Kerry/Edwards 2004!!!
 

It's official! Isn't it great? I would of gone with Hillary myself, but this is okay. :cool:

Interesting...
 

I like Sen.Edwards so this "may" finally help me to decide on who to vote for and who NOT to vote for.

Anyone see the New York Post today?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

No surprise that it's a newspaper owned by Fox News. ;)

As for the new ticket, I'm thrilled. Edwards just might give Cheney his 5th heart attack. I'm glad he didn't go with Clark, he would've had a lot of **** to deal with. As for the critics who complain about Edwards because "he has no foreign experience," that never stopped you from voting for George W. Bush. What was his foreign experience? He had none. :wavey:

It's already on eBay! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...sPageName=WDVW

I had to save that picture.

I can't believe the Republicans are using the McCain 1st-choice thing; it is just sick and wrong. It makes sense though, they have absolutely nothing else to work off... :laugh:

Great news! I like Edwards and he is who I was hoping Kerry would choose. I really think Edwards will appeal to some of the swing voters in a way Kerry could not.

Patti

Those McCain statements simply have no basis in fact. How do they know he was the first choice? They don't, they're just playing politics. Just because someone was courted, it doesn't mean they were the first choice. However, if that's how they want to play it, we might as well say that Clark, Vilsack, and Gephardt were Kerry's first choices, too. :rolleyes:

Turn on MSNBC, Mitt Romney is on talking about how Cheney has more character and moral fiber than Edwards. *puke*

Again, what foreign experience did Bush have? NONE. They're such hypocrtical douchebags.

Ha! I for some reason can't recall the last time John Edwards had to have his speeches bleeped out for inappropriate content. As for Bush having foreign experience -- what the (to quote Cheney) f***?

Did y'all see that part in Kerry's speech today when John nearly took out Teresa with his arm? She just kept backing away...she's so awesome! :D

:nod:

Personally, I would've loved to see him pick his wife as the VP. :laugh: I totally love that woman. She says what she feels and is always brutally honest and warm. LOVE Teresa!

As Gov. of Texas, W routinely dealt with Mexico and to a lesser degree Central America. Those are foreign nations. So, W had experience dealing with foreign nations prior to becoming President. So, you are incorrect ( :eek: ) when you say W had "none." The correct assertion should have been, Gov. W's foreign experience with dealing with Mexico and Central America did not prepare him for dealing with the rest of the world because [insert reasons here] - :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

Caveat - I dislike Bush, but he had foreign experience. Interestingly, Cheney had tons of it.

I think Edwards is a good choice. He is a candidate that is far more human in the way the public perceives him than Kerry. So, hopefully, he will sway the needed voters in the five or so swing states. Also, he may be able to swing the voters in the panhandle of Florida, which is very Southernesq. in its population as opposed to South Florida.

At least four anchor persons I have seen have stated it was widely known but not officially documented that Kerry courted McCain. These would be people in the know. AND - these anchors were on CNN, so it is not like it was Fox saying it, alhough Fox did indeed say it :cool: So, I think Kerry probably did approach McCain to test the waters, but that does not mean Kerry ever said McCain was his first choice.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I'll let that one go, I'm too elated right now that Edwards is our next VP. ;) You knew exactly what I meant when I said he had none. Yeah, having cocktails with Mexican officials makes him a real pro in foreign affairs around the world. :rolleyes: Having minor dealings with Mexico doesn't constitute having much foreign experience and you know it. That's what I meant. Interestingly, what the pundits fail to tell the people is that Edwards has had more foreign policy experience than Bush had when he sought office. For christs sake, he has a hand in drafting foreign policy.

It's a fact that he courted McCain, just as it's a fact that he courted Clark and Vilsack. However, there's a big difference between courting someone to see if they'd be interested in the job and being someones #1 choice.

So, we agree, what was your point? :confused: :xoxo:

PS: I don't give a rat's ass what Faux News says, EVER. They are not a source of news, they're a source of conservative propaganda and tabloid entertainment. The fact that they aired an explicit photo of sexual penetration and their sister paper printed a front page headline saying Gephardt has been chosen for VP lends them even less credibility. :wavey:

I was just commenting :shrug:

;) :wavey:

And also - if it's Judy Woodruff, Jack Cafferty, or Wolf "Leslie" Blitzer reporting on CNN, it isn't reliable. :thumbsup:

Edwards, I am sure, will make no bones about telling that fact himself :nod: :nod:

If we accept the generalyl well accepted principle that the VP is the "attack dog" of the Pres. candidate in that the VP's role traditionally is to dirty himself in a way that the Pres. candidate cannot, then Edwards is a very clever choice. He will debate Cheney. In that debate, Edwards will come across as warm as he historically does. Although he did in the debate against Lieberman, Cheney has not come across warm in years and is seen as bitter and gruf these days. So, although they are both smart men and both capable of holding their own, Edwards will win it if he maintains that charm. Edwards also is a savy trial lawyer, so that will help rebut Cheney's uncsupported conclusions that he asserts with a straight face as facts. I think Cheney will look like a rabid and deluded attack dog, while Edwards will be the charming one that people like. That will make all of the difference in the world IMO. It will be interesting to see.

I called this one. :) It definitely was a smart move by the Kerry campaign to pick a Southerner.

I agree. Unfortunately, in this era of politics, it's not the content of what one says that matters, it's how that content is delivered.

Myself too...I always said if John Edwards were running against Bush I would vote for Edwards, and if it were Kerry vs. Bush I would pick Bush... so this may help me decide things myself....I do like John Edwards a GREAT DEAL..
Chris

To folks down here, every place outside of Texas is a foreign nation. ;)

- Jake

I agree. :thumbsup:

I know it must seem like I'm always calling you out on this one particular point ( :laugh: :lol: ), but I just don't understand that. How do you go from supporting John Edwards, a liberal just like John Kerry, to supporting an ultra-conservative right-winger like Bush? The only point in which Kerry and Edwards disagree is free trade, that's it. To go from supproting a liberal to a scary neocon is just unfathomable. I just do not understand it and probably never will. :laugh:

I'm so relieved he chose Edwards because it would have been a MAJOR letdown if he didn't.

Hopefully this will push some undecided voters over to voting for Kerry now. I think this bodes very well for November. :nod:

Oh, and he's the senator from my home state, which is awesome too :)

GO JOHN/JOHN! :blob1:

They also disagree on the death penalty. ;)

Well, we already have Chris voting Kerry-Edwards in November! ;) :laugh:

I read an article back in January where Edwards said he had changed his mind on the death penalty and was now anti-capital punsihment. Who knows, it was probably just a ploy to get us lefties to vote for him. In any case, I don't foresee him being in a position of having any say when it comes to the death penalty for years. If he still supports it when he runs for president in 2012, he won't get my vote. ;)

Kerry is for the death penalty for terrorists. I see no difference. Either you are for it or you are not. I think Kkerry changed his mind to draw in voters and to get on the anti-terrorist bandwagon America is on. Such is politics :cool:

I think people do not like Kerry because he is somber looking, he is seen as an elitist and wealthy man, and unlike W (who is also very wealthy) Kerry is hard to relate to for a lot of people. I am not saying it is right, I am just repeating what the medica has picked up on and what many people I know have said. So, maybe Edwards, who is very personable, will help that part of Kerry's campaign.

I also think, although I like her, Kerry's wife will not play that well in the Midwest and the South. She is very, very wealthy and a comparably outspoken foreigner. The latter in particular will go against her. I do not think that is fair, but I think many will look at it that way.

I am not trying to bring Kerry down. I am just addessing you question of why people can jump from Kerry to Edwards so easily but not support Kerry alone. People do not always vote on the issues. Personality has a lot to do with many peoples' votes. I know you hate him, but many people like W and many people who would not vote for him find him personable. I know you do not, but many do. I think Kerry has the opposite problem. People are turned off by his energy and what they perceive as his cold nature - he appears stiff. I think John Edwards can only help that.

Food for thought. :cool:

Hmmmm. And don't you remember when I second-guessed my support of John Kerry because of that very issue? Methinks you don't. I don't agree with the execution of anyone, even Saddam, but the chances of a terrorist being executed on Kerry's watch are slim to none, and Slim just left town. I also think that there is a big difference between supporting the execution of convicted terrorists and supporting the execution of every murderer; Edwards falls into the latter.

As for your analysis of how people vote based on personality, the people who do vote that way should have their rights to vote stripped from them. If they're going to use their votes so haphazardly and in such a trivial manner, they should lose that right.

No - I remember - But like me, you are settling on the candidate most likely to unseat W. I do not like Kerry that much, but I will vote for him and anyone else in a second if they have the chance to rid us of W and his company and their lathspell and fell deeds.

I think that position on the death penalty is hypocritical because taking of a life is taking of a life. When people start saying well this murder was worse . . . so you get the death penalty, I think that is when the trouble starts :laugh: But, if that works for you - who am I to keep you down. Hopefully, Kerry's stradled position (imagine that :laugh: ) on the DP will not prevent others from voting for him.


Is this the great liberal being an elitist :laugh: Personality is just as good as anything to many people. In fat, many people do not even listen to the rhetoric on the issues because politicians have a tendancy to say one thing and do the opposite :shrug:

No one has the right to take anyway anyone's right to vote unless they are in jail or something like that. That is why it is up to you and me and everyone else who thinks issues are more important to educate people :laugh: Plus, if people want to vote for Kerry based on his or Edwards' personality I am all for it because that is one less vote W will get.

If anything, that position could hurt him when it comes to people like me. There are a lot of far-lefties out there who refuse to vote for anyone who supports any from of capital punishment. :nod:

Bet your ass.

Personality should be the furthest thing from your mind when you cast a vote for the person you want to lead this country. To say it's as good as anything else is absurd. Vote for the person who supports your stances, not the person who you'd rather have a Bud with. :rolleyes: It's irresponsible voting. We try to educate, but the fact is, people are stubborn. You could tell them the sky is blue, but if they say it's purple, you're 100% in the wrong. People are just assholes, Jason, especially when it comes to politics. :laugh:

As for not ebing able to vote if you're in jail, how in the hell do think the '00 election was stolen from us? Partly because they purged thousands upon thousands of votes for Gore cast by EX-convicts.

It's still irresponsible and, dare I say, un-American.

I agree, but many do not see it that way and nothing says they have to :shrug: Its that whole "I can tell a man by his handshake and he looked me in the eye" kind of thing. While I think that is important to a certain extent, I ALWAYS vote for someone based on their voting record, if they have one - nothing else. Because they can say what they want, but they cannot deny the way they voted.

Interestingly, I know people that think my way is just wrong and that the mojo of the candidate is the only way or the party platform is the only way, etc. I think they are wrong as well. Such is politics :laugh:

And you were saying what about his foreign policy experience? :laugh:

Text of Texas Gov. George W. Bush's interview with Andy Hiller,
political correspondent for WHDH-TV in Boston.

Hiller: "Can you name the president of Chechnya?"

Bush: "No, can you?"

Hiller: "Can you name the president of Taiwan?"

Bush: "Yeah, Lee."

Hiller: "Can you name the general who is in charge of Pakistan?"

Bush: "Wait, wait, is this 50 questions?"

Hiller: "No, it's four questions of four leaders in four hot spots."

Bush: "The new Pakistani general, he's just been elected--not elected,
this guy took over office. It appears this guy is going to bring
stability to the country and I think that's good news for the
subcontinent."

Hiller: "Can you name him?"

Bush: "General. I can't name the general. General."

Hiller: "And the prime minister of India?"

Bush: "The new prime minister of India is . No. Can you name the
foreign minister of Mexico?"

Hiller: "No sir, but I would say to that, I'm not running for
president."

Bush: "What I'm suggesting to you is, if you can't name the foreign
minister of Mexico, therefore, you know, you're not capable about what
you do. But the truth of the matter is you are, whether you can or
not."

All I am saying is he had some dealing with Mexico and Central America - I am not saying he was in any way proficient. I was just saying you were wrong (which you know I LOVE doing :woohoo: :laugh: :p ) when you said he had "none" - I knew what you meant, I was just yanking your chain :cool:

Uh....
 

ya left out the ending of this exchange:

Hiller: "Can you name your VP?"

Bush: "Yeah, He's (a) Dick."


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Btw, I saw Cheney was at the latest Yankees/Red Sox saga, He was wearing the ever popular NY hat, Probably yelling "F--k you" to those pesky Red Sox (I know I would...) :lol: :laugh: :lol:

So, he had dealings with Mexico and didn't even know who the foreign minister was? :lol:

****, even I know that. Should I post the interview where he didn't know who the Canadian prime minister was, then someone on his staff told him Paul Martin, and he referred to him as Martini thorughout the interview? Good christ.

Oh, and I simply can't wait for the Bush camp and all the pundits to attack Edwards over his history as a trial lawyer:

http://www.dailykos.net/images/mccain_praise.gif

(from the back of Edwards' book "Four Trials")

On another note, McCain's Chief of Staff publicly stated today that McCain was never offered the VP slot.

:wavey:

Here we go - didn't take Rove long did it :laugh: - I love the whole W is too good to get in the mud to sling it with the RNC :rolleyes: Of course, it is the same way on the D side. Also, to be fair, this is just one article on Fox. The main page has many about Kerry and some are positive - fair and balanced you know :rolleyes:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124844,00.html

GOP Labels Edwards 'Disingenuous'

Tuesday, July 06, 2004

WASHINGTON — President Bush (search) said Tuesday he welcomed John Edwards (search) as John Kerry's (search) running mate on the Democratic presidential ticket, even as Bush's party sharply criticized the North Carolina senator.

"I look forward to a good, spirited contest," the president said. But his re-election campaign and his party immediately cranked up their criticism of the North Carolina Democrat, calling him "disingenuous" and "unaccomplished."

Bush spoke with reporters in the Oval Office during a photo opportunity with the prime minister of Iceland, David Oddsson. He said Vice President Dick Cheney (search) had called Edwards to say he welcomed him to the race, "as do I."

Cheney placed the call just after 10 a.m. EDT to congratulate him, said Cheney's spokesman, Kevin Kellems.

"He thought it was the appropriate thing to do, and recalled the president having phoned Senator Kerry at a similar juncture, when it was clear he would be the nominee," Kellems said. He described the conversation as "brief and cordial."

"The vice president said that he looked forward to their debate, and a spirited campaign that he hopes will reflect credit on the process," Kellems said.

Cheney and Edwards are scheduled to debate in Cleveland on Oct. 5.

Bush sidestepped a reporter's question about whether he agreed with the Republican National Committee's charge that Edwards was "disingenuous." But his chief spokesman, Scott McClellan, did not disavow the characterization.

"Is there something in there that you're disputing?" McClellan said. "It's perfectly reasonable to talk about the differences on the issues and to talk about the record."

Bush travels to Edwards' home state Wednesday to meet with judicial nominees whom he says Senate Democrats have blocked from being confirmed.