State party leaders favor Edwards as VP

8 of 14 party chairs in South want to see Kerry-Edwards ticket

JIM MORRILL

Staff Writer


Democrat John Kerry isn't tipping his hand.

But if Southern party leaders have their way, their presidential nominee would pick former rival John Edwards as his running mate.

"Senator Edwards would be a great choice," says Georgia party chairman Bobby Kahn. "He could help in the South and help mobilize the (party's) base."

A survey of party chairmen in 14 Southern states found strong support for the N.C. Democrat. Eight prefer him. Others like their home-state favorites or say they'll leave the decision to Kerry.

more: http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/8253227.htm?ERIGHTS=-2595610489204123442charlotte::kxc1@sa.psu.edu&KRD_RM=5sltlqlsumlquoonlllllllllo|K|Y

But I know that John Edwards will be Pres one day.

Maybe I'm biased since I am also from the South. :)

The opinion of 8 people out of 14 (6 of them DON'T favor Edwards, btw) means squat.

8 out of 14 is a majority, and a majority in a part of the country where we CAN compete.

If Edwards can only get 57% of the Southern party leaders, how can he fare in the rest of the country?

Fwiw, I know for a fact that the KS superdelegates have lobbied for Clark. Well, as much as "for a fact" as you can without having been in the same room.

But it ain't a popularity contest. Kerry will pick who he thinks helps him best. And we will all learn to live with his decision.

LOL--Remember how Dean asked for a show of hands of all the candidates to indicate that they would support whoever was nominated? 'Course, he was sure it would be himself at that time. But whatever--I wonder if we should do the same here.

I raise my hand. I can't stand Edwards, but if that's who Kerry chooses, I'll support him anyway. Can all you Edwardians say the same?

Another way of playing with numbers is this: everyone else combined (*including* YOUR guy) ONLY got 43%.

Number games are not amusing...

There's still a point that 43% did not prefer him, and that's IN THE SOUTH. That's the point you ignore.

I didn't bring up numbers, but I certainly understand what they mean.

Even fewer Southerners care for Clark.

Just had to throw that in.

On edit: Just b/c they prefer someone else for VP does NOT mean they do not care for Clark.

All I did was point out that 8 out of 14 state chairmen isn't 'squat'. I can't believe that simple comment spawned this many sub-threads... :P

Seems when one of "us" does something like make one of those "off the wall" comments like you are talking about, I always end up defending our guy.

... now you suggest he doesn't.

There is no Clark supporter in thread suggesting otherwise. Personally, I still feel he plays well in the south. HOWEVER, I choose not to argue with those Edwards people who like to pretend he does not.

I don't hate Clark and would hardly make a statement that I can't stand him as you do for Edwards. I think they both add something to the party and they both bring different kinds of voters to the party.
Both inspire their followers and that is a good thing.

That said, I'll vote for Kerry if he makes Clark VP. Actually, given the alternative of Bush for another 4 years...I'ld vote for Kerry with almost anyone as his VP. Except it would be real tough it was Hillary because I would feel that it was all insider deals and the people have no voice in anything.

I just can't understand where the deep-seated loathing for Edwards among a certain segment of Clark supporters originates. I'll vote for Kerry whether he picks Clark, Edwards or someone completely out of left field.

I just thought it was significant that he had a relatively slim majority among southern leadership. Southern being the operative word.

I have already said I will support Kerry whomever he may choose. I personally think his odds of winning go down with Edwards, but that's just my opinion. It won't stop me from supporting him.

But I don't understand why you can't see why some of us feel so strongly against Edwards. We've explained it often enough. You don't have to agree, or you can think that other factors outweigh the reasons for our animosity, but you could at least acknowledge we have a reason for how we feel. Instead, what I mostly see you guys do is write it off to simple jealousy, and that's just not the case.

nm

We have a good chance of taking places like Florida or Arizona... As much as I don't really like Bob Graham, I think someone like him might be the best choice.

Actually, I don't mind Graham. I was impressed with him when I heard him in the debates. I'd just like someone younger. If you go with Graham then you basically saying, "We want FL and the VP will not be running for President in the future"

Arizona I'm not so sure of. Last poll I saw had Bush ahead of Kerry.
That said, my life long Republican parents are friends with the Arizona state party chairman. He said this year he had never seen so many people get out to vote. Said he was excited to see so many young people getting involved.

Some of that I think is thanks to Dean and I think Dean should really be given credit there. Hard to say how Edwards would play there as he didn't spend any time there really.

He & Kerry would be a good team -- the strong veteran president with the face of the future who has the inspirational, hopeful future thing going. I don't care if Edwards can't bring North Carolina, he has appeal to an awful lot of people in many areas, including in my swing state of Ohio. I just saw a list of local contributors to Edwards primary campaign and the number of $2000 contributions was amazing to me.

Don't sell Edwards' strengths short -- people like him everywhere, not just in the South. He's a fresh face that people respond to, and would make a great partner for Kerry, especially when there is such a push on the GOP side to make Kerry into a 19-year senator with no new ideas.

he is weak on defense. Edwards does NOTHING to help him with that. He's a bad choice. Clark is the one who can help with that. If he was having a hard time with domestic issues Edwards would be the guy. Wrong time

The people who might waver between Bush & Kerry do not have national defense as a major issue in my opinion. Bush is going to win those who think national defense is THE issue regardless of what Kerry does, but Kerry is strong enough on his own defense-wise that most people feel comfortable with him.

That saidm the waverers like Edwards and like the fact that he ran a relentlessly positive campaign. It brings him into the process as a future star without black marks against him -- just what Kerry needs.

That's my opinion. I understand those campaigning for Clark as VP, too, but I think his background has a few nicks that would be more strongly brought into the spotlight as VP, such as being relieved of his command basically. The other VP choices I've heard will not excite anyone nationwide & I question whether they can even bring a state along. The only one I see winning a stae for Kerry is Gephardt in Missouri, but then I wonder if he's a drag to the ticket elsewhere. (And don't tell me Ohio and other union states would go for him. There is not nearly as much union here in Ohio as you might think, and it didn't help much in Iowa.)

Clark was NOT relieved of his command. "Basically" or otherwise.

From official DoD records:
Q: This is General Clarke's <sic> last visit to Kosovo today. Any word on how he has performed his job?

Sec Def Bill Cohen: He has done an extraordinary job. General Clarke is one of our most brilliant officers. He undertook a mission that is perhaps one the most complicated and complex and carried it out successfully. As I mentioned in my remarks, this air campaign was the most successful in the history of warfare. We had over 38,000 sorties that were flown. We had only two planes that were shot down and no pilots lost. That is a record that is unparalleled in the history of warfare. So, General Clarke and his entire staff and subordinates and all who participated deserve great credit.

Q: Why is he leaving office, then?

Sec Def.: He is leaving because we have General Ralston who will become the new SACEUR. We are now replacing many of our CINCs throughout the world.

Q: It is not a reflection on his performance?

Sec Def: No reflection at all. He has done an outstanding job as the Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Southern Command, and he did an outstanding job here as EUCOM Commander and also as SACEUR.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2000/t05022000_t501koso.html

They don't award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to someone who's been relieved of command.

http://www.medaloffreedom.com/WesleyClark.htm

Not to mention honarary knighthood in the UK and Netherlands, and all the other awards and decorations. Hell, they don't even let relieved officers have a change of command ceremony.

This is SO a non-issue.

I'm glad he's on our side. But I am thinking ahead to what the attack against him will be -- and you know this will be the center of it. He was asked to retire 3 months early, which means he was basically forced out. Clark was very angry about it -- it wasn't an amicable thing. I don't have anything against Clark, I'm just being realistic. He has a good background in many ways, but that would be the GOP attack point no doubt about it.

But the whole thing was orchestrated by Republican SecDef Bill Cohen and his buddy. I actually think it could be turned into an advantage.

We already have John Shalikashvilli on the Kerry team. He's the guy who got Clark the SACEUR job and his fourth star. Definitely some money to be made here, so to speak, on the perfidity of Repubs, putting partisan politics over supporting the troops in combat.

He should have done more to prevent 9/11, didn't take action when he should have, and didn't do enough to investigate it afterwards. And if it turns out he was so determined to invade Iraq that lied about the WMDs, he'll have to explain why he didn't want to remove Saddam through the "proper" channels. Of course, maybe he WOULD have handled things different if he'd actually completed his service...

:headbang:
rocknation
NYC Peace March Pics

He not only balances Kerry perfectly, he'd have both the right age (Clark would be nearly 70) and the right experience to step into Kerry's shoes in 2012. (That strategy worked for Gore as far as the popular vote went!) Since he's already nationally recognized, he's not dependent upon a hostile mainstream media to be "marketed" to the public. Then if Edwards in turn picks a running who has the characteristics he has now, the White House can stay Dem for ANOTHER eight years!

:headbang:
rocknation
NYC Peace March Pics

from all walks of life. He's also the candidate that the GOP feared most -- he was the *first* Democratic candidate to take hits from the right wing -- more than a year ago.

He has shown time and again in his legal career that he can make a brilliant and convincing case "for," or "against." Turn this power on the public, and stand back.

Edwards must not be sold short. He would be a potent offensive/defensive player, IMO.

I campaigned for Edwards, and it was a great experience. I will support Kerry, no matter, but I think Edwards is the best choice for VP.

Glad ya' found us! :hi:

He might help us lose the south by a narrower margin, but that's probably it.

There are states that are much less 'red' than others, and in those states Edwards could very well help draw enough moderate Republicans and Independents to spell the difference between winning and losing the state. Furthermore, having a fellow Southerner on the ticket who is also a fantastic speaker could help our Senate and House candidates, as well.

Don't be so fast to write off the South...

an unborn child would hurt the Democratic ticket. The corporate media would make this commonly known in the general election and they would use it to ridicule Edwards and the Democratic party.

In 1985, a 31-year-old North Carolina lawyer named John Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl.”

"She speaks to you through me," the lawyer went on in his closing argument. "And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?ex=1390885200&en=4fb97ac07a96f186&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

If Edwards is on the ticket as VP, the Democratic party should just adopt the slogan "Dumb Democrats - we can't even win against a lousy opponent like George Bush."

Anyone who's ever been in a courtroom on a personal-injury/wrongful-death case's closing argument would see that for exactly what it is---theater. Give me a break! Channeling, my Irish ass! :eyes:

describe it and the average voter will NOT vote for this type of guy.

News flash: lots of 'average voters' already DID vote for him. Keep on spouting those RW 'pub talking points, though...:eyes:

I've yet to read an Edwards thread where someone didn't throw out this same argument. Like him or not, Edwards is a major figure in the democratic party right now. Assuming you are a Democrat, it might be time to unite behind our party and stop parroting Republican talking points against our candidates.

It's getting WAY old, isn't it? For several weeks, I have cringed every time I see a thread with VP and either Clark or Edwards b/c I know the slime slinging is about to start - FROM BOTH SIDES, I might add.

I can't agree more. There are some real cool Wes Clark supporters and there are good Edwards supporters.

The point is we should no longer be each others enemies. Primary season is over. Both Edwards and Clark support Kerry.

Clark supporters feel the military/foreign experience is the most important factors in picking a VP.

Edwards supporters feel jobs, economy and personal likability, etc. are important.

Both sides are right...it will be up to Kerry to decide and he could very well not pick either one.

Edwards was big on bringing people together and not tearing anyone one down. And so I totally respect the passion that Clark supporters have for their candidate.

But no matter who Kerry picks for VP, I really hope the skills and abilities that both Clark and Edwards bring to the democratic party are not lost.

Heck...for a time that I wanted a Edwards/Clark ticket. I thought they complimented each other and would have done a killing with the Independent votes and swing Republicans.

So peace...guys...we are not each others enemies here. We are all Democrats and all want the same thing...to get Bush out of the White House and Kerry in.

I find it very unlikely that anything written on this board will have an effect on Kerry's decision. We have no choice but to trust him to make the best possible choice. Tearing down either candidate serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever.

about a million times before the lightbulb goes on.

In which case it just become shrill whining...

We're already fighting an uphill battle. If Edwards is on the ticket, that hill turns into an insurmountable mountain.

You don't and CAN'T know that, unless you have a crystal ball...:eyes:

The majority of Democrats who have voted so far have chosen to trust John Kerry to be the one to win the election and lead this country. If he can be trusted with that, surely he can be trusted to make the best possible selection for his VP running mate.

the Democrats leading us over one cliff after another. The reason this argument constantly appears is because people refuse to accept the obvious - an unborn child channeling personal injury attorney would HURT the ticket (and is a ludicrous idea). In addition, it makes the Democrats look pathetic. If Edwards is a star of the Democratic party, we are in trouble.

As pointed out earlier, he did NOT 'channel' anyone. But keep spoputing the fax-blasted RNC talking points... :eyes:

The democratic party is uniting around a Kerry/Edwards ticket.

look pathetic and clueless on what it takes to actually win an election.

Your opinion is not some great 'universal truth'...

a common sense no brainer.

We agree to disagree.

Are you calling the democratic party stupid?:wtf:

I see that you have to sign up. Would anyone mind sharing the names of the states these leaders are from?

:) Of course, I can only give you the ones quoted in the article.

The Oklahoma party chair wants Edwards because he will help down-ticket and shorten Bush's coattails. The Texas chairman wants Edwards because people are familiar with him and like him. The S.C. chair wants Edwards too, for his vigor.

The Arkansas chair likes Clark, and thinks Clark would bring Arkansas (and I concur). The Florida chairman wants Graham, and the Louisiana chair wants Breaux and Landrieu to be considered. Of course, these guys know that their respective preferred candidates will bring out more people down ticket, so to a degree, they're looking out for many other races in their states.