Joho the Blog
|
|
|
July 06, 2004
The right-wing National Review is already telling itself that Edwards is bad news for the Kerry ticket. Since I've never been right with a single political prediction (All hail presidents Dukakis and Dean!), it doesn't matter that I think Byron York's article is wrong, but I do. York's reasoning is that Edwards made his national bones with his "Two Americas" stump speech that said nothing about terrorism. Edwards polls just ahead of Kucinich on the issue, according to York. And this is election is going to be about terrorism. Hence, Edwards hurts the ticket. IMO, the Democratic ticket can't afford the Bush-Cheney '04 gambit of putting an affable, detached values-guy at the top with the reassurance that there's a hard-ass grownup to guide in him in the #2 spot. Kerry will win this election by being a candidate Americans trust to run the government he's leading. If we think Kerry isn't credible on terrorism, then it doesn't matter if he appoints Thor as his vice president, he's going to lose. (But, Kerry is credible on terrorism - I feel safer just having him run than I do with the Bush crowd of gasoline-tossers running the show.) Appointing a war vice president would have played into the Republican strategy of defining this election as being only about who is harder on the bad guys. The Edwards selection says that terrorism is not the only issue we need to confront. Nor can we afford to confront it in isolation from the rest of what's going on in our country and in the world. I think it's a great selection. I look forward to eight years of Kerry followed by eight years of Edwards. Go Kerry! Halley puts well one reason I like Edwards: "Edwards knew when to be quiet and not trash his opponents. He knew it during the torturous campaigning last fall and winter and he ended his campaign with his dignity in tact -- no small thing in that contentious free-for-all." And then there's what Jeneane wrote way back in January about Edwards' truth-telling, blogging wife: 1 2. Posted
by D. Weinberger at July 6, 2004 11:59 AM
|
Comments
Hi David - Creative New media and the web class here - you came to speak at our class a couple of years ago. we are right now talking about your blog. thanks for blogging! We plan on debating the VP choice of Kerry later today.
Posted by: nita | July 6, 2004 12:04 PM
Howdy, Creative New Media.
100 extra blog points to anyone who can successfully defend the proposition: "If I am so disappointed that Kerry passed over Dick Gephardft and Tom Vilsack!"
Posted by: David Weinberger | July 6, 2004 12:34 PM
Interesting that they would say the reason Edwards is bad for Kerry is the "Two Americas" critique. That's exactly why I was hoping Kerry would pick Edwards. I saw Edwards give that speech a number of times on C-SPAN during the primaries, and I thought it was excellent. It made Edwards my second choice (after Howard Dean). Populism has gotten a bad name in this country thanks to the efforts of right wingers like Pat Buchanan, but there's a long history of populism from the left in this country as well, and it seems to pop up whenever the oligarchy gains the upper hand in politics. If this period in the history of America is reminiscent of nothing so much as the Gilded Age of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, is it any surprise that populism is making a comeback? Gore toyed with it four years ago toward the end of his campaign, and it had a great effect. If Kerry's choice of Edwards means that Edwards' populist Two Americas theme will be integrated into the Democrats' campaign, then I think that's a great thing. I think it's a winning strategy.
Posted by: ralph | July 6, 2004 01:15 PM
Can we vote for Teresa Heinz and Elizabeth Edwards? Now, that would be a ticket.
Posted by: AKMA | July 6, 2004 01:59 PM
A vice presidential candidate succeeds if he helps his running mate pick up even one state. If Edwards taps his personal fortune he could probably pick up North Carolina for Kerry.
Posted by: John Doe | July 6, 2004 05:55 PM
It's all about whether Edwards' drawl and "likability" are enough to counter charges that he's totally inexperienced and a "goddamned trial lawyer." I myself like him well enough, but I was still hoping against hope for Clark. Anyway, I hope Edwards can stick it to Cheney in the debates. I hope he doesn't come across as a young and inexperienced whiner. I hope someone's cooking up stuff like "Inexperienced? I'd like to know, Mr. vice president, why with all your experience you didn't dig for a little evidence of those WMDs before sending Americans off to die. I would have asked for that, 'inexperienced' though I am."
Posted by: scott | July 6, 2004 07:20 PM
Edwards as VP allows the kerry campaign to remain ardently duplicitous.
Posted by: MoralPhile | July 15, 2004 05:29 AM