive? Smart strategy for a Presidential candidate. People like to like their President. But now Kerry is running for President, not Edwards. No one cared if Dick Chaney was an optimist, though people seemed to want to like Shrub. Clark hardly attacked other Democrats for sound reasons, both principled and strategic. But Clark spared no fire for Bush who he essentially accused of being AWOL as President for not preparing our nation for the real threats confronting it, and then leading it against the wrong ones. Clark can go for Bush's throat on the issues Bush wants to run on. Edwards is great on the economy sure, but those are Kerry's lines to deliver now, at least when the media is paying attention. Clark will be on meet the Press shredding Bush's standing as a man this country can trust with our lives.

What else? Oh yeah, electoral votes. Well Clark had been running ahead of Edwards in Florida, but Arkansas is his, and Arkansas is winnable. Clinton likes Clark, remember? I am sure the two of them together can put Arkansas into the Democratic column. I'm not sure Edwards can deliver North Carolina. Or New Mexico, or Arizona. The latter are the type of states Clark plays well in and can give extra time to while Kerry is in Ohio and Michigan. Both Clark and Edwards can make a case for appealing to Republicans and swing voters. Personally I think Clark's case is strongest on a national rather than regional basis. Clark demonstrated his cross over appeal while there were still many candidates in the race. The fact that Edwards showed that cross over appeal in the late primary contests could have indicated anti Kerry votes as much as pro Edwards. Some of my judgment is admittedly based on anecdotal evidence, but mere logic is compelling also. A former Four Star General or a former trial lawyer, I think more moderate Republicans would feel comfortable with a General.

A compelling factor favoring Clark over Edwards for the VP slot is that Clark also pulls strongly from the anti politics as usual, grass roots oriented, anti Iraq war elements of the Democratic Party and Green leaners. This of course is what is remarkable about Clark and why Michael Moore called him "a gift". People trust him across the political spectrum. The activist grass roots movements fell short this year of picking their favored nominees, but they are a vital constituency to get solidly on board for the Fall campaign. Clark helps here more than Edwards.

Then there is the matter of who is currently more qualified to become President, you know, the original reason for having a Vice President. Short answer to that one; Clark. Personally, I think that's an important issue. It actually swings some votes. Not many, but some. There is also the matter of the ongoing working relationship between the President and his Vice President. This is not critical but it is a real plus for it to be positive. All reports seem to indicate better chemistry between Kerry and Clark than Kerry and Edwards.

I will close by leaving the link to the ongoing DU thread that is simply making the case for Clark as VP. This was not meant to distract from that or duplicate all the thoughts expressed there. Many great statements have already been posted there. I thought though that a narrow focus on Clark vs Edwards might be in order. Here's that link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=438865&mesg_id=438865

Except I disagree that Edwards would be a good choice.

i have always been a kerry supporter and i can see the positives in both clark and edwards as vp choices, though they tend to be on different things.

...he can't even talk about foreign policy without reading off of a teleprompte--Hardball interview FP answers were horrible, as was MTP. He doesn't even have the fundamentals down. Hardly ready to be President in a heartbeat in today's world.

I could list tons of reasons why NOT Edwards, but the most simple are above, and below. Can he speak? Yes. Is he good on the stump? Yes. Is he qualified to be President in a heartbeat? Absolutely not.

Furthermore, no way Kerry puts another Senator who has not had executive experience on the ticket (at least Graham was a Governor).

I can guarantee that will not happen.

Great post, Tom! And I appreciate your trying to stay pro-Clark and not anti-Edwards.

But... Aside from my personal feelings that Edwards is not qualified to step in should anything happen to Kerry... and aside from being underimpressed with Edwards' behavior and campaign tactics...

Two senators on the ticket would be a very bad idea, for the very reasons you mention. History is against ONE senator being able to unseat an incumbent president. And it IS hard for any senator to defend his voting record--being in the Senate is all about compromise and working deals to get your highest priorities thru.

Two senators would be a disaster.

Fortunately, I just don't see Kerry picking Edwards. I may end up being surprised, of course. But they just don't seem to mesh well. Doesn't mean it will be Clark, but almost assuredly not Edwards.

If nothing else, his being the media darling will be the kiss of death.

Clark is going to be Sec. of State.

...But Edwards will NOT be VP. Count on it. In fact, I go a step further, I GUARANTEE IT. I have already been told by the official Kerry campaign that it will not happen, even if Bill Clinton himself annoited him.

But I also tend to think that Clark would make one hell of a Secretary of Defense. Especially in Rumsfeld's wake.

There's some law saying military people have to be retired X years prior to being SecDef.

He's not retired long enough from the military.

I hope Kerry's stepson, or whomever, reads this post.

Edwards is a good choice, but Clark is a far better choice. And both of them are far better than all the other options.

I think either Clark or Gep offer the most and are also from battleground states which helps

I think it may have been in LA, he said that no one making under $50,000 would pay any taxes. As I recall that was from one of General Clark's economic proposals in his platform. I don't remember Kerry saying that before. Is that a sign of something to come? Maybe he just adopted it after talks with Clark or maybe the merge has started. Sorry I don't have a link to the Kerry speech.

Kerry has added Wes Clark's volunteer corps to his programs.

This is sort of switching subjects, but I recently heard from a local Kerry coordinator Wes is smokin' everybody but Kerry in raising money for Kerry. I know he brought in twice the prior-year numbers at the Kansas Dem Party dinner last night, and from what I hear, maxed out attendance a $1K/plate fundraiser for Kerry right before. This is KS, which is about as red a state as you can get.

Think how much better he could do as VP designee... and god knows we need money.

I know I was a Clinton supporter. More for being against Bush I and Dole, but nevertheless. I suspect most "Wes Clark Democrats" supported Clinton.

I don't see a downside to California support either.

But he also raised a helluva lot of money in NY and Florida, fwiw. And from what I hear, he's been raising gobs of money for Kerry everywhere he's been.

If there was a regional trend to his fundraising, from CA and the northeast, I suspect that trend also exists for almost every one of the Dem candidates--there IS more money there, and a more politically aware populace. I'd be willing to bet it has been even MORE true for the Kerry and Dean campaigns.

Wonderful! Yes, that's a Wes Clark special. It makes me so happy to know Wes is influential on Kerry's platform. I know they respect and like each other, but this is terrific! :D

Personally I would like to see Edwards as Attorny General.

Absolutely a PERFECT explaination of why Clark should be our VP......Kerry's camp needs to read this.

Security is the number 1 issue I'll go with Clarke; if Jobs is the main issue Gephardt will be my choice.

The NYT did a jobs comparison in late Jan. and declared Clark had the best program. Also, if anyone was listening to Hillary's tech proposals this week, you were hearing Clark's idea to immediately set up a council to review options of where the R & D and muscle of the government for driving new growth in the future tech sector. This is a very "military" appoach to an issue.

IOW, do we let jobs meander their way into the market place, or do we identify, and support desired outcomes from promising techs. I believe as does Hillary and the NYT that the latter makes more sense. If we are to grow new jobs in the country, we will have to think our way out and return to the cutting edge.

Note: Clark's last job...investment banker for EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES.

The military does indeed have a very effective, if somewhat bureaucratic (like every big organization), process for identifying technological needs and directing research and developmental efforts to meet those needs. Not just in weapons hardware, but all manner of support functions from soldier subsistance to battlefield medicine. I saw a lot of it in Clark's policies for both job creation and healthcare. Makes a lot of sense to borrow the process and apply it where the need is greatest.

For whatever good that'll do :)

As usual, Tom Rinaldo, is the most eloquent voice for Wes Clark here at DU.

What I lack in eloquence, I try to make up with enthusiasm.

I will only add that George Bush has announced that he is running as a war time President. There is nothing subtle about this; we can see from his newly released ads, he will run on 9/11, terrorism, war, & fear.

Who better to counter war strategy, than a 4 star General? For Americans worried about security, Clark automatically bolsters the ticket. For those uneasy about the quagmire in Iraq, who better to help solve the problem than a 4 Star General?

Polls have consistently shown Democrats, & John Kerry leading on all domestic issues: jobs, healthcare, economy, education. If the election was based on domestic policy, Kerry wins hands down.

But on foreign policy, national security, terrorism, Bush is ahead by a vast margin in all of the polls I have seen, some by as much as 15%.
Voters automatically give Republicans the edge on this subject, for many reasons which I will not get into. However, this is where the election will be decided. And the only person who can change this outcome as a VP candidate is Wes Clark.

All of the other people mentioned as possible running mates are fine candidates, each with his or her own weaknesses. But all of the voters who like these people are in Kerry's camp already. And not one of these candidates addresses national security.

We need to add people who are on the fence: people who like Kerry, but are afraid the Dems are not up to the job. Moderate Republicans & Independents, who perhaps voted for Bush, but are dissatisfied with his Presidency. Or former Gore supporters, who moved to the Bush column after 9/11, & there are many of them. There are many uneasy people out there, who want to vote for Kerry & Wes Clark gives them the reason to do so.

But don't forget the Nader voters. Exactly how many there are who knows for sure, 1%, 2%, 3%? I think Clark could be attractive to some of these folks because of his outsider image. But, you are right on target as is Tom on the strongest advantages that Clark brings to the ticket.

Kerry shouldn't unseat sitting Dem for VP.

Kerry needs Democrat support wherever it is. He mustn't remove a sympathetic Demo like Clinton from a state where a Repub will appoint a Rebub.

Democrats always do well with female voters. I guess it's another instance of blinded by the stars, but Clark runs strong among men. With their security fears addressed by a Kerry/Clark ticket, there is no reason to think Democrats will have any trouble locking up most of the "Soccer Moms". Republicans count on winning the male vote to offset that traditional Democrat favoring gender gap. Clark is a perfect counter.

A Kerry/Edwards ticket is the strongest.

Any links to support that?

At any rate, the Kerry campaign will certainly be conducting many polls to help determine VP choice.

That said, I've been a Clark supporter since July (only recently changed my avatar), but believe he'd best serve as Sec'y of State. It would make sense for Kerry to announce this around the same time he announces his VP choice.

Give them media and the people will follow. That sounds cynical I know, but it explains a lot of it. Look, I am saying nothing bad about Edwards, but the point is no one else is either. So why wouldn't the public think that a Kerry/Edwards ticket sounds good? They saw all of his free positive press. Edwards was the one left in the media spotlight as Kerry's major opponent after Clark withdrew (actually he was given that spotlight non stop after Iowa). Remember Bush got a big lift from the positive publicity after he delivered Turkeys to Iraq also.

People want a winning ticket. They see Edwards smiling on TV. They see pundits talking up Edwards for VP on TV, saying nice things about him. Then they get asked by a pollster which ticket do you prefer, and they say Kerry/Edwards. I don't blame them, but that doesn't carry much weight with me. Sure, it means Edwards should receive serious consideration. I agree with that. Polls, barring damaging disclosures, are driven by media coverage and positive name recognition. Both those factors will be altered forever once Kerry actually announces a choice.

The first time I saw a sort of veiled attack on Edwards, was like a couple weeks ago, Tucker Carlson on CNN said something like:

...When people take a closer look at him they may not like everything they see either...

That was the only negative thing I had heard about Edwards in the major media in like 4 months or more. Then right before Super Tuesday like the weekend before the vote, I saw articles and heard coverage about his weakness on National Security, Foreign Policy.

However, your point is intact becuase there is no doubt that the negative angle of the Edwards story had very minimal coverage relative to the other candidates in my opinion.

The Edwards people have their own posts, thoughts, threads, & I don't troll there & post negatives. And neither do my fellow Clarkies.

We are trying to have a serious discussion, so please respect that & post where you can make a POSITIVE contribution.

:shrug:

I was just trying to make a point.

But MATTMAN, be honest. You love to jump in on every Clark thread & advocate for Edwards. And you have been negative at times.

So I withdraw my negative remark, if you would just be a little more sensitive.

Yeah I have been negative at times. And I don't go around posting negative comments in every Clark thread.

I know you don't do it in every thread.

I applaud your enthusiasm! You're quite young, aren't you?

How come everybody knows that I am a teenager?

that feels. Me, I think some people suspect you are young (though you could be older than I am for all I know--there are some people like that, you know) because you seem to think things through logically but remain open to argument.

Most people, as they get older, get more dogmatic and more open to argue things but less open to logic, if you catch my drift.

Like one comedian says, I've never been in doubt, but I have been in error.

However, I disagree with your repeated posts regarding Clark and if we meet I may just pummel you with my walker! Free speech be damned!









(I was kidding about that, by the way. I don't use a walker. :^) )

I guess it is the gangsta pics in my sig lines that has everybody thinking I am young.

I have a son, & he has really strong opinions too.

When I was your age, I was very idealistic about politics. After many disappointments, I've become more pragmatic.

But Wes Clark has brought back my idealism, & that's why I feel so strongly about him. I think also, it's because he's not a professional, so he seems more honest & real, mistakes & all.

I feel the same way about Edwards considering he is from my state.

I know there is more that I should know about Edwards, and had Clark not been in the race I might have looked closer at him. I suspect there may be the potential of greatness in Edwards, but I worry a bit that he may be a very skilled salesman, and I don't know enough about the specifics of how he would bring positive changes in the areas of his stated concerns. Anyway, one way or another I am sure Edwards has a bright future in the Democratic Party. But my reasons for thinking Clark is a better VP pick now still hold lol.

Carolina is at Duke today! Final game of the ACC.

Nothing better than Tobacco Road Basketball!!!

I am a big UNC fan!!!

You sure do live a long way from the riverly.

It figures you're a UNC fan.

I'm a Dukie fan.

Go Blue Devils!

Peace MATTMAN! Stay involved! Stay enthusiastic!

:hi:

thats a politics junkie and into Tobacco Road Basketball. :shrug:

they broke the mold I am sure :D

Many other interesting facets of myself to be revealed at a later time!

:D

& some are worth Ignore only!

Edwards has been a life time democrat, has Wes Clark? and this is going to be thought about as it was in primaries>

...last month, it was entirely different. The media has been beating that drum for three weeks, so the public answered according to the media attention. They always do.

Look at the history, see what you find.

The Democratic Party, however, knows better than to allow 2 senators on a ticket. It will not work, it will not happen, and I know for a fact that Edwards will not be chosen. It is time to stop arguing and defending for something that is guaranteed NOT to happen.

Kerry/Clark Vs. Bush/Cheney ?

Without that poll...how do you know Edwards is the strongest? Seems to me the Corp/Media put out the Edwards poll trying to push Edwards. I don't recall them ever asking about Clark. Without a comparison poll...that poll means nothing. Sorry to burst the bubble you're trying to hang on to. Don't fall and hurt yourself on the way down. I might be tempted to :cry: and kiss your Bo-B0...but I doubt it. Horrors! I think you are going to need a couple boxes of bandades...get out and do some shopping and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

would actually have very little meaning at this point. It might well suggest that Kerry/Edwards was a stronger ticket than Kerry/Clark, but that would still be a reflection of the differential media attention and not of the true strength of the respective tickets.

once the repubs and the media get through eviscerating that ticket?

I believe that a Kerry/Clark ticket would be much more resilient than a Kerry/Edwards one in the kind of environment that the Dems will be operating in.

I'm persuaded.

but I have a gut feeling Kerry will pick someone like Nelson

If so I hope he would appoint Clark for SOS

Did your Clark Bar t-shirt ever come?

I just don't think either of them will be picked...

but all things being equal between Edwards and Clark, I would prefer Clark because it doesn't take a dem out of the senate. oops I didnt mean to reply specifically to your post.

Erskine Bowles is running for his seat.

He's way too young to retire. What is he going to do?

Start running for President in 2008 if Kerry loses.

Edwards is not running for reelection to the Senate, so in his case it doesn't matter either way. Actually it might help the Democrats retain that seat if Edwards were on the national ticket. I doubt it would make much difference though.

And look good in the process, which is unfortunately very important in this era of "telegenic" necessity.

Mary Landreau.

She is a formidible campaigner with all of the fire and passion that is needed. She is both palin and well spoken and as of 2002, she has nothing but contempt for Bush and his pirates.

I also think that she would do more to marginalize Bush in the South than would either Wesley or John Edwards and I think both of them are fine men with bright, bright futures in Democratic politics.

but we need to keep her in the Senate.

Also, (see my post above) this campaign will be about war, terror, national security. I don't think that Landrieu is on Armed Services.
The 2 females in the Senate who know their stuff on military, security, terror, are Diane Feinstein & Olympia Snowe.

And she can campaign for Kerry and bring in those southern votes.
I think she is too conservative for many Northern liberals et al. Clark can draw from all 48 states...Conservative and Liberal. All except the right of center Right and the far far Left. IMHO

Frankly, I don't think Edwards would carry any states for the ticket. If he can't get his home state (NC) then forget about it.

The crucial state is Ohio and I don't see any VP candidate (Clark, Edwards, or anybody else) that can help there for sure. Kerry will have to win Ohio on his own and I think he can. So lets go with Clark and trump the national security card that Rove is playing.

If it's Kerry/Clark I think the Dems win easily.

If it's Kerry/Edwards the voting record thing will get in the way. It'll make it to easy for Rove to attack.

Especially after the ground Zero coronation.

A Sunday kick in anticipation...

in my area its on at 11:30.

You must be listening to Incap again. :P

Clarkies deprived of intelligent political discourse can be dangerous things, we're starting to turn on each other! LOL

;)

She's my girl! :D

This waiting is stressing our limits.

Edwards can offer no electorial help in the south so there is no point in turning to him. Clark offers no electorial help anywhere, he has no constituancy beyond a generous nod to Oklahoma which could go equally to Edwards, and brings nothing necessary to the ticket.

No former candidate is beneficial to the ticket.

That's NOTHING? Where have you been?

BTW, there have 6 explosions in the Green Zone this morning. And yes, this does have plenty to do with who is on the bottom of the Democratic ticket. My post at first glance would seem to have little to do with the strategy guiding the VP pick, but I believe it underscores why Clark is bringing the cash, resonates with voters from all sectors, and will complete the Mission:

I began the journey:

thinking I'd gone crazy, but willing to look at a general if it meant getting national security issues off of bush's table. Pragmatic and clear eyed I looked at a general. Until.....I think it was the May MTP....or maybe when I finally sprung for "Waging Modern Wars"....or maybe I'll never be sure.

I do know that my "Founder of the Draft" pin is precious to me. And I do know that I would do it all over again, because the more I listened, the more I wanted to live in Wesley Clark's vision for America. Call me a policy wonk, but on issue after issue after issue, Clark called on America to live up to her promise. It totally blew me away; awakened the kid in me who believed in that civics text; and dispelled the cynical ghosts who took up residency in a young girl's soul at Kent State. Ironic.

Clark speaks to us of a better America, because he holds fast to its philosophical underpinnings.

I've seen Clark up close, I've seen Clark do a traditional speech with Q & A. Great and brilliant. But it was the performance at Pembrooke that was breath-taking. It was in the round...and he was a panther. Athletic and balanced. To begin, he was talking and waving his arm and thanking all of the great Democrats on the stage with him, and then he just stopped and bringing the mic close with both hands, tilted his head and smiled at us said: "and they agree with me." The roar went up and up. After that he just moved, counting the points with his arm in the air and briefing us on where we are and where we could be. The applause became a series of waves crashing against the panther-dancer who led us in a charge to change. I would go there all over again.

Clark has no idea where he will play his next role. He sees like a seer how far we have strayed from our guiding principles, how hard it will be to return to our roots in the Enlightenment, but he knows what the first step must be. Get George W. Bush out of the White House. When he tells us to work towards that goal with every fiber in our being, he is telling us what his mission is. And from here on out it is Mission...Mission...Mission. The Democracy is in grave danger.

We are really in trouble, and it is really that bad

Wes Clark is the one who motivated me more than any politician in my lifetime.

First, let me say I appreciate the tone of your argument. There really is no need for all the bitterness between the Clark and Edwards supporters. These are both very good men with a lot to offer the party. Thanks for acknowledging the merits of both men.

That being said, let me expalin why I still think Edwards is a bbetter choice than Clark for VP.

1.) The main line of attack against Kerry will be that he's a flip-flopper who panders to rather than leads public opinion. Credibility is Kerry's main vulnerablity on defense. Clark's stance against the Iraq War and insistance that it was a strategic mistake, will make it even more difficult for Kerry to defend his own "nuanced" position that he was right to authorize the use of force but Bush executed it badly. (I agree with Clark on this one.)

Furthermore, one of the reasons Clark lost his front-runner status is that he is new to politics and has a tendency to make gaffs that need to be retracted later. The inconsistent statements he has made on the campaign trail will acheive a kind of synergy with Kerry's voting record to further damage Kerry's credibility. This could hurt us with swing voters in many battleground states.

Clark also brings some negatives with him. His tenure at NATO was very contreversial and he was ultimately fired. He made quite a few enemies in the military. I'm not saying this is because he did anything wrong-I think he just wrankled the good old boy network.

Ultimatley, I think Edwards has more message discipline than Clark because of his experience as a politician and as an attorney. His positions on Iraq are consistent with Kerry's and his votes are identical. We need this in a campaign where the slightest mistakes in language or position can cause irreperable damage.

2.) Edwards is probably the most effective attack dog Democrats have. His bite is worse than his bark. Attacks done clumsily hurt us more than they helps us. If we overstate something or use the wrong language in our attacks, we let Bush/Cheney off the hook and and up back on the defensive. From his experience as a trial lawyer Edwards knows how to attack a defendant's credibility without damaging his own in the process.

3.)I think Edwards can still use his life story effectively. He can talk about growing up in a mill town and about working with Kerry for 5 years in the Senate and being on the campaign trail with him when the chips were down. He can use his credibility with the working class to vouch for Kerry, saying he knows Kerry personally and that Kerry is a fighter who will fight hard for working Americans.

4.) Edwards has demonstrated appeal during the primary process to Independents and Moderate Republicans in the Midwest. Edwards and Kerry were each beating Bush by about 10 points in national polls. This wouldn't be the case if voters didn't think Edwards could do the job of President.