I’m neutral on American politics (well, will not come out in the IP forum and be pigeon-holed), but this looks to be a solid move. However, maybe there is a worry that Kerry will look too wooden beside the smooth trial lawyer. Still, got to be better than the Gore ticket of 2000.
Will be interesting to see them in debates.
Anyway, let the race begin and good luck to both sides. No vote machine or ‘election role cleaning’ cheating allowed. 
Pucker up, guys 
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040704/photos_ts_afp/040704201355_8qabulh7_photo1
[quote=“daasgrrl”]Pucker up, guys
…[/quote]
Holy shit!
…it really does look like Kerry’s goin’ in for a soft landing there…
Must be shoring up the mixed-marriage vote?
Good choice. Edwards - Cheney debate should be good. Can’t wait to see George Bushfuck screw up his words and come across as a semi-literate retard (which he is) either.
I enjoyed Kerry’s announcement. Well delivered speech, enthusiastic crowd, great choice of music.
Absolutely! He’s a good ol’ boy smooth North Carolinian. And if the NC vote wasn’t going for Kerry before, they SURE WILL NOW!
BTW Fred: I still haven’t talked to a single person who supports Bush except for this redneck marine who helped me put my Jeep top on at a gas station down here at Oak Island before the rain started, and who commented about my KERRY bumpersticker. Of course then, as Republicans always do he had to make that typical comment that “only Republicans are helpful people”. It’s strange how Republicans need so much affirmation when they do good deeds. I suppose they feel guilty about their agenda… 
PEACE!
Kerry’s choice was not a good one. Kerry should have picked someone with more experience in case something happens to him. I think that Edwards is less capable of running the country than Gephardt or Graham would have been.
Clearly Kerry picked Edwards to get that all important southern vote but there is no evidence that this will happen. Kerry is obviously not thinking of the good of the country with his choice but I will still vote for him as voting for Bush is an impossibility for me.
John Edwards was a no-brainer choice for Kerry if he was serious about winning. My Dem friends all loved Edwards but only marginally supported Kerry. Now, they get to vote for Edwards too.
This is the best possible ticket vs. Bush-Cheney.
Sounds like these people would vote for Kerry even if he picked a convicted crack dealer for VP. Making democrats feel happier about their vote for Kerry doesn’t move any ground in terms of his battle with Bush.
I think a better approach would have been to select an ardent Bush supporter as VP in order to hit Bush right in the heart of his strength. Latest polls show that among the “ardent Bush supporters” group, Bush leads Kerry 100% to 0%. Selecting a VP candidate from the ranks of these zealous Bushnatics, such as a fred smith or a Tigerman, could help Kerry gain some support from voters in the “ardent Bush supporters” group. If Kerry had selected fred smith or Tigerman as VP, I believe, at a minimum, that neither fred smith nor Tigerman would vote against himself in the November election since the sweet taste of power would be oh so close and oh so irresistible. Thus, even one vote would help Kerry close the gap with Bush among the “ardent Bush supporters” group since he has zero support from this group at this time.
Choosing Edwards was a tactical error which may cost Kerry his shot at the White House, IMHO.
Sounds like these people would vote for Kerry even if he picked a convicted crack dealer for VP. Making democrats feel happier about their vote for Kerry doesn’t move any ground in terms of his battle with Bush.
I think a better approach would have been to select an ardent Bush supporter as VP in order to hit Bush right in the heart of his strength. Latest polls show that among the “ardent Bush supporters” group, Bush leads Kerry 100% to 0%. Selecting a VP candidate from the ranks of these zealous Bushnatics, such as a fred smith or a Tigerman, could help Kerry gain some support from voters in the “ardent Bush supporters” group. If Kerry had selected fred smith or Tigerman as VP, I believe, at a minimum, that neither fred smith nor Tigerman would vote against himself in the November election since the sweet taste of power would be oh so close and oh so irresistible. Thus, even one vote would help Kerry close the gap with Bush among the “ardent Bush supporters” group since he has zero support from this group at this time.
Choosing Edwards was a tactical error which may cost Kerry his shot at the White House, IMHO.[/quote]
Which is why early on there was that “rumor” about Sen McCain. However, that wasn’t going to happen (what kind of crack they be smoking out there?) and the rest of the lot really doesn’t do anything for Kerry. Kerry-Edwards is a complementary ticket. No-one from the Dems side would be able to sway any ardent Bush supporters anyhow. Try to keep the Dems to the Dems and work on the middle folks. Maybe they think the undecided and moderates will like Edward’s face a whole lot more than Cheney. And I couldn’t blame them for that strategy.
John Kerry, John Edwards ? Doesn’t anyone have a surname anymore ? Their first names aren’t very original either, he could have picked someone with a more interesting name 
Like Boutros Boutros-Ghali.
If I were American, I
Edwards is a rags to riches story only because he is a trial lawyer. Let’s have some Republican fun with this group and who do trial lawyers support? The Democrats. Now, why do you suppose that is? hee hee hee. Let’s get going with some of these cases and paint the man as an ambulance chaser. Oh what fun it is to ride da da da da dot dee.
And as to you Alien:
How are you going to find Republicans hanging around with the unemployed or in McDonald’s. You need to get a job and contribute otherwise you are only going to be hanging out with shiftless democrats who demand the US government help them out since they are too lazy or clueless to do so.
Off to Miami and Palm Beach next week. Wanna meet up at the Breaker’s? If you’re real nice, I might get you in to the Everglade Club.
Yip. If I were working for the Bush campaign, I would want to show the darker side of Edwards to the general public. For example, his strong arm tactics against many middle class health professionals whose lives were ruined by his class action lawsuits. Giving people court summonses in a threatening manner in the middle of the night at their modest homes is not something most blue-collar people would identify with.
[quote=“smerf”]…I think a better approach would have been to select an ardent Bush supporter as VP in order to hit Bush right in the heart of his strength. Latest polls show that among the “ardent Bush supporters” group, Bush leads Kerry 100% to 0%. Selecting a VP candidate from the ranks of these zealous Bushnatics, such as a fred smith or a Tigerman, could help Kerry gain some support from voters in the “ardent Bush supporters” group. If Kerry had selected fred smith or Tigerman as VP, I believe, at a minimum, that neither fred smith nor Tigerman would vote against himself in the November election since the sweet taste of power would be oh so close and oh so irresistible. Thus, even one vote would help Kerry close the gap with Bush among the “ardent Bush supporters” group since he has zero support from this group at this time.
Choosing Edwards was a tactical error which may cost Kerry his shot at the White House, IMHO.[/quote]
I humbly disagree with your analysis, smerf. The biggest problem I have with it is that it lies on a false premise.
You assume that members of the “ardent Bush supporters” group are capable of change. IMO, that’s false.
If you’re a Bush supporter even now, after seeing Bush in action for 3+ years, then the odds you’ll switch are, I believe, nearly nonexistent.
Bush’s theme is “steady leadership in times of change,” and his two big mantras are “optimism” and “stay the course.” He uses these mantras for a sound political reason: each best reflects the core values of those who count themselves as among “ardent Bush supporters.”
That is, they’ll stay the course, and they’ll go down in flames with the Bush ship, optimism likely intact.
So if Kerry had picked a member of this group, the result would have been a net loss to the Dems and no change to the GOP. The Dems lost voters would likely have gone to Nader, or sat out. In the likely event that Nader withdraws, this group probably splits between the Dems, the GOP, and sitting out the election.
In the end, then, the Dems suffer a net loss: those who flee to the GOP after Nader withdraws, plus those who sit out. If Nader stays in, the Dems still leak these fleeing voters to him anyway.
IMO, yours is advice I’m glad Kerry didn’t listen to. 
PS I think Edwards was a fine choice; he’s a hell of a speaker and oozes magnetism out the wazoo.
Plus he brings a huge asset to the ticket: his wife, Elizabeth. From what I hear, she’s the real deal, a real gem and she’s probably going to end up attracting as many voters as her husband. In fact, imo, any “ardent Bush supporters” Kerry/Edwards manages to peel away will likely be female and move to K/E due solely to Elizabeth and John (Edwards).
Except that Edwards didn’t make his bucks from class-action suits. His were clients who were pretty badly harmed. In fact, I believe that the GOP has already run this at him pretty extensively in NC and got burnt.
Yesterday on NPR I heard David Brooks, famous neocon, talk about this very point. Brooks said he doubts the GOP will find much traction; further, he said he followed Edwards around in the primary season for a while and heard a bunch of his stump speeches. According to Brooks, in nearly every audience Edwards faced there was at least one angry MD who wanted a piece of Edward’s ass because he’s a trial lawyer. Brooks said Edwards consistently disarmed them largely by recounting his biggest wins, the damages done to his clients, the impact on his clients’ lives of said wins, and his lack of participation in class-action lawsuits.
Edwards did not participate in class-action, low payout to clients, high payout to attorneys lawsuits.
Yesterday’s WSJ says the US Chamber of Commerce will come out full bore against K/E now, due exactly to the fact that he’s a trial lawyer. Acccording to the WSJ’s analysis, Edwards stands a good chance of fending off this attack, with voters, because of his lack of participation in class-action suits.
Of course, Bush/Cheney has made mucho political hay out of distorting the truth to date. It’s pretty likely they’ll go to the well again.
Considering my own love-at-first-sight reaction to John Edwards, I can only say he’s best choice.
I want to suggest people from the world over speaking good English get the right to vote in the US elections. After all, as Bush has so successfully demonstrated, the guy is only too likely to impact our lives as well.
With Edwards, at least you know the guy understands when people talk to him. Good tough-cookie political sense. Wi-Fi thinking.
And there’s a mesmerising dissimilarity with Kerry. Like people from a different planet. Excellent.
The argument about lack of experience is irrelevant. People know that what matters is leadership and a good feel for how things are going. That’s him.
I’m proud of you guys! Um- of you all!
EB
[quote=“flike”]
You assume that members of the “ardent Bush supporters” group are capable of change. IMO, that’s false.[/quote]
That may be true, they are a stubborn lot.
However, I only believe, at the very least, that if Kerry had picked fred smith or Tigerman as VP, that neither of them would vote for Bush since the smell of power would be too tantalizing to resist. In the heart of every neocon is the dream of power, the vanity of being the one the crowd adores. I only suggest that Kerry could have used such dream and vanity to lure away at least one vote from the “ardent Bush supporters.” Perhaps others would follow, perhaps not. But, one “ardent Bush supporter” vote for Kerry is one less “ardent Bush supporter” vote for Bush, a penny earned is a penny saved - oh, you get my drift.
why is it that the pro-edwards people are also the biggest critics of the overpriced us healthcare system and yet can’t make the connection?
nytimes.com/2004/01/31/polit … f1&ei=5070
here’s a nice quote:
of course not. high payout to clients, high payout to edwards. everyone wins!