Edwards tops CBS poll for VP

#2 is Clark.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/26/politics/main502099.shtml?cmp=EM8706

really

...and both would "balance" the ticket.

Edwards, if he doesn't get the nod would make a great Attorney General.

Clark, if he doesn't get it, would be a shoo-in as Secretary of Defense.

He hasn't been out of uniform long enough.

And every poll (except here at DU, LOL) shows voters WANT Edwards on the ticket. I hope Clark has an important position such as SOS, NSA, or something to advise Kerry on Iraq.

Kerry/Edwards '04. And beyond...

Why on earth? He's not a better speaker, he's not more appealing to crossovers or even as appealing to the base, he makes mistakes that he has to retract and he has far less political or related experience.

Clark entered the race with much fanfare, media help and money, and he fell steadily. Edwards was always the marginalized pretty-boy nobody who grew and grew and grew. Literally, Edwards was the only candidate whose standings improved during the race.

The free-fire world of lawyering is a much better school for politics than the hierarchical world of the military.

Edwards is free of corporatist entanglements and has a fabulous record of being helpful to working people, as well as having a voting record to prove it; Clark is part of the corporatist world.

Edwards has raw charisma that wipes Clark off the map. Clark is appealing when hammering Junior on foreign policy failures, but still comes off as somewhat passive (as does Kerry) whereas Edwards is dynamic. Edwards is a fabulous speaker; Carville says that he's the best stump-speaker he's ever seen run for President. The face of positive energy is overwhelmingly appealing.

Yeah, I'm an Edwards partisan, but I don't see the big deal about Clark and haven't since the beginning. To me, he's a useful player and force for the future, but while Edwards may be a bit green, Clark is bright green. The contrast between each and Kerry is much more advantageous for symbiosis with Edwards, too.

I just don't get it, and many others don't either.

Edwards has next to nothing in his resume or any pertinent talent that recommends him for VP.

The main thing Edwards has going for him as a practically empty suit is he'd be the perfect vessel from Shrum's rhetoric.

My first choice is now Clark, given what's transpiring in the ME, but Edwards would make a great ticket with Kerry at the top.

and talking head Bush supporters have been talking Edwards up - surprise, surprise Edwards tops CBS poll for VP. Hmmm, maybe we should stop and question why these people are pushing so hard for Edwards.

http://www.newsobserver.com/election2004/story/3576707p-3178849c.html

And Edwards is winning EVERY poll for VP, and, most importantly, the exit polls of Democratic primary voters, with around 40% favoring him (even over home-state potentials like Graham and Nelson in FL and Landrieu in LA).

If you want to make an argument that Democrats who show up to vote in the Democratic primaries are really Bush supporters, I've got to ask, who are you channeling?

They were...

In Tennessee, 72 percent of Edwards' votes came from people who ADMITTED they were enthusiastic or very supportive of the Bush Administration. These are people who voted to f*ck with the Democratic primary, not crossover voters. They WILL NOT vote for a Dem. in the fall.

It's not "channelling," it's just the fine experience of living in the open-primary South.

and Republicans.

That's a GOOD thing.

And have you seen the primary results? Edwards came in second. He's gotten something like 3,000,000 votes to Kerry's 8 million (and nobody else is much higher than 1 million).

He's not coming in second because a lot of RW'ers are trying to get him the nomination, and if they are, they're stupid, because according to that informed voter study from Stanford/UTexas, he did the best in a head to head with Bush.

I'd love to see a list of the information provided to the participants. If they were truly informed there is no way Edwards, a personal injury attorney with his type of record would do best in a head to head with Bush.

you don't know much about the South.

when he was left standing with Kerry.

Edwards didn't have the guts, brains or talent to figure out how to stick to his Protectionist rhetoric.

It was pathetic... Edwards bascially endorsed NAFTA... just like KErry.

AND HE IS PERFECTLY HAPPY LINKING 9/11 AND IRAQ INVASION.

I've looked at those exit polls time and time again. The fact of the matter of the Republicans who voted and that was only 5% of the vote, Clark got 30% and Edwards got 26%. Of the independents, 20% of the total vote Clark got 25% and Edwards 32%.

The very conservative vote went to Clark, but those who were enthusiastic about Bush, only 3% of the total went to Edwards.

On issues,38% cared about Jobs, and 32% about Education.

The bit swing happened in the last 3 days when there was a big swing in Edwards favor and 31% turned to Edwards and 19% to Clark.

I've talked to my Republican friends from Washington State, AZ and IL and everyone that I talked to liked Edwards and supported him and wished he was picked. Many of them are the McCain like Republicans who are also fiscal conservatives and liked Edwards economy views.

Another point is that you should look at some of the on-line polls. Like the MS NBC poll. Edwards wins because he gets cross line support. Look at the results of Edwards/Graham. Clark supporters here all voting for Graham over Edwards but Edwards came out at 90% compared to 10% Graham.

Edwards will help Kerry to pull in many moderate votes. You might not like him, but I'm tired of hearing this conspiracy about how the Republicans want Edwards so Kerry will loose.

Kerry will pick who he wants and not the Republicans. The fact is that the democrats picked Kerry and not Edwards or Clark and Edwards and Clark were fighting for the same voting group and hurt each other.

Now we need to pick who will be best and either one...Clark or Edwards would help Kerry.

conservative talk radio have been pushing Edwards for ages so these polls mean NOTHING. The question is why are they pushing so hard for Edwards? A 20 minute google search should give you the answer.

To have Bush supporters influence the polls and then turn around and use these same polls to support Edwards as VP is ridiculous.

if you're going to continue to repeat it.

However, that you don't is pretty good evidence of the lameness of this argument.

Though the list is much more extensive than these few items. I'm compiling a longer list tomorrow.

1. Edwards channeling of an unborn child. He's either a kook or he lied to the jury in his closing arguments. Once this is common knowledge, there is no way in *ell that people will vote for this guy. "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=139 ... .

2. Rabin who? One evening while he was campaigning for the Senate in North Carolina, Edwards was faced with a choice of several events he might attend. An advance man suggested, 'Maybe we ought to go to the reception for Leah Rabin.' Edwards responded, 'Who's she?' 'Yitzhak Rabin's widow,' replied the aide. 'Who was he?' asked Edwards" (Charles Peters, Washington Monthly, June 2003). Wow a Democrat that actually makes Bush look intelligent. I never would have thunk it.

3. Phony populist. "Over time, Mr. Edwards became quite selective about cases. Liability had to be clear, his competitors and opponents say, and the potential award had to be large.
"He took only those cases that were catastrophic, that would really capture a jury's imagination," Mr. Wells, a defense lawyer, said. "He paints himself as a person who was serving the interests of the downtrodden, the widows and the little children. Actually, he was after the cases with the highest verdict potential. John would probably admit that on cross-examination." Plus check out his senate record and the fact that he did zero (yes zero) pro bono work. Wow what a defender of the little guy. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5007&en=4fb97ac07a96f186&ex=1390885200&partner=USERLAND
On edit: It is really stupid to try to paint yourself as a defender of the poor and downtrodden when your record can't hold up to scrutiny,

4. Campaign funding raising scandal. "Several newspapers have reported that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has begun a criminal investigation into donations to the Edwards campaign from an Arkansas personal injury law firm. Michelle Abu-Halmeh, a legal assistant at Turner & Associates, told The Washington Post last month that she expected to be reimbursed by her boss for her $2,000 contribution." http://www.hillnews.com/news/050703/edwards.aspx

5. His lack of national defense/foreign policy credentials.

It's one thing to keep posting that SOS over and over again.

It's another thing to actually engage in a discussion about those issues.

You'd think that when you lose an argument, you'd at least want to retool what you're saying so that you can make your points better.

With you, you just post the same thing every once in a while, get shot down. You lay low, and then just repost that same stuff again.

I got all the old threads bookmarked, so if you want to break it down, we can go round and round again, but we both know where it's going to end.

in order to make a point when talking politics. As far as your rebuttals, I think I'd go back and work on them. I don't think they will convince voters anymore than they convinced me.
Though I have to admit your response to the channeling of an unborn child did provide me with a chuckle.

...arguments.

I presume you're saying you were amused when I asked who the hell you were channeling?

good. Since I think your rebuttals are extremely weak, I guess we should just agree to disagree.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I didn't have to visit the RNC page to come up with these "talking points." It doesn't take a genius to figure out the points that the Republicans will hammer home in order to bring down the Democratic ticket.

Your guy isn't 10 feet tall and Teflon-coated, either, and only a naive person would think that the RNC isn't going to try and smear ANY VP nominee. You may not see it, but your guy is EXTREMELY vulnerable, too.

The obvious point, however, is that all of these so-called 'vulnerabilities' have already been subjected to the keenest GOP scrutiny in Sen. Edwards' initial run for the US Senate seat he now holds; they were phony THEN, and they're phony NOW.

BINGO! :thumbsup:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

There are still people here who:
A.) Think Clark is a lifelong Republican, when he was never registered as one.
B.) Don't look at all the CNN exit polls and only cherry pick from those not in the heartland of conservatism (or listen to those of us who actually LIVE in the heartland of conservatism and know what was being done and said).
C.) Cannot understand the reasons why a Clark supporter would vote for Graham over Edwards in the CNN Veepstakes (it's the FP gravitas, stupid!)
And,
D.) Won't accept that Edwards got a free ride in the media during the primaries.

I'm sorry, but "son of a mill worker" a million times isn't good campaigning and, when I was a reporter (and I was), I would have called him on it.

Her 'channeling' gig is a running joke here. She's a one-song band, and she knows damned well it was nothing more than courtroom theatrics, yet she ENDLESSLY posts that shit here time and again, as though it was from God's mouth to her god-damned keyboard.

Well, speaking of calling people on things, Scoopie, I'm about ready to call HER on something...

I don't remember who explained it in detail. I meant to bookmark the post. It becomes both a broken record and a joke to report it over and over again.

As an Edwards supporters...

a. I don't think Clark was a life long Republican and I haven't heard that brought up except by you now. I think that is past history.

b. I do look at CNN exit polls and I have provided you the stats above. The fact is the Clark got more of the Republican votes then Edwards, but Edwards who won more of the Independents. The issues that were important to these voters were not National Security or the War, but Jobs and Education. The other leaning factor was that those who decided within the 3 days went heavy to Edwards over Clark. 31% to 19%. But again, I ask, what is the point of bringing this up? The primaries are over. Who cares any more. The fact is that both Edwards and Clark can attract the Independents and Swing Republicans that we need to win this year. That is why I favor either one of them.

c. Your reason was very clear. Though I again would say that I found it interesting that even with Clark supporters voting for Graham that Edwards won 90% to 10%. Maybe again this shows issues that are most important or even the impact of Dean supporters. My view against Graham is as an long time insider of the Democratic party, we will loose the Independents and Swing Republicans. Plus, I don't see the Dean crowd warming up to him. Many of them have expressed support for Edwards...see the Daily Kos site, which is full of Dean supporters.

D. I'm not sure what you are talking about as a free ride. What were you looking for? Edwards stuck to his theme. He is the son of a mill worker. He was using this as a contrast to Bush, the son of a President and he used this to connect to people. It worked. He might not speak to what you believe to be important, but he does speak to many people.

I have great respect for Clark and I would be happy for him as VP, but I still believe he would better in the Secretary of State position were he can fully use the skills that he has instead of stuck in the VP position which would not allow him to fully use those skills.

It is your right to believe that Foreign policy experience is the only thing that matters in a VP. but I fear that you are the minority.

Also, Clark himself has stated that he has no interest in the VP position.

The channeling of an unborn child is the equivalent of Deans scream and moonie chanting. They won't sell in the general election and NO amount of explanation is going to make them go away.

Anyone who's ever been to a jury trial will recognize a closing statement for what it is--- a good piece of courtroom theater! The obsession some few people have with this non-issue, combined with their insistence on distorting it, certainly calls their motivation for re-posting it ad nauseum into question.

I prefer 'horseshit' myself. :P

because they bought into the media hype about Edwards (besides the talking tv heads, conservative radio was going nuts talking Edwards up). Since then they've learned more about Edwards and are appalled at the idea of a Kerry/Edwards ticket. As far as channeling goes I'll leave that to John Edwards and John Edward of Crossing Over Fame.

Edwards last year, he'd probably be the nominee.

There was a study from last December which broke down coverage of the candidates into at least 5 categories. Dean got more coverage in ALL 5 categories (personality, biography, policies, general, etc) than Edwards got in ANY category (and the one category that got coverage was personality).

Furthermore, Dean got more coverage than all the other candidates combined.

We learned in WI (and from the Stanford/UT study) that it was Edwards's policies (on the value of American labor) which really got him moving up the polls.

So, how in the world was Edwards was going to move up to the top if the media was avoiding discussing the thing about him that was proving to be the most important aspect of his political persona?

The problem is once they are through exposing Edwards channeling of an unborn child and phony image potential voters won't believe that Edwards is at all committed to his espoused policies. Unfortunately, what flies with a jury won't fly with voters once Rove and the corporate media are finished debunking the facade Edwards has created.

I think voters probably realized that there was a pretty coherent combination of policy, messenger, biography, and experience.

When Edwards argued about the tax code and the direction wealth and power were flowing and then people looked at where he came from (all he had to sell was his talent and labor) and what he did with his life (working on returning power to the people from whom negligent corporations took power), voters probably felt pretty confident that his conviction was genuine.

Thank God they didn't.

Can't get anything past you, skwmom.

I know someone who was a Clark supporter during the early stages of the primary, and who has since switched sides precisely because of the Republican propoganda you and others (but mostly you) have been parroting here: me.

How's that for anecdotal evidence?

Maybe they're reporting what people THINK, ffs! :eyes:

Shockingly apparent example above. Polls show Edwards at the top; the polls are thus unreliable, the poster argues, because they come from the "media."

If CBS is so pro-Bush, why were they the ones to first publish the photos? Why did they interview Clarke to promote his book attacking the President as "terrible on the war on terrorism?" Why did they interview Woodward to promote his book which alleges Bush engaged in unconstitutional activity? Why did they interview O'Neill to promote his book bashing Bush as an imbecile? We aren't talking about NBC or Faux, which have a long track record of pro-Bush propoganda. This is CBS.

But with the victim of cognitive dissonance, facts do not matter as long as some excuse can be evented to avoid accepting as truth that one clear truth. You see the same sort of thing with Bush supporters. They hear that Bush is "terrible for the war on terrorism;" they attack the messenger as an opportunist and someone upset because his position was demoted. They hear that there are photos of our soldiers committing atrocities in Iraq; they get mad at the person who took the photos. On CNN last night, you can hear some woman call in to King and suggest that the photos must have been taken and published by one of our enemies (presumably the French).

Why did they cave to the right and not show the moveon.org ad during the Superbowl (but aired a pro-Bush ad)?

I only said that CBS is not pro-Bush. Thus, I truly have no need to prove every action they've taken is to thwart the Bush Administration; rather the burden is on those Clarkies that allege that CBS released this poll to help Bush because Bush would want Edwards as the VP choice. That really sounds stupid when you look at it objectively, but there is apparently a large contingent here who believes it.

I won't defend CBS on either of those decisions, because I vehemently disagreed with both, but by themselves they certainly don't prove anything.

Let's analyze your line of reasoning:

Contention #1: CBS is actively scheming to install Bush for a second term.

Criticism: According to Clarkies, we know this because, notwithstanding their active criticism of the Bush Administration on 60 minutes and their regular news programs, they've done two small, isolated things which may have incidentally helped the Bush Administration (although I can't really see how the Reagan program would).

Contention #2: Edwards is a weak Vice Presidential choice.

Criticism: There is no evidence to support this contention, and it appears contrary to every single scientific poll released on the subject, by CBS or any other polling organization, including the exit pollsters on Super Tuesday.

THEREFORE, CBS's poll which shows that Edwards is the favorite choice of Democrats nation-wide is not only inaccurate, it was also released in an effort to get Edwards the Vice Presidential nomination, which presumably would help Bush (although Clarkies cannot point out how).

Please step back and consider how schizophrenic that sounds; then consider how simply inaccurate it is. Come on! For the sake of your own sanity, please step back and review all that!

BTW, for the sake of honesty, no pro-Bush ads were aired during the Super Bowl. There were government-paid ads, but they did not necessarily sing the praises of the Bush Administration.

How are your two contentions my line of reasoning? It's a straw man argument. I was responding to your contention that CBS was above pro-Bush propaganda. They're not. For the record, I don't agree that it's a fake poll.

For the sake of honesty, the government-paid ad sang the praises of the medicare legislation, which the administration supported.

By the way, you should call them "Clark supporters," just out of courtesy.

I never said that CBS was above pro-Bush propoganda, and even if I did none of your evidence (you should see) would even dispute THAT point. I said that this one SCIENTIFIC poll is not an example of pro-Bush propoganda.

You defended a person who made such a claim; I thought it safe to assume that you adopted his/her position by attacking the point that CBS is not the Fox News Channel. Otherwise, it seemed moot for you to even jump in the debate. But if that is an inaccurate characterization of your beliefs, I must praise you for being one of only a handful of sane "Clark supporters" and apologize for lumping you with that looney group.

1. The people being polled about Edwards know very little about the man. Of course that will change once Rove and the corporate media/Bush supporters are finished with him if Kerry is stupid enough to put him on the ticket.

2. The corporate media and right wing radio nuts have been cheerleading for Edwards. Even a commentator on Fox the other day commented on what a pass Edwards has been given. No DUH.

to the Stanford/UT study.

That's just a fact, and your'e going to have to start incorporating into your argument.

I wish the media were cheerleading for Edwards. If they were, he'd be the nominee. The fact is -- and you're proving it -- there's really nothing bad to say about the guy. And if they wanted to help him, they could start talking about his policies, which the media never did until Edwards finally had the opportunity to use his second-last man standing status to focus the media's attention on what he was saying.

And you're quoting this as FACT!!

:rofl:

the University of Texas

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/polls.html

You notice how you're searching out for some rationalization - no matter how ridiculous - so that you can dismiss the evidence? Yeah, that's called cognitive dissonance.

Any rational person would realize that the University of Texas, like most college campuses, is quite the hotbed of liberalism.

But you use the fact that it is in a conservative state (which is obviously irrelevant as to its results) and use that to dismiss it as inaccurate. And, of course, to do so you had to ignore the fact that it a scientific study and one conducted jointly by professors at UT and Stanford (which - OOPS! - is in California!).

Maybe the people don't care about listening to the anti-Edwards RNC talking points and the same old propaganda you post %100 of the time.

The first point has been handled rather well, but this second nugget is such a wondrous example of cognitive dissonance, I couldn't refrain from pointing it out.

"The corporate media and right wing radio nuts have been cheerleading for Edwards. Even a commentator on Fox the other day commented on what a pass Edwards has been given. No DUH."

Look at that. Two completely contradictory thoughts:
1) The right wing media cheerleads for Edwards.
2) A commentator on Fox (clearly right-wing media) complained that Edwards was getting a free pass.

Shocking. That's all I have to say. Shocking.

Previous polls had him further down so it says that the American public are watching and hearing Clark and LIKING it! Go Wes!

If it's on the internet, Clark tends to do well. I think it's very significant that he's losing to Edwards on these internet polls.

greater name recognition so that's not surprising.

An aside, who topped the polls for Gore's VP? Where was Lieberman in that poll? I honestly don't know and am curious as to whether the VP polls in 2000 were in anyway accurate in their forcasting.

you just need to look at the fact that Lieberman (of all people) led polling for months shows you how much more powerful it is to make it past the short list and on to the ticket.

And I'd be surprised if more people knew Edwards's name in 2001 (from the short list) than knew Clark's name (from being on CNN and running the show in Kosovo).

I'm SURE Clark had a higher Q rating than anyone other than Kerry and Lieberman.

him being considered by Gore in 2001 and that was from all the news coverage at the time. I have no doubt that he became much better known, if only by name, at that time. Thanks for the info on Lieberman leading the polls at the time, I was wondering.

Clark was given a ton of media coverage in the months preceding his entry into the race for the Democratic nomination. Other than Dean, he clearly was the media favorite for the spot. It is interesting to see his supporters decry that the media was treating him unfairly, since that couldn't be further from the truth.

was silenced by the Bush administration. During the primaries, he could hardly get on NPR--there was one short interview and the only other news of him before the Oklahoma primary was that his caravan was stopped for speeding. Woodruff, Crowley and Greenfield of CNN were the worst offenders, though.

You are correct that the media played him up when he entered the race, though.

He got a TON of coverage for the month up to the day he ran. He got so much coverage that last week, it was unbelievable. But the week following his announcement, they were merciless.

It was a trial by fire. No doubt the press knew that he was a serious threat to Bush, just by virtue of the fact that he was a general criticizing Bush.

The press created unreal expectations for him (which is the opposite of what they do with Bush -- they create ubelievably low expectations for Bush).

Clark's stumblings probably looked even worse becaue of the high expectations. But they really went after him.

...d

Clark has a huge following on the internet, but he does NOT on the non-wired world.

I wouldn't dismiss this as an "internet" poll if I was a Clark supporter, since he would poll so much worse if it was not.

It's shocking that so many Clark supporters are delusional as to the support their candidate engenders.

John Edwards - the people's choice.