Phew

So we don't need to wring our hands over a Gephardt or Bayh or Cohen selection. That alone is worth the Edwards pick. It's nice not having to write a post titled, "In defense of Edwards". Like many others, I'm surprised with the Edwards pick because it was the most obvious. And things rarely turn out so nicely in politics.

We've got a ticket that bridges the party's generational gap and will contrast nicely with Bush/Cheney. North Carolina is immediately in play (though it might hurt Bowles), and Edwards' has the potential of pulling Virginia and South Carolina (yes, South Carolina) into play.

Not to mention that Edwards is not a geographic niche player. He'll give the ticket a boost nationwide. There's no doubt that the Kerry people polled and focus group tested every potential veep candidate. The fact the campaign chose Edwards despite their differences means Edwards' must've polled through the roof. I have no doubt Kerry's comfort zone rested with Gephardt, so the numbers must've been solid to convince him to go with Edwards.

You can almost hear the GOP attack machine gearing up (that's all they do -- attack, attack, attack). The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has already promised to lead the fight against the Democratic ticket, laughingly claiming it will drop its "traditional neutrality".

Tom Donohue, head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has made a public vow: If John Edwards is chosen as John Kerry's running mate, the chamber will abandon its traditional stance of neutrality in the presidential race and work feverishly to defeat the Democratic ticket. "We'd get the best people and the greatest assets we can rally" to the cause, he says.

Other business leaders in Washington have been less public and less precise, but no less passionate. Reviewing the candidates in the Democratic primaries earlier this year, a Fortune 100 chief executive who is active in Washington told me that Mr. Edwards, the North Carolina senator, "is the one we fear the most" -- more than John Kerry, more than Dick Gephardt, more than Howard Dean.

The Chamber's claim of neutrality is a joke, considering that the organization heavily favors Republicans. Expect much handwringing over Edwards' trial lawyer background. But amidst the hoopla over the Bush ads featuring McCain, let's see if the Republicans can explain this, from the back cover of Edwards' book:

•  That McCain quote

  is gold.  That should be the first commercial.

  by reef the dog on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 07:32:18 AM PDT

  •  mccain

    McCain is such an amorphous fellow.   I just can't get a wrap on him.   will he REALLY campaign strongly for Bush?   I just can't figure it out, unless he is in line for the Republican VP slot.  I mean, he knows that Bush is a jerk, and a liar.

    If he is, then we are going to have one hell of a battle on our hands.    If not, I see no reason that Kerry/Edwards can't defeat Bush/Cheney hands down.  In that scenario, all we have to do is counteract their aggressive cheating at every turn.

    by kate mckinnon on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 07:44:49 AM PDT

    •  yes

      and he will campaign for Bush shamelessly.  And then turn around and be honest on television in a way that kills Bush.  Odd fellow.

      by seamus on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 07:51:56 AM PDT

      •  Odd?

        Not really. Dude's a publicity hound. He always takes a position most likely to get him maximum media attention. He plays coy about VP speculation, driving the story himself, then turns around and uses that speculation to get himself a prominent boost from Bush.

        For those of you still unfamiliar: McCAIN IS A CONSERVATIVE, MILITARIST REPUBLICAN!!!!! Democrats have to stop using his quotes like they're the utterings of someone above reproach. You want to show his hypocrisy, fine. But no one should boost his credibility any more. Sure, he fought well on campaign finance, but other than that, I've got no use for him. He makes public statements supportive of Kerry as long as the VP speculation is burning, then goes right back to his true effort: furthering the goals of himself and the GOP.

        by BriVT on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:25:54 AM PDT

        •  well

          I think McCain is a conservative ass too.  But its not correct to claim that he isn't independent minded.  McCain does break from the Republican machine fairly often in soundbites and votes.  

          by seamus on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:28:51 AM PDT

          •  well

            he is in a minority in that he doesn't see the GOP as being solely for the benefit of the Bush family and the Texas plunderers, which is in his favor. So, as far as that goes, he's independent-minded. But, as you said, he's a conservative ass; he's just one who's primarily out for himself.
            

            by BriVT on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:56:10 AM PDT

    •  Counteract

      27-sec segment of 2-min clip from South Carolina Q&A:

      

      Moderator: You made millions of dollars as a trial lawyer. According to public reports, you and your wife recently purchased two multi-million dollar homes in the Washington area. You talk about Two Americas. Is it reasonable to think that you can relate to those who are less fortunate, to those who don't have insurance or a roof over their heads?

      APPLAUSE (begins)

      Edwards:  Yes, it is.     

      APPLAUSE (continued, then ends)

      Edwards: The answer is ... the answer is, the life that I have lived is the dream that's being shut off for so many Americans every single day.

      APPLAUSE

      I was brought home ... I was brought home to a mill village in Seneca, South Carolina, to a little two-room house.  My father had to borrow the money to get me out of the hospital.  I grew up, from the time I was very young, the same way that most people grow up in this country. Working hard, working hard trying to build a better life for myself, for my own family. And you're right, I've done very well - but the problem is, the problem is - most Americans, including all these folks up here, and most of these folks in the audience - they are not doing fine.  George Bush is taking very good care of people who are doing well.  The problem is he's shutting off opportunity from all those people who are struggling every single day.  I'll tell you, I'll say this to every, single, person in the audience. I grew up the way you grew up, I come from the same ...

      Moderator: You need to wrap up.

      Edwards:  You have to let me finish, you asked me the question.

      APPLAUSE

      Edwards: I grew up the way you grew up, I come from the same place, I spent twenty years in courtrooms fighting for you, against big Corporate America, against big insurance companies.

      APPLAUSE

      Edwards: I will never forget where I come from and you can take that to the bank.

      APPLAUSE
      

      by dotpeople on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 07:52:05 AM PDT

      •  You read my mind...

        ...The Republican attack machine is already going after Edwards for lack of experience, being a liberal, and being wealthy.

        This is one of my "fantasy debates" about how I hope Edwards responds:

        Moderator: You don't have much experience with regard to politics in Washington. Although Bush didn't have much either, we are now in a war on terror that he has handled with great leadership and the people trust him. Why should the people believe you could handle such situations with your lack of experience?

        Edwards: Well, with all due respect, the Democrats have been fighting the war on terror since 1993. It's a shame it required the events of September 11, 2001 to get the Republicans to join us in that fight after we had warned them of the great threat A.Q. posed to our nation. Once we win the election, John Kerry and myself will work to make our country safe from all terrorist threats in our ports, chemical plants, and all the weak points in our infrastruture. We plan to do us this by repealing the tax cuts for the wealthy who don't need it. In fact, most of the wealthy in this country would prefer we use that money to protect our great nation. Now, granted, there are a few who disagree with that, but we really believe the the safety of our great nation is more important than Grover Norquist's bank account.

        Moderator: You speak of the wealthy as if they are someone else, when, in fact, you are one of them. Why should we believe that you will raise your own taxes, when George Bush actually represents the average Joe in America?

        Edwards: With all due respect, George Bush is from one of the wealthiest families in America. In fact, he hasn't earned any of his wealth on his own. Everything he has, he made through his father's connections. In fact, everything he has been placed in charge of was a failure. His father's friends and the Saudi's have always bailed him out. Now that America is failing under his leadership, are those same people going to bail us out? I seriously doubt it. Unlike George Bush, I have worked hard to be successful and protect the average American from corporate malfeasance. I believe everyone in this country deserves the right to be rewarded for their hard work, just like I have been. However, under George Bush's administration, the majority of hard working Americans are being punished by his policies while Geroge Bush serves the major corporations by allowing them to send American jobs overseas, just so their CEO's and shareholders can make more money. That's simply Un-American. In fact, if George Bush and Dick Cheney are truly , "Men of the People," then let them go on record now proving it. Let's hear Dick Cheney promise that after he leaves office, he will not accept one penny from Halliburton or it's subsidiary's and will not take a position with the company after he leaves. He won't do that, because he made a deal with them to turn the United States of America into the largest subsidiary of Halliburton and has engaged in illegal profiteering, including war profiteering, which is the most dispicable behavior any public official could ever engage in. That is why Dick Cheney hides behind a veil of National Security. The only thing this administration fears more than terrorism is democracy.

        by Alumbrados on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 09:15:29 AM PDT

      •  Deano-crat through and through

        But that sh!t is G-O-L-D.

        by MRL on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 10:25:02 AM PDT

  •  I think McCain wants to run for President in 2008

    so it's in his best interest to be a good soldier for the GOP this year.

    by katieforeman on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 09:25:01 AM PDT

    •  On the other hand

      He doesn't want to be so tied to the fortunes of President Smirk that he ends up like Colin Powell, politically dead by association. So he gave us some high exposure criticism of the White House too.  He's playing both ends of the street.

      by AdmiralNaismith on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 09:37:42 AM PDT

  •  So what do we think the GOP is gonna do?

    We know the Chamber of Commerce is against Edwards, since he was a Lawyer against big business. How about the rest of the Republicans? What are they gonna say?

    Anybody know what the first volley of TV ads attacking the Kerry/Edwards ticket will be about?

    Kerry/Edwards...has a nice ring to it...

    by HoserElder on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 10:40:02 AM PDT

•  Echo Chamber

  "Skill - Determination - Compassion - Character."

  Hey, that's what we say!

  by Athena on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 07:33:00 AM PDT

•  I'm ecstatic!

  I never dreamed after moving down to the state that had Jesse Helms as Senator for decades would ever be in play for a Democratic presidential candidate.

  Now I'll finally get a few chances to get arrested for refusing to be sequestered to the "free-speech" zone for protesting Bush.

  by Gryn on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 07:33:29 AM PDT

  •  The Carolinas are not all right-wing

    Gryn, you may yet get your wish. Bush is coming to Raleigh, NC tomorrow and there are definitely protests planned. And, both NC and SC have formed progressive political action groups in the past year.
    Go Kerry/Edwards 2004!

    by gogaddy on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 07:57:37 AM PDT

    •  asdf

      Thanx!  I didn't have that link before.  I'll see if I can make my schedule work around that (I live in Durham so it's a little bit of a drive)

      by Gryn on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 09:05:48 AM PDT

      •  Bushed in NC

        Bush was kind enough to visit Charlotte so a bunch of us in the area could conveniently protest his $2000 a plate luncheon. We made signs -- the ones people liked best were "HEY W! Some rich guy got my tax cut!" -- "I wish he'd go AWOL again" and "Another middle-class American against the Bush Administration."
        Now Bush is coming to Edwards Country, a state that just bristles with the families of deployed military, and I hope he feels every pang of it tomorrow.

        by gogaddy on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 11:56:37 AM PDT

•  I had no idea

  McCain had written a blurb for the book.  It sounds more sincere than his introduction of W in the latest Bush ad!

  I'll have to read the book.  

  by ScientistMom in NY on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 07:33:46 AM PDT

  •  Edwards

    I recall that you were at least somewhat critical of the scientific merit of Edwards' prominent lawsuits, so I'd be very interested to read your reaction to his book.

    by DavidNYC on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 09:25:14 AM PDT

    •  And I seem to recall

      that you're a lawyer or law student.  If so, you must recognize that scientific merit is not a big factor in jury trials.  I was called to jury duty last year for a major malpractice case.  At the end of the day, only 3 of the 100 people empaneled were selected for the jury.  These three had in common an apparent lack of capability for independent thought.  I doubt that my experience was unusual.

      by ScientistMom in NY on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 09:55:44 AM PDT

      •  Science

        I'm not sure what to make of your jury experience. I don't see how an "apparent lack of capability for independent thought" benefits one side over the other. What it does potentially do is eliminate the possibility of surprises. But if someone is a sheep, then they are equally likely to be led by one side or another. As an aside, when I was on a jury, I was very impressed with how smart everyone was.

        Also, in response to your other comment, I don't want to seem like the DailyKos opinion police! (Even though that probably is an accurate description of what I was doing in our last conversation on this topic.) I'm still really interested to hear your take on the Edwards book, though. If you are interested in sharing your thoughts but would rather not post them online, you can certainly e-mail me, if you like.

        by DavidNYC on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 10:46:41 AM PDT

        •  Maybe this case wasn't typical

          because the stakes were very high.  It involved a 46-year-old woman who had had a biopsy at Westchester Medical Center for a (benign, it turned out) breast tumor.  She had general anesthesia and not only was she given an overdose, she was also not monitored.  She is now in a vegetative state.  These facts were accepted by all parties, the award was going to be enormous, and the only question was who was to blame.  There were two lawyers on one side, representing the victim and her husband, and five on the other, representing two anesthesiologists, the surgeon, the hospital and resident, etc.  I don't know which side rejected me, my husband, a very experienced emergency room head nurse, and economic analyst, a woman who ran a family business, a mailman who made some intelligent and perceptive comments, etc.  The three people left had demonstrated a striking lack of intelligence.  We were all questioned at length, both in the room and in another room where at some points some of us were called to answer questions privately.  The lawyers had every opportunity to evaluate us and their criterion for accepting jurors was clear.  This was going to be a dumb jury.  

          I may email you after reading the book.  

          by ScientistMom in NY on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 11:26:17 AM PDT

          •  Jury

            Interesting - I don't know much about jury selection (yet). I guess there are just times when you want sheep, and times when you want thinkers.

            by DavidNYC on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 12:16:42 PM PDT

          •  Copy

            I may email you after reading the book.

            Oh - and I hope you do. I'm going to try to get a copy myself.

            by DavidNYC on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 01:56:46 PM PDT

    •  My first reply to your comment went to the end

      http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2004/7/6/102844/8666/100#100

      by ScientistMom in NY on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 10:01:22 AM PDT

•  Neutrality

  I am reluctantly abandoning my tradition of neutrality and endorsing Kerry-Edwards.

  The Chamber is about as neutral as one of those guys with a dog mask in the end zone at a Browns-Steelers game.

  by Trapper John on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 07:34:50 AM PDT

  •  Dog mask

    That's okay.

    All we need to do to demonstrate Donohue's real colors is to plaster his speech--in which he argues that US business are not outsourcing enough jobs--everywhere.

    In fact, I'd love to see Johnny Sunshine take on the Chamber of Commerce in ads--"Here's what Bush's supporters want to do--outsource your jobs at a faster rate. It's Bush's support for two Americas that demands that we send Bush back to Crawford Texas."

    by emptywheel on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 07:41:34 AM PDT

•  Bowles

  Can't see how it could hurt Bowles.  Will do nothing but help him.

  by Paleo on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 07:37:10 AM PDT

  •  Agree

    I think that Edwards as VP has to help all of our southern senate candidates. Edwards has to have more ability to help out Bowles, Tennenbaum, et alia. than does Kerry. Here's hoping that November brings us a dem presidency as well as a dem Senate.

    by BennyAbelard on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 12:11:55 PM PDT

•  Will Chamber of Commerce's support backfire?

  Man, nothing makes me more excited than big corporate backers being frightened of Edwards, that's awesome!  Seems like it would backfire on Republicans if more people knew about it.

  by engray on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 07:37:52 AM PDT

  •  While we were waiting

    for Kerry to have his "Sister Souljah moment," the Chamber of Commerce up and had an "AARP/Medicare moment."

    by Kagro X on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:00:58 AM PDT

•  Phew, indeed

  I cannot tell you how relieved I am -- I would have been pissed if Kerry had chosen another hawkish wonk like Biden or the humane but ineffectual Gephardt. Instead, the man he chose speaks to the "other America," those without health care and jobs, or really anyone who's not reaping the benefits from the inside track.

  I think it's remarkable how Edwards sits well with independents and more conservative Dems and with green-tinted progressives like myself. The man doesn't exploit populism, he seems to breathe it (without exhaling a lot of hot air).

  I don't know about NC, but I think we just won Ohio and Pennsylvania. I think this is the final nail in Bush's coffin.

  Good show, Mr. Kerry, good show.

  by sakitume on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 07:41:02 AM PDT

  •  Good show, indeed.

    It was Big John's first test and he aced it.

    by colorado thistle on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 07:46:29 AM PDT

  •  Happy he's not a hawkish wonk?

    Edwards strikes me as needing much more "wonk" sprinkled in his daily serving of Cheerios and a bit less "hawk".

    He is too much an empty bowl waiting to be filled (with how the DLC would guide him?) on foreign policy. He was obviously a Cliff Notes guy during the primaries.  And he never wavered in his support of his vote for the war, even when it had obviously begun to unravel for Bush: the lies, the poor planning, etc. He seemed not to understand that just getting rid of Saddam was a poor return for all the other troubles this nutty war has wrought.

    In general, he just seemed uncomfortable, on too foreign ground intellectually, when prodded on foreign policy. He demurred (with a big smile) when Matthews asked him to name hot spots, he often chose generalities any slightly wonkish high school kid could have come up with on pressing questions, very troubling issues of the day. All of this bespoke his lack of depth and, actually, interest in foreign policy, which is such a must for anyone who may assume leadership of this nation in these times.

    On the bright side ...  

    On domestic policy he has promise, if for no other reason than that he sold himself so heavily as the enemy of the Two Americas. He is much more comfortable with domestic issues, more interested, and he pushed himself as the voice of the underserved. He is now going to be scrutinized to put his money where his mouth went, in the things he says and supports, which will mean that Kerry's position will have to look similar, with Edwards attached in the sidecar.

    I can only hope Team Kerry told him to get on the stick, re foreign policy. Burn some midnight oil. Not that Kerry has thrilled me with his leanings, in that realm, but at least I feel he knows what's what. How he will address Israel/Palestine, Iraq, etc ... that is the question with him. With Edwards its not just the how (also not so encouraging in progressive terms) but the what. He needs to find out what's what and show it in that much lauded eloquence of his. So far, its been absent.

    by NYCee on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:47:46 AM PDT

    •  and that he reinforces Kerry's weaknesses?

      I am likely the only one here not thrilled with the choice and even more worried about the roll-out today. The issue in this campaign is Iraq and how it is perceived; our message needs to be not that it was a bad idea to begin with but that Bush showed no respect to our allies, military leaders, and above all, our own soldiers. And that he has no respect for them because he refuses to do his own work and always has others bail him out.

      Edwards, as inspiring as he is, runs a huge risk of reinforcing the perceived weaknesses of the Democrats, as ambitious young professionals who don't respect the work of others. And of course he got a student deferment during the war, which neutralizes (or at least fails to capitalize) on a major line of attack against B & C.

      Moreover, he reinforces Kerry's perceived weaknesses; all the coverage I've seen this AM emphasizes how Edwards "balances" the ticket because Kerry is a northeastern liberal from a "privleged" background.

      Finally the rollout has been weak; telegraphing a week ahead of time the day of the announcement allowed the WH to get their McCain ad ready. Its already been shown at least 5 times on CNN, and we haven't heard a word from Edwards!.

      And Clear Channel's news breaks on commercial FM radio (which is what a lot of people whom we need to win over listen to) runs the line that it came down to Gephadrt and Edwards but Kerry chose Edwards "because he polled better."

      This choice and the way it was announced makes Kerry look blatantly political.

      by desmoulins on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 09:23:42 AM PDT

      •  Deferment?

        The Vietnam War?  Edwards is 51, born in 1953 or thereabouts.  Did he need/get a student deferment in 1971?  I thought that was all off by that time.  This is something I missed during the primaries.

        by Vico on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 02:21:12 PM PDT

        •  1971

          I can't say for sure that JRE got a student deferment (though I thought I read that during the primaries) but I can certainly assure you that neither the Vietnam War nor the draft were over at that time.

          The point is that Edwards has no military service and I think that will reduce one of Kerry's biggest advantages over Bush.

          by desmoulins on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 03:15:32 PM PDT

          •  That was never an advantage.

            Most of the public never disliked Bush for his shady military past. It was never a really big story. Veterans still prefer Bush (by a somewhat slim margin). Kerry has not been going around saying, "I'm a veteran and Bush isn't, so vote for me!!!"

            The only time that Bush and Cheney's military issues come up is when they accuse someone of being weak on defense or hating America or being unpatriotic. Kerry doesn't do any of that stuff, so it won't "reduce" the effects of attacks on Bushco if they keep trying that crap.

            I don't think Edwards is going to give us a big win (I think it will be a boost but nothing major), but I think he is probably the best candidate Kerry could have chosen, aside from John Lewis or Mary Landrieu.

            by JamesB3 on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 03:22:15 PM PDT

            •  Don't forget

              the lack of privilege issue.  Edwards didn't get any special treatment like George.  

              And Cheney had several deferrments when he had "other priorities."

              by Velvet Revolution on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 05:30:46 PM PDT

    •  Cliff Notes guy

      Edwards strikes me as needing much more "wonk" sprinkled in his daily serving of Cheerios and a bit less "hawk".

      As president, sure. But Kerry has wonkishness in spades and doesn't need a fellow wonk. Rather, he needs the bridge Edwards builds to the economically disenfranchised. "It's the economy, stupid."

      As for "hawk," I was sorely disappointed in Edwards' votes for the Iraq war resolution, "No Child Left Behind" and the PATRIOT Act. I gave money to Dean and voted for Kucinich, so that tells you which issues are important to me. But just as Kerry somehow won over the majority of primary voters who were / are against the war, Edwards is not perceived as a cheerleader for the war as was Lieberman and Biden. He did not stand in the Rose Garden with Bush.

      He will indeed need to brush up on policy. During the debates he clearly didn't understand what DOMA was about, for example, and cannot make such bumbling baubles again. But I've no doubt he'll be doing a lot of homework between now and October.

      by sakitume on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 09:48:49 AM PDT

•  I can hardly wait...

  To see Edwards rip that evil decrepit old man a new one during the VP debate.

  "Fuck YOURself", Dick Cheney.  God that feels good!!!

  by Wintermute on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 07:44:43 AM PDT

  •  "Fuck Leahy?...

    ...No, fuck you, you bitter, hateful old man. Jesus teaches that a man gets no profit by selling his soul to gain the whole world--and you did it just for an oil field! Fuck you, Biggus Dickus, you snarling, raving, nasty little cancer on the Ship of State.  The only value you Republicans see in the Bill of Rights is that it feels soft and fluffy when you wipe your asses with it.  Fuck you, Cheney, and the elephant you rode in on."

    There's a reason I'm not Edwards's official speechwriter.  I have too much work to do towards mastering the whole "Southern gentility" thing.  

    But man, it feels good to cuss again. Cheney did me a big favor, lowering the tone of discourse like this.

    by AdmiralNaismith on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 09:47:28 AM PDT

•  "The sky is falling! Give us money!"

  The Bowles missive is a fundraising letter, nothing more.  Edwards doesn't hurt Bowles; indeed, he helps him.  Picking Edwards will likely increase GOP efforts in North Carolina , precisely because that choice makes NC more competitive.  That's the kind of "bad news" we should welcome.

  By all means, throw as much money as you can at Bowles.  All the more so since it's an even better cause than it was yesterday.

  by phil on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 07:45:02 AM PDT

•  Bowles

  I think the choice of Edwards is much more likely to help Bowles than to hurt him.

  by herodotus on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 07:45:20 AM PDT

•  Go go!

  Go Johny Go!!!!!

  by JWC on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 07:46:03 AM PDT

•  Chamber of Commerce

  I wonder if their opposition to Edwards will quell all those lefty critics who claim that the Democratic Party is as pro-corporate as the Republican Party?

  Probably not.

  by Drew on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 07:47:54 AM PDT

•  A good morning. Make it a great month.

  A great morning--Bring on November. I'm ready for a fight.
  
  
  And to make me even more happy, let's have some news this month about Dean heading the DNC!

  by thinkdouble on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 07:49:31 AM PDT

•  McCain rebuttal ad

  McCain on Kerry, earlier this year:

  "I believe my party has gone astray....

  I think the Democratic Party is a fine party, and I have no problems with it, in their views and their philosophy....

  You can't fly in on an aircraft carrier and declare victory and have the deaths continue... you can't do that.

  I do not believe that [Kerry] is necessarily weak on defense... I decry this negativism that's going on.

  Post more quotes below. I'm sure there are MANY more.

  by thirdparty on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 07:49:36 AM PDT

  •  Three Johns, no waiting.

    This should be our ad...

    "Here's what Senator John McCain has to say about John Kerry and John Edwards:"

    [voice-over reads the above quote, and/or the one in the main entry about "Four Trials", while the words scroll down the TV screen"]

    [Cut to Kerry and Edwards]

    Edwards: "Thanks, John.  And we won't let you down."

    Kerry: "I'm John Kerry, and I approved this ad, because the White House should work well with both parties in Congress."

    by AdmiralNaismith on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 09:55:23 AM PDT

•  Why I love Edwards for veep

  1. The future.  Democrats now have a seriously viable future with Edwards teed up and Barack Obama about to be in the US Senate.
  2. Moves the Clinton spectre off stage for good.  Freepers and Fox News can't speculate about Hillary anymore.  
  3. Puts fear in the hearts of the GOP.  Just take a look at NRO and The Corner.  What Edwards gives you is not necessarily any Dixie state, but a better appeal to rural voters in places like Ohio and Western Pennsylvania.  
  4. Screws Deb Orin and the New York Post!

  by JustWinBaby on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 07:49:52 AM PDT

  •  edwards

    Edwards' relative youth has some good implications for the elections in '08 and '12. If Kerry wins, Edwards will be in a strong position to run for the Presidency....l

    by peter jung on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 07:52:28 AM PDT

    •  Yes,

      That worked so well for Dan Quayle....

      by Aaaargh on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 11:46:22 AM PDT

      •  Quayle comparison is

        not apt.  Quayle was plucked, unvetted, from obscurity.  Edwards has been a star since his run for Senate in 1998.  He was vetted by Gore in 2000 and then ran for president himself.

        He is much more of a name than Quayle ever was.

        And he's a self-made, very smart man.  Something Quayle could never claim.

        by Velvet Revolution on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 05:32:58 PM PDT

        •  asdf

          Something Quayle could never claim.

          He certainly couldn't claim "very smart". Damn, that guy was dumb as a stump. The only pol I can think of who is more of a moron is Steve Largent.

          Roger Ailes was all goofy about Quayle because, in Ailes opinion, Quayle was so good looking that women would flock to the polls to vote for him. Which just goes to show that Roger Ailes isn't too bright about some things either.

          Quayle was entertaining though, unlike this current bunch who are simply evil and scary. Watching Dan give speeches used to reduce me to tears of laughter. I was Jon Steward had been around when that team was in office.

          by colleen on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 07:12:44 PM PDT

  •  Edwards the lawyer

    What's worse, a lawyer or a war profiteer like Dick Cheney? That's my counterattack, feel free to use it.

    by merlallen on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 07:53:26 AM PDT

    •  Another way to put it

      I'd rather have a lawyer who fights for the people than a war profiteer who uses the people to fight for his wallet.

      by thorchallgren on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:20:45 AM PDT

    •  Another way to put it

      We need a lawyer like Edwards to go after the two crooks in the White House!

      by CaptUnderpants on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 10:34:31 AM PDT

  •  Points 1 and 2

    Agree.  What makes me very happy is that even if the worst happens, and Kerry loses, Edwards will the exposure and chits to be in a strong position to beat Hillary in '08.

    by Paleo on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:01:03 AM PDT

    •  eh

      If there's a reason to hold a primary in '08, Hillary would be stupid to run, and if she did, she would lose. That's my prediction, and I'm sticking with it.

      Having already used my powers to get Kerry to select Edwards as a running mate, I think I can safely say that all my psychic "Hillary don't run for president" projections will be heeded.

      Of course, nobody in the Dean camp listened to my "Dean, stop imploding" thought waves. Must be why they lost.

      by JMS on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:14:19 AM PDT

      •  Hillary's turn

        if at all, her turn will come in 2012, when she's finishing her second term in the Senate.  By that time, she'll have a record of her own and will be as far out of her husband's shadow as she's going to get. There won't be any catcalls about broken promises for cutting a Senatorial term short.  The public will have had that much longer to grow out of their antipathy towards powerful women, and to forget whatever it was that made them hate Hillary in particular during the 90s.  And if she ages nicely, she'll have lost some of that district-attorneyesque edge that seems to rub people the wrong way.

        And speaking of powerful women, I'd say Teresa Kerry is doing a lot to make their image more appealing.  Strong and outspoken, but friendly.  She'll be an excellent First Lady.  GO TERESA!

        by AdmiralNaismith on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 10:04:13 AM PDT

        •  It has nothing to do with her "power"

          40 years ago, Lyndon Johnson got the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed by getting every committee chairman in Congress - no matter how remote the connection - involved, with "input" that gave them "ownership" and a reason to fight the good fight.  

          They won.

          11 years ago, Madame Co-President decided she knew everything that needed to be known about creating a national health care program, and treated the Congress like mushrooms (keeping them in the dark and feeding them bullshit).  Nobody was invested in defending her or her program.  The next year we lost the Congress for the first time in 40 years.

          This is the portrait of a "powerful" and "knowledgeable" woman????  I think not!!!  

          I will be proud to live long enough to vote for a woman for President who wins.  I have no interest in wasting that vote on an over-rated idiot.

          by HollywierdLiberal on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 04:00:35 PM PDT

  •  Edwards bounce!

    Wow, look at the furious posting about Edwards on dKos. Air America Radio and Public Radio are all abuzz. I'll assume corporate media are as well, but I don't listen to them. I wonder if the GOP's "15 point bounce" may be too low. Apparently there is something about Edwards that just gets people talking. Sweet.

    James Carville said Edwards is the best stumper he's ever seen, even better than Clinton.
    

    by kherr on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:15:59 AM PDT

    •  Today is about more than naming

      the VP... it's the launch of the Kerry campaign... we'uns are just coming to bat! Bush/Cheney are going to have dust in their face the rest of the campaign. Go Kerry-Edwards!!! all the way to the White House! 15 points my _! Seen any Bush bumper stickers? You won't see many... I don't know about the polls, but the people are tired of Bush's failures. The elderly have been sc@#$%# with the medicare bill, the treasury is empty, our troops are stretched to the limit and coming home wounded to inadequate or non-existent medical care... the draft is looming over our children! 15 points? I smell a landslide... let them try to steal that! Stop this silly talk about a 'close race'... we've got ourselves a ticket, guys! We're going to win this election and send the Neocons packing --- and headed for the courtrooms...

      Go Kerry-Edwards...

      by crone on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 09:33:45 AM PDT

  •  Edwards for VP

    Edwards will help in Florida and in his home state, and possibly Arkansa and Virginia. The rest of the South can go their merry way to the Repubs. We don't need them. I think Edwards will really help in Ohio, Missouri and the more rural parts of PA where you have a lot of Reagan era blue collar Dems who can be swayed on the lunch bucket issues that Edwards is so good in articulating. His energy and enthusiasm , and a positive uplifting demeanor are also going to attract what fence straddlers are left. Folks who haven't made a decision yet tend to be people who don't like dirty and negative politics, so Edwards will have great appeal to them.

    by Chi Bob on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:22:29 AM PDT

  •  Edwards/Obama '12

    Edwards/Obama for 2012

       

    by jgkojak on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:37:46 AM PDT

•  McCain attacks Bush

  I posted this in  diary, but I want to make sure no one misses it. New DNC ad:

  McCain on Bush

  by zed on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 07:53:15 AM PDT

•  The SCLM attack machine ratchets up

  Check out this ever-so-subtle hit piece on the AP wire:

  Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Tuesday selected former rival John Edwards to be his running mate, calling the wealthy former trial lawyer and rookie senator a man who showed "guts and determination and political skills" in his unsuccessful race against Kerry for the party's nomination.

  ....

  By selecting Edwards, Kerry went with the smooth-talking Southern populist over more seasoned politicians in hopes of injecting vigor and small-town appeal to the Democratic presidential ticket. Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, calculated that he didn't need to add foreign policy heft to the ticket.

  ....

   "I have chosen a man who understands and defends the values of America, a man who has shown courage and conviction as a champion for middle-class Americans .... " Kerry said while Edwards remained at home in his posh Washington neighborhood.

  ....

  Edwards worked in private practice in Nashville and Raleigh, N.C., for nearly two decades, earning a fortune from medical malpractice and product liability judgments. Although Edwards portrayed himself as a champion of ordinary people hurt by large corporations, the American Tort Reform Association described him as "a wealthy personal injury lawyer masquerading as a man of the regular people."

  This goes on and on, including about four or five paragraphs dedicated to illustrating nothing but the disagreements and policy differences between Kerry and Edwards.

  by Catsy on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 07:53:55 AM PDT

  •  wow

    even for he SCLM, this is pretty bad. And that is saying something...

    by Volvo Liberal on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:17:21 AM PDT

  •  A call to service and sharing

    I posted this on a thread below, but i thibk it bears repeating.  the point isn;t how much you have but what you do with it.  Compare the Bushes and the Kerrys, the Cheneys and the Edwardses.

    The Two Americas does resonate coming from the Kerrys.  Both of them are about giving back--John through his Vietnam and public service, and Teresa through her husband's foundations.  They absolutely can make the case that it is time for the rich to do their fair share and give back so that others may follow Edwards' route to the American Dream.  They put the Bushes and the Cheneys to shame.  It's kind of like Nixon going to China.  Only Bill Gates can make the case against the inheritance tax and only the wealthy can really make the case against further income inequality without making it sound like class warfare.  A call to service and sharing--I like it a lot.

    If you're going in the wrong direction and you stay the course, where, exactly, do you wind up?

    by Mimikatz on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:58:55 AM PDT

    •  They'll keep the flame alive . . .

      For of those to whom much is given, much is required.

      And when at some future date the high court of history sits in judgment on each of us, recording whether in our brief span of service we fulfilled our responsibilities to the state, our success or failure, in whatever office we hold, will be measured by the answers to four questions:

      First, were we truly men of courage...

      Second, were we truly men of judgment...

      Third, were we truly men of integrity...

      Finally, were we truly men of dedication?

                                *John F. Kennedy, 1961

      by Mnemosyne on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 01:21:34 PM PDT

  •  Don't Worry About the Trial Lawyer Smear

    There was a roundtable a couple of nights ago on one of the local public interest channels on my cable network. The panel consisted of some of the best-known pollsters and campaign advisors in the state. One of the panel members, who worked on the '98 Edwards campaign, spoke about how they dealt with the "trial lawyer" issue.

    Basically, what people want to know first is "What kind of cases did he take on?". Sure enough, that work has already been done and there's not an instance of ambulance-chasing or what not out there. The public actually liked what they saw once they knew about it. The next thing the public asked, surprisingly, was "Did he do his job well? Was he a winner?". The answer to that, again, was a big yes. The public didn't have much problem with Edwards after that, and he beat the favored incumbent in the Senate race.
    

    by Fragamemnon on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 09:52:13 AM PDT

•  Good

  And even better if Big Business reveals its true colors. Then every honest American will be able to see who is the Enemy and who progressives and liberals should be fought. If the Chamber of Commerce backs Bush openly and tries to destroy Kerry-Edwards, then in case of Dem victory, they should go after them in retaliation and utterly ruin these corporate thieves.
  

  by Clueless Joe on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 07:57:21 AM PDT

•  Silver lining

  I'm less than thrilled by the Edwards choice, but it does leave room for an Attorney General with a strong Civil Liberties record.

  by ben masel on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:00:19 AM PDT

•  What about the NY Post?

  

  Their online edition also posted this story, but now it says: The page you are looking for cannot be found or does not exist on NYPOST.COM.

  This Murdoch rag has demonstrated its usefulness to society.

  by KingOneEye on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:02:11 AM PDT

  •  Murdoch,

    go Cheney yourself.
    PEACE!
    ABB&B!!!

    by PC on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:16:12 AM PDT

  •  This is hard to live down.

    You could hear the barely suppressed snicker in Brian Lehrer's voice on WNYC this morning, as he called it their "DEWEY BEATS TRUMAN" moment.

    As he said... you can "briefly report" something that turns out not to be the case... on radio, TV, or over the Internet, but a print edition of a newspaper goes out there on the street for everyone to see. It passes into the archives, it gets saved to microfilm in libraries, it will be out there in all its embarrassing, unrecallable glory, forever.

    I also detected a distinct overtone of "Whew, sure glad we have a less permanent medium." That sort of glaring public pratfall has got to be every journalist's private nightmare.

    by Canadian Reader on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:59:39 AM PDT

  •  HA-HA!

    Should Edwards proudly wave a copy of the Post, like Truman did with the Trib? Or would that just be seen as cruel to Geppy?

    I think a coupla shadow cabinet appointments are appropriate, starting with Gep as Secretary of Labor, Clark for one of the military posts like Defense or State, and maybe Dean for Health and Human Services.  Should a prominent African American be chosen--how about that judge that Ashcroft borked from the court of appeals slot under Clinton, for Attorney General?  What are John Lewis's areas of expertise?  

    by AdmiralNaismith on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 10:12:21 AM PDT

    •  Franklin Raines...

      would be a great Secretary of the Treasury.

      by Diane Chambers on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 12:57:16 PM PDT

•  I'm Calling Them

  and voicing my displeasure at this...

  U.S. Chamber of Commerce
  1615 H Street, NW
  Washington, DC 20062-2000

  Main Number
  202-659-6000
  Customer Service
  1-800-638-6582

  by jillian on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:04:47 AM PDT

  •  The Email the Chamber gave me

    to use for voicing my complaint -

    [e-mail]

    whether that is a good one or not...I'll find out.

    by jillian on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:13:17 AM PDT

•  my thoughts

  Since I got her WAY too late for the first thread, let me just say how elated I am.  The Gephardt rumors were causing me major agita -- it would have been like seeing your team, which blew the playoffs last year with a bad start, beginning in exactly the same way this year.  Making the proper pick shows that Kerry is indeed NOT Gore, that his political instincts are sharper.

  Edwards as Southerner for the Dems is like Colin Powell as black for the GOP -- he won't necessarily draw votes from "his own kind", but he'll reassure those in the middle who like the idea of the party being inclusive.  Screw NC and VA (though it's great they're competitive) -- he makes OH, WV and MO far tougher for Bush.

  Remember during the '92 debates, when Perot was accused of having no experience, and he said, You're right, I have no experience running up a trillion dollar debt?  Edwards should treat experience questions in the same way: I'm experienced enough that I now KNOW there was no Saddam/al Qaeda link; can Cheney say the same?  And all the alleged GOP FP experience hasn't kept us from an unholy mess in Iraq.

  Damn, I feel good.  Sometimes the obvious way to go is the right way, and I'm glad Kerry didn't feel obligated to spring a surprise for surprise's sake.

  by demtom on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:06:00 AM PDT

•  To quote our esteemed CINC...

  (albeit in a non-lethal context), "Bring 'em on."

  by WhoDatDemDere on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:06:42 AM PDT

•  Trial Lawyers are the only defenders that stand

  between the most of us and corporate America. My hope is that Edwards will bring a bunch of "Reagan Democrats" home.

  by Old Timer on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:08:55 AM PDT

•  Now Kerry Can Make Everyone Happy!

  Richard Gephardt: United States Secretary of Labor, 2005-2013.

  by sipples on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:11:14 AM PDT

•  Ha ha ha!!!

  Right this minute, while all the other networks are going nuts with the Kerry/Edwards story, Fox News is showing a special "FOX NEWS ALERT", which is... Bush meets with the Prime Minister of Iceland.

  Bwahahahhhahaha!  THIS is how Rove planned on upstaging us?

  by reef the dog on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:11:55 AM PDT

  •  ROFLMAO!!!

    I just blew drool all over my keyboard with that.

    by bannedmann on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:26:43 AM PDT

  •  Hey now. . .

    Chimpo is probably engaged in some real statesmanship: We'll lift the tariff on Bjork CD's if Iceland sends some of their crack special forces personnel.  I hear they can kill a man 12 different ways with a frozen cod.

    by BigOkie on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 09:15:57 AM PDT

    •  P.M. Forkbeard on the lethality of frozen cod

      it's up to thirteen ways now.  if bush can find a way to make a pretzel near-fatal...

      by saintlucifer on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 02:20:47 PM PDT

  •  Elsewhere in the news

    ...Bush met with Balder Forkbeard, Prime Minister of Iceland and member of the coalition of the willing...

    [screen behind newscaster shows old photograph of a ship full of vikings]

    by AdmiralNaismith on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 10:20:15 AM PDT

  •  PLEASE sing "Happy Birthday"!

    During this photo opportunity, in a scene eerily reminiscent of that moment in "F9/11" in which GDub insists upon a compliment on his golf swing (no, not that golf swing), he, B'rer Rabbit-like, asked reporters NOT to sing "Happy Birthday" to him, at which point they obediently broke into a half-hearted chorus.  How embarrassing.  He's the POTUS, and he's still so insecure he has to beg for affirmation.

    by Vico on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 02:38:39 PM PDT

•  Any way the McCain quote...

  ... Can be incorporated into the home page graphics for the rest of this wek and maybe part of the next?

  Second choice my ass. As if we haven't been living with the second choice these last three years.

  by textus on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:13:55 AM PDT

•  What a relief

  I guess this wasn't as big a waste of time as I thought:

  

  by KingOneEye on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:15:05 AM PDT

  •  asdf

    it's seven letters! lol.
    

    by JoelK in AZ on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:20:10 AM PDT

    •  Hey, I'm psychic

      ;-)

      by bannedmann on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:28:53 AM PDT

•  How will this impact the race...

  The closest races could very well be tipped by this : Oregon, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Missouri, West Virginia and New Hampshire.

  Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona get more competitive as well. Maybe even South Dakota (with Daschle in a tight race this might energize support futher for the Dems).  

  Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee become much more in play. And it may vitalize democrats in Georgia, Lousiana and South Carolina enough to force Republicans to spend money there.

  Fingers crossed no mistakes on Kerry or Edwards' part, just let Bush be Bush and he'll have something screw up for him in the next four months and regime change will happen.

  by DanceboyOH on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:16:14 AM PDT

  •  Edwards helps almost everywhere

    He did very well in the Iowa and Wisconsin primaries and should help in all of the farm states.

    by KeithH on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:22:52 AM PDT

    •  I would agree

      His populist take will play very, very well in Wisconsin, Minnesota and probably Iowa too.  I think Edwards is a huge asset to the ticket and could tip a number of iffy states the right way.  Whereas Dickless Cheney represents no one but Halliburton.  If the only effect is to encourage Nader to withdraw, it could spell victory all by itself.

      by Aaaargh on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 11:50:40 AM PDT

  •  Iowa

    remember, Edwards was an afterthought until he pulled the suprise and almost won Iowa. He spent a lot of time here, and a lot of Iowans really swooned for him.  I think it'll pretty much sew Iowa up.  I have no sense that Vilsack not being picked would turn anybody off.

    by bawbie on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:28:07 AM PDT

•  Obviously, Edwards is

  "the one we [Chamber of Commerce and, presumably, corporate types] fear the most" because Edwards is the one who is most likely to move his views and his votes into DC and not leave for a long, long time.  He has the ability to get corporate undies in a bunch because he's able to come across to voters as a genuine populist and someone who knows and understands their issues, yet is slightly more presentable than they, and therefore just the man to send to Washington.

  I wonder if it also means that unlike Clinton, Edwards has a clean past that won't cause embarrassing moments (like appearing on Baba Wawa's show holding hands with his wife, blubbering his contrition for his philandering) that the wingnut hate machine can focus on.  In other words, maybe Edwards doesn't have anything negative that the corporate thugs can grab onto.  Boy, I hope that's the case.

  by cinnamondog on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:16:48 AM PDT

•  vilsack's concession

  I thought Vilsack was very impressive with his
  comments this morning.

  I'd never heard him speak before and I was
  impressed. I can see why he was considered.
  Hopefully he will have a long future with the
  party.
  

  by JoelK in AZ on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:17:31 AM PDT

  •  My stepbrother's lived in Iowa for many years...

    ...and I asked him about Vilsack when I saw him this past weekend.  He said Vilsack's nice enough, but he couldn't see why anyone would want him as veep.

    by RT on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:54:50 AM PDT

  •  He'll be the next Senator from Iowa, though

    Don't know whether Grassly or Harkin will retire first, or even any time soon, but we've got a back bench ready.

    by AdmiralNaismith on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 10:24:46 AM PDT

•  KERRY and McCAIN

  (Posted this in Great Choice by accident)

  I always thought the McCain VP offer was a canard, and hoped it was. If Kerry seriously considered and approached McCain, then I consider this a flaw that detracts from my estimation of Kerry.

  Why?

  Quite simply - where's the upside for McCain?
  First of all, if the Dem's can't find a suitable candidate within their own ranks, then the party is doomed. Entertaining the thought of having to go outside democratic ranks to find a VP is pure idiocy, and if Kerry is guilty of it, then he made a serious error of judgment.

  I have never believed in it, and I have never seen it confirmed by Kerry. All I have seen is McCain stating that it would not happen, he was a Republican, and would stay such.

  Now - as to McCain's upside: there was none.

  If he left the Republican party, he would be reviled by its followers from here to eternity.
  Come 2008, McCain is clearly the best candidate the Republicans can field in their attept to regain the White House, and he knows it. By joining Kerry, he would abandon that, while also very likely sinking the Kerry campaign.
  By staying within the folds of his party, while remaining critical of the administration, he is creating a platform for another presidential bid by him.
  He'll offer a strong challenge to Kerry in 2008, and Kerry (if it's true) will regret having asked him to become VP.

  But that's in the future. For now, we have a sinking administration, which just saw Kerry-Edwards become reality.

  Interesting times ahead.
  

  by SteinL on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:18:42 AM PDT

  •  McCain guaranteed victory

    His upside was a guaranteed victory.  Nuff said.

    by jgkojak on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:43:03 AM PDT

  •  A Place in History

    McCain had an opportunity (assuming the whole thing was real -- facts not in evidence) to be a unifier and someone who helped heal the nation.  The current level of diatribe and strident polarization between the two parties is unbelieveable.  The GOP has been taken over by the neocons and no longer resembles its former self.

    An opportunity to shape the future is what he has lost.

    Oh well.  We'll still win.  Now, if we can just convince these people to BALANCE THE FREAKING BUDGET, our children will have a chance.

    /flame

    by polecat on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 11:45:00 AM PDT

    •  Unifying or dividing?

      The risk for McCain (and Kerry) was huge - and I seriously think the Republican attack-machine would have gone all out, with vicious results, if he had switched parties.

      But - as you say - it's a different race now, and let's see where that takes us. For what it's worth, I still hold the opinion that the feelers from Kerry towards McCain, if true, were a play that reflect badly on Kerry's judgment.

      by SteinL on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 01:06:25 PM PDT

      •  Looking forward

        With the assumption that John&John win, McCain has placed himself in the excellent position of "I told you so" to the neocons as well as a natural for '08 if he wasn't so old.

        He's also in an unassailable position in the Senate when the political fallout of the Gulf War comes along.  There are many rubber-stamps that are not in that position.

        Who on earth could the GOP run in '08?  Would Bush run again?  Who's left?  (Pun, not intended.)

        by polecat on Wed Jul 07, 2004 at 06:27:24 AM PDT

•  Mrs Edwards..

  will be a great asset to the campaign. I got the chance to chat with her at an appearance in Toledo.

  She's sincere, genuine and articulate. A real sense of humanity and openness.

  Gravitas with likeability.

  by Earl from Ohio on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:18:55 AM PDT

•  Get ready to hear those two words

  Trial Lawyers ... over and over and over again.

  I'm very happy with the pick.  I think Edwards will be a tremendous asset to the campaign and a wonderful vice president.   But this bumps tort reform/medical malpractice reform up a couple notches on the campaign issues list. I think Bush will try to make those into bigger wedges, and I don't think he'll let a speech go by with out mentioning those evil trial lawyers.  

  I know most people here don't have an aversion to lawyers, but it's my sense that some "normal" people out there do.  They've been given a bad name, so I think some biographical/educational ads on Edwards behalf to tell people the good that lawyers can do would be a great service.

  by bawbie on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:22:13 AM PDT

  •  Handicapped children

    That's my response to the anti-trial-lawyer theme. Edwards' case file contains many heart-breaking stories of children who have suffered from medical malpractice.

    If Bush-Cheney want to start this discussion, I say, Bring It ON!

    by KeithH on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:28:47 AM PDT

  •  Proves the neo-con contempt for rule of law

    Just another case of neo-cons having contempt for the rule of law. Just like the Doctrine of Pre-emption. Just like like the torture at Abu Ghirab. Just like Enron. Just like...

    by bannedmann on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:33:17 AM PDT

  •  Don't forget...

    Americans love the movie "Erin Brokovich". And John Grisham novels. And Law & Order.

    I don't think the lawyer aversion runs much deeper than the jokes...

    by luckylily on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:55:19 AM PDT

•  Kansas

  I am reading the book "What's the Matter with Kansas?' which is a good example of Edward's theme of the Two Americas.  I can only hope that the people of Kansas finally "get" it.

  by LynChi on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:24:50 AM PDT

  •  Being from Kansas...

    Yeah- that's a great book and incredibly accurate.

    Here is the problem.

    After a showing of F911 an older lady (75 or so) was asked what she thought of the events in the movie... "Oh they were horrible, dreadful things going on"
    So will you vote for Bush?
    "Oh no- I just can't do that?"
    So you'll vote for Kerry?
    "Well no- because he thinks two men can get married and that's against the bible"

    Hence the problem.

    I have long argued that the candidate the Dems most need this year is William Jennings Bryant.

    by jgkojak on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:46:06 AM PDT

•  Great pick by Kerry,

  Actually,

  I liked Dean for VP but I thought Dean melted down during the debates.

  Edwards will be attacked for advocating for people wronged by the medical and health system.  However, just as Republicans say that it was necessary to put Martha Stewart in jail because it gives trust and credibility to those buying securities, Edwards' career gave trust and credibility to the medical and health industries.  Every time someone puts on a Johnson and Johnson Band-Aid they want to be sure that their limbs won't fall off.  Every time someone takes a beta-blocker, they want to be sure that their heart won't stop.  That's a very commendable task and a service to our country that John Edwards performed.

  As to the foreign policy experience, reading "My Pet Goat" after hearing that the United States is under attack or Cheney's bungled, lying and traitorous theories of Iraq being tied to al Qaeda, should put Edwards far ahead of both those Bozos in the White House.  

  If I or my children or my next door neighbors or any of my friends were told that we were under attack, all of them would have given the orders to shoot down planes heading for buildings and I'd bet all of them would have done a better job in Afghanistan than Bush and Cheney did.  Do you think it's possible that once Cheney knew that the planes hit the trade center, Bush's phones were turned off, something Bush was very happy about because he was frozen in a stupor.

  Edwards has it all.  He's intelligent, his morals and ideals aren't best on selfishness, pandering and hypocrisy, he's charismatic and being a trial lawyer, you know that he can think on his feet.  I look forward to seeing Bush go back to digging up insects in the dirt of Crawford Texas.
  

  by cpa1 on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:28:44 AM PDT

  •  Home on the range

    Considering that he bought, or had bought for him, that "ranch" as a campaign prop in 2000 (I think that was the year), and considering how uncomfortable he looks when he's there, I can't imagine him using it much after Jan, 20, 2005.

    by Vico on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 02:49:37 PM PDT

    •  Bush - a rancher?

      You have to have animals in this case cows to be considered a ranch.  He really isn't a rancher, but a farmer.  You need to grow something besides tumbleweed to be a rancher so I guess he's a . . . I just ain't a sure what he is *.!.?

      by willard landreth on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 06:45:48 PM PDT

•  Tom Donahue: Another Right Wing Prick

  This is the same SOB who recently admonished workers who lost their jobs because of outsourcing to "stop whining."

  Here's hoping American workers are finally getting a clue about these slime.

  by Major6th on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:30:45 AM PDT

•  This helps, not hurts Bowles

  Edwards will help reduce the Bush margin in the state of NC. The increased money in NC, will also mean increased money from national democrats. Without Edwards, Bush would have won NC easily and Bowles would have needed a lot of ticket splitting. Now, Bush will still probably win, but only a small percentage of Bush voters will need to vote for Bowles and since Bowles is a moderate democrat, I think that he can do that and can win. This may move the NC senate race from a tossup to lean democratic.

  by NJDem on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:36:05 AM PDT

•  The Repubs registered KERRYPICKSEDWARDS.COM

  and it goes directly to:

  http://www.gop.com/RNCResearch/Read.aspx?id=4345

  (tips to Wonkette....)

  by jillian on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:38:47 AM PDT

•  Fear The Most?

  Republicans told us they feared Kerry more than Dean, too. This was later revealed to be an attempt at psychological warfare - to convince Democrats to chose the weaker candidate because he was more "electable", in hopes that it might be enough to get Bush a second term.

  So take any comments made by Republicans about this choice with a grain of salt.

  by RHunter on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:45:52 AM PDT

  •  Dean

    was always the weaker candidate.

    by Velvet Revolution on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 09:02:40 AM PDT

•  Prediction: Kerry-Edwards will win 56%-44%.

  Kerry's choice of Edwards will help Dems across the board, across the country.

  And Kos is absolutely right, this puts even SC in play.  GWB's been leading by a mere 10 points there; they've lost a lot of jobs overseas.  Edwards will cut into that lead.  And he'll be in the state fairly often, campaigning for/with Inez Tenenbaum.  

  Bush will have to spend real money in SC just to make sure he doesn't lose the state to Kerry!  About time we made those %@$#@*&$ play defense.

  by RT on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:46:11 AM PDT

•  I'm a Democrat..

  because of scenes like this:

  

  Cheney the Chamber of Commerce- it's about time they lost their tax deductable status anyway.

  by Earl from Ohio on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:46:52 AM PDT

  •  your link

    isn't working.

    by seamus on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 09:04:14 AM PDT

•  Anti-Cheney slogan

  Why is Edwards a better choice for V.P. than Cheney?

  Because Bush could die.

  (with a tip of the hat to "West Wing.")

  by Daniel Hatch on Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 08:49:57 AM PDT

•