Looks like its Edwards

Perhaps the biggest looser in Kerry’s selection is Hillary Clinton. By picking Edwards:
(a) If Kerry is elected, Edwards (as the VP) has four or eight years in the national spotlight to prepare for his Presidential run.
(b) If Bush is reelected, Edwards is pre-selected as the CENTRIST Democrat candidate: popular, charismatic, with a good sense of humor, and the ablity to raise funds. In essence, Senator Clinton antithesis in several of these key categories

I think this is a good reason for Bush to breathe a bit easier tonight. I don't think the Klintons will "let" Kerry win.

Actually it was a mixture of cheers and boos(as always), the cheers being just as audible as the booing. I love the spin you put on it though.. Keep reaching.

And which "big name Republican" has had anything negative to say about Cheney, much less be "concerned with him hurting the ticket"? Enlighten us Mr. targetshootr..

Also, you asked in your original post where Edwards stands on Gun Control...

Well I think President Bush will be a "one term wonder" too and no one who knows me would consider me any kind of liberal type person.What I am now wondering about know is if Hillary can be appointed to the supreme court during a Kerry presidency?Anyone else out there have any thoughts on this...

This was no surprise at all, considering that Kerry needed a way to get Southern votes.

However, Edwards' record will be a feeding frenzy. During his run for the senate, someone asked him a question regarding Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Edwards replied, "who?"

Let's face it, any woman--or man, for that matter--vapid enough to vote for Edwards because of his looks would probably be voting for Kerry anyway.

So, for the Democrat ticket, we have a gigalo and a trial lawyer. Yep, appeals to me.

You know, I really don't like Bush, and I like Kerry even less. But if Bush were to dump Cheney and replace him with Rice I could probably hold my nose enough to vote for him. Having Rice so posed to make her own bid for the presidency would have made the race against H. Clinton sooo much more interesting. Had the Dems nominated Edwards, depending on a number of factors, I might have been willing to at least consider voting for him (though I probably still would not have done so). On gun rights my impression is that Edwards is bad, but Bush isn't that much better so I don't think the difference there would be enough to be a show stopper.

Well I'll try. Cheney's 'negatives' are higher than ever. As most would concede, his ties to the CIA agent leak and to Haliburton and his insistance on repeating the Iraq/911 lie will surely hurt him and Bush's chances in November. On the other hand, dumping him would cause even more harm at this point so they have to dance with who brung 'em which is good news for the Dems. Lots of ground to be plowed.

Click to expand...

1. The so called CIA leak was not a leak. She was not and had never been an operative. That was blown out of proportion by the liberal press. I wonder why the press doesn't dwell as much on Kerry's efforts to gut the CIA budget?

2. What is wrong with Haliburton? They are a legitimate company - and not an oil company by the way.

3. What is the Iraq/911 lie you are referring to?

The only good news in this that I see for the dems is the people that choose to believe this crap.

Choosing not to believe them doesn't make them untrue.

Click to expand...

nor does choosing to believe them make them true.

So it's two rich white male lawyers from the U.S. Senate against two rich white businessmen from Texas. Now there's diversity for you!

Edwards said,

"That does not, however, mean that somebody needs an AK-47 to hunt."

No problem, I don't use my AK to hunt; fending off predators is quite another thing though.

It doesn't matter anyway - I doubt that Mrs. Heinz will be going to the White House, even after jumping on another horse after her first one died. What a "pickle puss" (pun intended).

OK - I lied. Last year, just to aggravate my cousin/godson (now in Iraq), I used my 103K to hunt deer. He just snarled at me and shouldered his 30.06... BTW, all we saw was a momma bear and LOTS of deer poop.

jAK-47

. oops

brad cook

Wow! They appear to be very fond of each other. I guess it's good to like your running mate.



brad cook

Well I for one am very disapointed with Kerry's choice of running mate... I was hoping that Kerry would do what St Louis voters (both the dead and living ) have failed to do.... get Dick Gephart the h#ll out of MO.:banghead: Aw well ... now back to regular programing..

Superficially, it was a smart choice. Kerry is a hard-left New England Yankee, and he needed a running mate to make him seem less hard-left and less Yankee by association.

That said, I don't think it will matter either way. His ideology notwithstanding (which I despise), Kerry was probalby the weakest candidate the Democrats could have come up with out of their primary... an extreme left-wing Democrat with no personality and no subjective appeal whatsoever is a losing proposition. Unless, of course, Bush bungles his campaign and/or something really horrible happens between now and the election that he gets blamed for.

Some of the posts here have been incredible. Does anyone think that "Pres. Gore" would have had the guts to go after terrorists by waging war in Afghanistan and Iraq? No. Does anyone think that Pres. Gore could have gotten Ghaddafi to disarm and "play nice" by negotiating with him? No. Does anyone think that Pres. Gore would have lowered taxes? No.
So now we have a Dem running who is the most clueless liberal since Dukakis, teemd with the most inexperienced VP candidate since Ferraro. His entire platform seems to be doing things that have failed already, like involving the UN in every foreign policy decision we make.
Americans are patriotic people. In every poll Bush and the Republicans come out ahead on foreign policy issues. We have not even had the conventions yet so polls on the candidates are misleading. Come November this will be a wipe-out.

Rabbi

Well said...

Come November this will be a wipe-out.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but which way. I know the media will try to spin everything away from Bush's favor, but all of the polls done recently (and lets face it, no matter the conventions we know who the nominees are) are putting Kerry at least even with Bush if not ahead by a statistically significant margin. In a number of ways I don't like Bush, but I do believe Kerry would be worse. However I'm not very confident that predictions of a Bush landslide victory are going to prove accurate. Heck, I don't know at this point if Bush will even win, let alone by a big margin.

Here a question for those of you that really follow voting patterns and such. In which states is Bush essentially guaranteed victory, and which states are certain to go to Kerry. Of the remainder (the swing states) which do you think are more likely to swing to Bush, and which to Kerry? Once you've figured all that out how would the electoral votes stack up? My guess is that whoever wins will do so with less than 300 electoral votes (268 is the magic number to win).

There are too many "not-Bush" voters out there for Kerry to implode like Dukakis or McGovern. It would be great to see people voting for who that thought most represented their views rather than some emotional reaction to some "evil" Republican.

Rabbi,

Exactly. I had to laugh yesterday when I heard Ralph Nader on a radio talk show saying that if he had been president Saddam would have also been out of power by now, three years into his presidency. When asked how he would have done that he said something like "by undermining his power." Huh? He said he would get together with other nations and encourage the Kurds and other oppressed groups to overthrow Saddam. Yeah...I'm sure that would've happened. Wake up and smell reality.

brad cook

Things in NC aint been the same since Jesse left......

Ahhh, the love affair continues...



Edwards looks like a sloppy kisser.

brad cook