Edwards C-SPAN now - WHAT AN INTRO!

He is the one!

he had strength and courage and determination".

Now on Vietnam - Kerry volunteering, dangerous duty, comparing to AWOL and Cheeney.

This guy is good...

"George Bush can't think of a single thing he's done wrong in the past 4 years? He needs to call one of us, we'll help him think of some things...."

Go, John!

:thumbsup::bounce::thumbsup::bounce::thumbsup::bounce::thumbsup::bounce::thumbsup::bounce::thumbsup::bounce::thumbsup::bounce::thumbsup::bounce::thumbsup::bounce::thumbsup::bounce:

Edwards is special. He makes an argument for Kerry that is unparallelled.

Oh, God, he's talking about race now. This stuff is in his heart.

but he's reconfigured it a little around all the same (great) themes (class and opportunity).

Or maybe it's just that it has been a while since I heard it.

He's talking about optimism and inspiration and what is possible.

choice for VP. :bounce:

It's great to see you again!

Edwards left and they put on a Bush ad.

:puke:

HEY! I have been working. Good to see you again. :hi:


HERE COMES TERESA KERRY!

and we need him on this ticket!

He is forceful in his delivery and touches the soul and heart of people that have been left out in the BUSH ONLY Crowd.

I love the fact that he hits the race issue straight on! He has sharp,clear sentences. And he has a vision of hope!

I'm for him!!

Oh what a night!

I needed this after the Reaganpalooza. This renews my faith.

about Kerry and the Patriot Act?

Well, pessimism may not have created one job, but then neither did George Bush.

Is America ready for her?

Oh, I hope so. It would mean turning a real corner for this country. Truly becoming a citizen of the world.

She is speaking to the ideal of what America could be, can be. She and her husband can bring us back to that ideal.

Kerry/Edwards '04. And beyond...

:bounce:

Hope guides me.

The opening was sensational and evidence of how effective Edwards can be in talking up Kerry's credentials this fall. Many people I talk to have no idea Kerry volunteered for Vietnam, and a dangerous position up front, to boot.

Still, Edwards needs to relax and ad lib, more conversational and deviate from the standard stump themes. That's what made Clinton so special, it came across as a chat more than a speech. Edwards can get locked into that "you and I" mode on one item after another, and I notice the audience reaction dwindles as a result.

As another poster mentioned, Edwards' sentence structure and basic use of the language are terrific. I especially love that he correctly uses "who" and not "that" EVERY TIME when referring to a person, almost unheard of in political speech making.

He is VERY effective in these settings and I much prefer him in that mode. I think when he uses the standard speech, he presumes that most people have never heard him at all, which is true. (That's probably the mode that you are thinking of with Clinton, who had many opportunities to engage in them, and who was familiar to most people after becoming President.) Also--without a question to respond to--it's harder to deviate from a standard speech format. Maybe he needs to shorten a speech and allow more time for Q&A if the sponsor permits.

what does being "a hunk" have to do with running the country.
Besides, I've heard this speech enough to fill me for the rest of my lifetime.
Sorry Dems - you're about to lose an Independent here if this unlearned man is chosen. I won't vote for Bush. I may, for the first time in my life, have to sit this one out.
Edwards disgusts me this much.

have to do with running a country? You are the first person to mention that!

Yes, he is handsome, but his speech, and this thread was very much about his passionate case for John Kerry, as well as his compassion and ideas to help people less fortunate, his caring about class and race issues, his character, his heart, his innate qualities that shine through.

Vote for Bush if you'd like, or sit it out - it's a free country. I can't wait to vote for John Kerry and whomever he chooses as his running mate.

included something about his appearance.
That's why I said what I did.

biographical details so that we could get some insight into the demographic you represent.

How do you describe your politics? Have you always voted dem? Have you served in the military? Gender, age, profession? What do you think are the most important issues today?

I'm Southern, Independent and female. I have a college degree in communications and I'm in my early 30s. I have one child and am a struggling single mother. It probably would interest you to know that my ex-husband is Arabic and he probably will be deported this summer.
I was a reporter for 12 years before switching to public relations/marketing when I had to raise my son alone. I wanted Gore to win in 2000, but I did vote for McCain in the primaries because I would have been satisfied with a McCain presidency as I wanted ANYONE BUT BUSH even before the phrase was coined. I can spot a phony a mile away and I don't suffer fools lightly. I have supported both Democrats and REAL Republicans (NOT neo-cons) and typically vote the person and not the party.
And, I have never served in the military, although I did take military science as an elective course my senior year of college! LOL!

In my opinion, the most serious issue IS our foreign policy because it's effecting our position in the world and even our economy. As Americans, we are not, individually, bullish people, but our foreign policy, for too long, as treated others as though we are. Whether we like it or not, we are becoming part of a world-economy because of various technologies and innovations and we'd better start acting like we're here to play fair and not be the bully just because we're the biggest kid on the block. It's stupid for us as a country - relative teenagers in the world view - to think we know everything and can't learn from anyone else. If we developed a more accurate foreign policy that reflected the end of the Cold War, we probably would fix our own economy in the process.

In other words, I'm everything YOU people think Edwards fans are - except I'm not and don't know anyone around here who is; therefore, I don't particularly find my position all that unique.

Is your ex-husband being deported because of a crappy immigration lawyer?

There are rational, thinking people who simply are not impressed by Sen. Edwards. Some of us find him too slick to be real.

Also a Southerner, I don't find the ability to "talk Southern" particularly appealing. Depth of experience on the world stage is a far more valuable attribute.

Scoopie has a very extreme and unique reaction to Edwards. A long time ago she said that she'd seen laywers like him before.

I wonder if she's reacting to him based on a bad personal experience with lawyers.

It's a legitimate question. If scoopie's offended, let her respond.

When I first came to DU, there was a guy who hated Chavez in a really unique and unusual way. When pressed, he admitted he was an engery trader from Houston. He stopped posting shortly after that. It's legitimate to ask what personal experiences people are bringing to the table, especially when their reactions are so far out on the margins. (Scoopie is actually saying that she will NOT vote for Kerry if Kerry picks Edwards.)

I had a wonderful attorney in my divorce.
I want my ex deported.
And, I covered courts for 10 years as a reporter - some of my closest friends are attorneys.
Sorry. The reasons I don't like Edwards are legitimate - he's a lightweight and I actually have more foreign policy experience than he does - and that's not saying much.

Edited to include this point: I actually have won a personal injury lawsuit and I dearly love the attorney who handled the case, too. Just so we're being honest.
My reaction was NOT extreme, particularly for an Independent. Edwards is the epitome of self-promotion and not about what's good for this country - I didn't like that in Bush and I don't like that in Edwards. That sort of thing disgusts me. It's not called "PUBLIC" service for nothing.

I for one appreciate you giving your background. And I don't believe there is one 'you people', whatever that means.

You have strong feelings and you believe that the single issue that is important in a VP is Foreign policy experience.

I would disagree. I believe one of the most important thing for a President isn't how many degrees they have or papers they wrote or how many terms they have been in office or how many strips they have on their arms, but what is inside of them. What vision they have and why do they want to become president. What is motivating them.

I know what motivated Edwards and it had nothing to do with political gain. Like you, I'm a mother. I have two children and I'm in my 40's. My husband works for the US forest service which has been taking hits under every administration and has been on constant downsize mod and now reorganizing for another reduction in force that will remove 1/3 of the personal from his forest. My family are all republicans. My husband's family are democrats if they vote. My son is special education and requires medication and aids at school for him to function. My children are very important to me. And I graduated with a BS in Broadcasting but ended up being an insurance agent for years until we moved out too far on the Forest Service lands and I had to quit.

The change in Edwards life that made him decide to run for public office was the death of his eldest son, Wade. Those who knew the Edwards said it nearly destroyed them. But instead of giving up they fought on and even had more children. Elizabeth giving birth to their youngest at the age of 50. Now that takes strength! I see such a close bound between Edwards and his wife and children that I know that man would never do anything to risk the future for our children...his childern.

And my support has nothing to do with his looks. I'm sick of that as well. It's because I know in my heart that I can trust my future in his hands. And I will vote for Kerry and whoever...because I know that we can not afford another 4 years of Bush.

And I know that none of this will change you because you hold Foreign Policy experience as the only thing that is important, but as you feel the need to rant, I thought I would rant as well.

The pushing of a personal injury attorney like Edwards for VP is turning off many independents that I know (who actually think a person of substance should be a heart beat away from assuming the role of commander-in-chief). In fact, I know lifelong Democrats that feel the same way (of course those are the ones who have done their homework on Edwards and looked past the spin of the corporate media and people paid to promote Edwards as VP). Of course, the corporate media will be more than happy to educate the voters about the personal injury attorney if Kerry taps Edwards for VP. If he does be prepared to hear a lot of "Has the democratic dream team of Kerry/Edwards turned into a political nightmare for the democratic party?"

Two other things.
1. When people refer to the VP being a heart beat away from the Presidency what people don't want to say is that occurs when the President is killed. Now, that is awful! Now if that nightmare happened the likelihood is that it was terrorism or some other security issue. I want the person who is heart-beat away to have the training (already) and be able to jump in on secure us. In our times I don't think Edwards has the credentials to step in and face the dangers that are out there. Maybe in some other time, but not now.

2.The debate will be a major event and will largely be centered around Iraq, Al-Queda, Homeland security, ect...No matter how much we hate Cheney, he used to be the Secretary of Defense. While people like Edwards for being "positive" and boyish, those qualities will translate into inexperience when the debate happens.

white male early 60's, lives in SC but originally from NY, retired firefighter, democrat for most of his life, but in the last 15 years or so has often voted Republican, supported the war but now believes it was a mistake and done horribly.

He said to me last night "I would have voted for Kerry if McCain had said yes, but now, mmmmm." I think my Dad represents a good slice of America.

Here's what he thinks of Edwards: Hasn't "earned his stripes" yet -- too young -- comes across phony -- "he's a lawyer" (said with a sneer).

or not.

I have 3 Republican friends who liked Edwards best during the primaries, and will vote for Kerry if Edwards is on the ticket - I will urge them to vote for Kerry REGARDLESS of the running mate.

We can go on and on in this thread - which was started in reaction to watching Edwards speak on C-SPAN. There are other threads in this forum about the poll that showed 40% of Democrats want Edwards as VP. And Senators and Senate candidates urging Kerry to pick Edwards.

There is no pick that will make everybody happy. But a helluva lot of people do want Edwards for VP.

I was just offering that my Dad seems to mirror the media-definition of "swing voter," is from the South, and that who is picked as VP will make a difference in whether he votes for Kerry or not.

Not trying to rain on your parade here, just responding to another post.

Edwards once they learn more about him? I know people who voted for Edwards in the primary but now that they know more about him they think he is a real phony lightweight unfit to serve as VP.

And he gave a very slick speech.

But speaking style alone isn't adequate reason to select him as VP. (This speech as a rationale for VP was initiated in this thread.)

If he believes as strongly as he said that Bush needs to go, I would hope that he'd continue to give speeches like this whether or not he's selected as VP. We'll need speakers who'll appeal to all spectrums of the population to get Bush out.

Actually, it could be argued that MOST people don't, since he has yet to secure a majority in a poll. I realize that argument can be made for any of the possibles, but with Edwards' in almost all the media as "most likely" contender, and with his higher name-recognition, it's more likely people are voting for an alternative to Edwards than for any of the others.

But the main bone of contention in this sub-thread is that AP said (twice) Scoopie's view is "unique." As in one-of-a-kind It ain't.

For me personally, I don't know if I'd vote for a Kerry/Edwards ticket. If I thought there were the least possibility of my state (Kansas) turning blue, I probably would hold my nose and do it. But since that's not likely... probably not. I wouldn't sit at home--got a couple congressional races that are all too important. Maybe there will be a Nader-trader option this year.

As someone who grew up in Georgia, and still has lots of family in GA and SC, I'm particularly thrown by the people, usually Yankees, who seem to think Edwards talks southern. It's a sham. He's laying it on way too thick, and only when he wants to--before the Iowa caucus and NH primary, it was barely there at all. Now that it suits him to be identified as Southern, esp among people who know no better, it's back to being way too thick again. A small issue in itself, but typlifies just what so many of us dislike about Edwards.

I live less than 200 miles from where Edwards is from and I don't sound a thing like that! In fact, sometimes it's so thick, I can't understand it!
I sound more like Wes Clark Jr., if anyone remembers how he talks. The reason I know this is because I don't think Wes Jr. has any accent at all. LOL! :D

I am just baffled by the virulence of a few people at DU - when 43% - nearly half of those polled LIKE John Edwards and want him to be VP. There really is no need to get so personal. He's a fine Democrat and doesn't deserve these attacks.

I think he's a phony. A typical politician whose first and maybe only priority is to advance his own career. To me, that is not a "fine Democrat." That's my opinion and I have every right to express it.

So 43% of some sampling like him. 50% of the population are below average intelligence.

And besides, even if a vast majority think something, doesn't make it true. History is replete with false ideas that the majority of people believe(d).

If you really think the only thing that Edwards is interested in is advancing his own career. If was interested in that he should have just stayed as Senator and waited until he had some more experience under his belt or got picked up as VP a second time. Gore had him on his list.

Do you even have any ideal why Edwards entered into politics? Why he opted to run for Senate instead of staying with his law practice?

If he wasn't making a play for the big-time, he's have stayed in the Senate and paid his dues, made himself qualified for a realistic bid for the presidency. He's got the talent, but he wanted to short-cut the process.

'Course, there are reports that he knew he couldn't win re-election, and the VP was the only place he could hope for. It sure looked to me like VP was all he was ever running for. Some people say that about Clark, but I don't buy it--some pundits have claimed he had a better shot at VP before he ran. I don't buy that either. YMMV.

Look, I know why Edwards CLAIMS to have left private practice. Maybe it's true, but talk's cheap. What public service had he performed before his single, incomplete Senate term? That he didn't make a wad of money at.

Pardon me if I'm more impressed with 38 years of service, averaging about $40K/year, and never exceeding about $86K, and at times in extreme risk to life and limb.

But then, some "public servants" don't even feel an obligation to do one tour of military service. We got a bunch of 'em in and around the White House now, and look where it's got us.

First I have great respect for General Clark and I've said a time and time again that he is my second choice for VP and even if he doesn't get the nod for VP, I know that he will be Kerry's administration. He's already on Kerry's military advisory team. If I have any hesitations about Clark is only that I'm not 100% comfortable with career military in one of the top two spots of the government.

If you wish to make the argument that you expect the VP to have a vast amount of 'experience' behind them, I can accept that argument. I would add that one of the advantages to Edwards is that he doesn't have years and years of being in the Senate. He's not part of the political Democratic machine and thus has more appeal to independents and swing republicans.

And Edwards does not talk about his son's death. But that was the one event that changed him and the goals in life. And I think it made his view of 'time' different then most people.

As for 'public service' and the need to serve in the military. Do you wish to remove a whole generation of people who had no war to serve in? If Edwards was even 1 year older then this whole argument would be not made because most likely he would have been drafted, but his number didn't come up. He was too young. Instead, he followed a different dream that he had from the time he was kid. To be a lawyer.

Courtrooms are battlegrounds as well. Just a different kind of battleground and the type of skills he learned in those courtrooms are
very important skills. He won cases for victims against Corp lawyers and did so by proving his case to a jury and convincing them that they should agree to the payout that he recommends. The skill to convince other people to agree with your view and your case against a counter argument and to win those big settlements is not easy. Take those skills and use them in the congress arguing for Kerry's case to get bills passed in the GOP controlled House and Senate. Admitting, he would facing a bunch of Lawyers in the House and Senate as many of our 'law makers' have backgrounds of being lawyers. Or even meeting with foreign leaders and putting the case of the USA before them.

My point is that both men have skills and both men came from humble backgrounds and rose to the highest levels of their professions and I believe that both men would be good VP's.

You have your right to prefer Clark and I have my right to prefer Edwards, but the very arguments that you use against Edwards can be used in his favor. I won't attack Clark because I can see no point in attacking a man who is out supporting Kerry and if not VP then will be on Kerry's administration and there's no point in attacking our own. The GOP will be happy to do that for us.

I heard people talk about Edwards accent before and claim it was fake. But when I saw his rally at the place that he was raised in SC, I heard all the people talk when they went up to him and spoke to him briefly. Including a black woman who gave him a big hug saying that she worked with his daddy on the floor of the mill.

The fact is that all of those people sounded just like Edwards. Their accents sounded just like his. It maybe a question of regional area and in the south your accent can depend on where you live..city or rural and which part of the state. But if it is a created accent then a whole town of people created the same accent so they could sound just like him.

and my first job out of college was in Anderson, S.C., which is a hop, skip and a jump from Seneca - where he's from. They had more of a drawl than I did, but it wasn't as pronounced as his.
But, in any case, why does his accent seem to ebb when he's campaigning up north? I've heard others mention this phenomenon.

I've listened to him alot and I have never noticed any change in accent. So I don't have a clue what you are talking about. I'm not even sure it if it matters at all.

I've heard Repugs...whinning about how Kerry changed his accent over the years. And the question becomes...who cares?

It's kind of like the question in other thread about Clark not being able to stand up straight. How does it effect his ability to lead. It does.

How does Edwards accent effect his ability to lead. It doesn't. For some reason I think we have a much greater problem to worry about like how to take down Bush Cheney then fighting over accents.

I just remember what I saw and I was amazed how much Edwards sounded like everyone else in Seneca.

where Clark supporters didn't like the fact that someone came into a "Clark celebration" thread and dumped on General Clark. Yet, the same thing just happened when an Edwards supporter started a thread to celebrate the fact that he/she thought that Senator Edwards made a very good speech.

This is getting quite silly. Senator Kerry will make his decision based a criteria which he alone creates and he alone is responsible for.

In the meantime, why not allow Clark supporters and Edwards supporters to have their good time in celebrating two good men who many Americans thought had the intelligence, talent, ability and common sense to become President. Hence the fact that both gentlemen received many more votes in the primaries than originally thought.

so I'm not being hypocritical.

However, your post in this thread contributes to the silliness I spoke about. And Edwards supporters posts in the other do the same.

It's an open loop in GD2004 and it would be nice to believe that when the time comes, supporters of the VP candidate choosen are gracious.

If you notice, I did not add the words "in victory" to the end of the above sentence. The real victory should come in November.

if Edwards is the VP...
Chances are that I won't be coming back here, either, as I will have given up on the Dems and destined to stay an Independent.
It's not a matter of being gracious - it's that I think Edwards is a phony pulling the wool over everyone's eyes.

nt

or will you take your ball and go home if Kerry chooses someone else as well. You do realize that General Clark himself has repeatedly said that it is of vital importance to our country and our future to defeat Bush come November.

And I'm sure General Clark will continue to campaign for Kerry/whomever. But then he has the intelligence, dignity, and class lacking in some of his supporters.

I think I've said about a ZILLION times on this blog that I will vote for Kerry if he has the sense to pick someone with some foreign policy credentials and that doesn't mean ONLY Clark.
As for class and integrity - that's something I do have - I won't fall lockstep behind a candidate I don't believe in because that would be LACKING in integrity. I'm sure the good General would agree that he did fight for my rights to do that very thing.

By the way, I'm very sorry you feel the need to act like an arrogant SOB because you can't twist my arm to make me bend to a complete Democratic package. As I've said about another ZILLION times on this blog, I'm an Independent. I agree that Bush must go, but the Dems need to learn how to give people a choice. Just so you know, every Independent I know on any blog or in person recoils at the mention of Edwards. Their first reaction is the same as mine: they'll vote a third party. I don't know where these alleged independents are that you guys keep saying like Edwards because I honestly don't know ANY. And that's the truth. In fact, I don't know anyone in person who was or is an Edwards fan - and I did a lot of campaigning for Clark - I was out there. This whole issue of his being vice president has me extremely perplexed as I do NOT see that support - at all.

But be careful what you wish for, because all of us may just get it.

is a wish we might all need to get. :)

And, sorry about the SOB remark. I just didn't like being told I was - in other words - "odd" because I have such a viseral reaction to Edwards.
I'm very serious about the fact that I know no one who voted for him and never saw anyone campaign for him. I am very suspicious about this for a variety of reasons (not the least having to do with the fact that I was a reporter for 12 years and I know how the media works - like the Don Henley song.)

Anyone know when it will be on again. It would be so wonderful to see and hear him again. I am so hoping he will be the VP pick.