A Different Dream Team? Obama/Edwards

by: Paul Rosenberg

Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:04


Yesterday, endorsing Barack Obama, John Edwards gave one of the best speeches of the campaign (transcript) in which he seamlessly blended the themes of his campaign with that of Obamas:

Here is how he began the section where he blends the two themes, and introduces his key motif of the walls that divide us, the walls we will tear down:

Now, what brought all of us here is the profound belief that we can change this country. That there are service men and women in Iraq who can come home starting today. That our kids deserve to go to better schools than we went to. That we can run our cars on something other than oil. That we can have good jobs that can fill these empty factories. And that the anxiety that all of our people face every day can change when we finally make two Americas one America for every single one of us.

   This is why you are here. You are here because of the hope that you carry in your heart that will make this country better. And we have so much work to do in America, because all across America there are walls. There are walls dividing the way things are and the one America we want to see.

This blending of their two themes is, I would argue, a clear winning formula for the Democrats in November, and while Edwards has previously ruled out running for Vice President, that was then, and this is now.  Right now, the greatest weakness that Obama has is precisely the demographic that Edwards speaks most forcefully for and too.  And the greatest opportunity for Edwards to further the cause he passionately believes in is to see Obama elected, with a new pledge to join in that commitment (see transcript text below the fold).  In turn, running as Obama's VP could be the most effective way to ensure that Obama is elected.

Paul Rosenberg :: A Different Dream Team? Obama/Edwards
Here's just a taste of how Edwards goes on to develop his motif of the walls that divide us:

   And in fact there's a wall around Washington DC. The American people today are on the outside of that wall. And on the inside are the big corporations and the lobbyists working to protect a system that takes care of them. And guess who struggles every single day? Working men and women see that wall when they have to split their bills into two piles. One: pay now, and one: pay later. When they get bullied at work because they want to join a union. When they see disappointment on the face of their son or daughter because they can no longer pay for that child to go to college. When their CEO who gets a golden parachute and their job gets shipped overseas - and you know something about that here in Michigan. When their wages drop and their kids go hungry. And guess who's doing just fine? The insiders. The lobbyists. The special interests. Our job come January of next year is to tear that wall down and give this government back to the American people.

   There is another wall that divides us. It's the moral shame of 37 million of our own people who wake up in poverty every single day. In a nation of our wealth, to have millions of Americans who work every single day and still can't pay their electric bill and pay for their food at the same time? There are mothers out there, working two jobs every day to try to keep their kids from going to bed hungry. There are men and women who have worked hard all their lives so that they can try to buy a home, and they're living in a tent city because they've got nowhere to go. This is not okay, and for eight long long years, this wall has gotten taller.

   Yesterday I was in Philadelphia and I was announcing an initiative to cut poverty in half in the next ten years, and I am proud to say today that Barack Obama stands with me in this cause. We also have a wall that divides our two public school systems in America. It is not okay that a child born into a wealthy family gets the best education in the world, and a child born in a small town or the inner city barely gets by. Their education is our education. We're going to fix that system for them and make these schools good for everybody.

I know that in terms of unifying the party, putting a woman on the ticket would be an excellent move.  But putting Edwards on the ticket would put the election away.  Because of the unique dynamics of this race, it would be one of the rare examples of when a Vice Presidential candidate really can sway an important, if not crucial demographic--the very "Regan Democrat" demographic that McCain cannot win without.  And, of course, he does this particularly in the old battleground states of Ohio, Michigan and Ohio, as well as the new new battleground states of Virginia and North Carolina--states that will stretch the McCain campaign to the breaking point.

Most importantly, Edwards on the ticket would be a powerful figure for healing the deep rifts that have divided our party in the past, and that clearly still linger in hearts of many,  These two candidates together embody the themes that they have both sounded in different ways--the deep need, and the powerful possibility of uniting our nation and tearing down the walls that divide us.


p.s  Also worth considering in this regard, the passage in a story by David Moberg in In These Times that Meteor Blades frontpaged at DKos last night.  Here's the last half of that excerpt:

As a labor leader, Lewandowski remained neutral in the Indiana primary, which Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) narrowly won, but he personally supported Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) (after his first choice, John Edwards, dropped out of the race). Obama's "organizer mindset" appealed to Lewandowski, who has been building a working-class community affiliate of the labor movement. Obama's March 18 Philadelphia speech on race in America further impressed him.

Now Lewandowski wants Obama to take another big step, one that could strengthen Obama's appeal among white working-class voters who have gravitated more toward Clinton, as they did again in Indiana and North Carolina.

"Like what he did with his Philadelphia speech on race, he needs a speech on class," Lewandowski says. "But, of course, we don't have class in America."

Obama would do well to take Lewandowski's advice.

Together, that's a step that an Obama/Edwards team could definitely take.


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Concerns about Edwards (4.00 / 8)
I like Edwards a lot. But what about his track record?
He lost the 04 primary, lost in the 04 general, lost in the 08 primary. Nearly every vote he is ever asked about he has to apologize about because now he has different views. Couldn't this losing streak and this so-called flip-flop issue stance hurt the fresh Obama brand?

I don't mean this as an attack on Edwards, but rather as an honest question. Won't his track record hurt them?

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  


would be weird (4.00 / 1)
I think it would be strange (opportunistic even?) to see Edwards run as VP again. I'd rather see him as AG or a SCOTUS appointment. Preferably AG for 4 years then SCOTUS.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Strange??? (4.00 / 6)
Well, it's also strange to see a black man and a white woman battling it out for the presidential nomination.

What the hell does "strange" have to do with anything?  "Normal" is killing America.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
to me (0.00 / 0)
it seems a little desperate when someone runs over and over for the same thing, and then will take the second slot repeatedly if that doesn't work. For Edwards I think he does better to refresh his character by stepping into a new identity rather than be the perennial second-ran guy.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Its different to run for VP than to be VP (4.00 / 2)
After years of renewing America as a very active VP (a Cheney-esque VP with hands in) Edwards will have a strong claim to be the Nominee.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
I agree with the above comments. (0.00 / 0)
House, I think Edwards claim would be weak for the reasons outlined above.

And I mean this in jest, but no offense, but given your signature I think you're a little too focused on the past to begin with.  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  


[ Parent ]
I had to read three times, but I htink Ive got it. (4.00 / 3)
The moderate J. Edwards of Kerry's time has grown into a hugely progressive, hugely connected-to-the-voter man of  great skill. There is no comparison to the candidate of today, and questions on why he changed his vote how he became the progressive he is now, will mirror the deep desire of America to understand how they were fooled too.
That is a powerful set of discussions with an amazing capacity for exposure of: the media, cooked intel, undeserved trust and the need to become deeply independently informed.

Edwards was a VP candidate for a few months, Kerry/Edwards won the election, John looks too young to be out of College and is in now way old hat, old politics or yesterdays news.

As to being focused on the past. Psychologists will tell you that laughter is fear, mixed with enough security to release tension. The perfect example of this is a parent throwing their 2 year old into the air a little. Because its Mom the kid is completely secure, but its scary.

Adding Edwards, like adding Gore adds extra security to America in this drive to change. Obama / Edwards is a ticket that lets you sit down and read the paper after you have been out to vote. It adds a little "of course" to the choice of Obama, who is very exciting, but has a tinge of the fear of the new.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
He Ran Twice (4.00 / 5)
That's hardly "over and over and over again."

I just don't get why you find this third rate narrative line so compelling.  If he were someone without a strong brand name, I think it would be a lot more compelling. A third-rate narrative takes down a third-rate candidate.  But who are the other topline Southern progressive populists?

And please don't say "Jim Webb."  We all know he's only a progressive compared to VA Republicans.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
3 times (0.00 / 0)
so if we take that he has in the mind he has been vp - he ran with Kerry - so he went that track. Four years later he's back to take it up to the next level and be president. But he didn't even place well in that. So he's just not that popular in that slot. if he goes back to being vp its like he's stepping backward, or he's stuck. he needs to be something between vp - which isn't really much of anything, VP i mean - so to me AG or SCOTUS would be something more than VP, but not president. In that he would be moving forward or up; and it would be his own thing. Being VP again, he's a candidate a fourth time (ugh) and he's second fiddle again.

I think Obama should pick a woman for VP, cause I think it would really piss Hillary off and I would love to see her head explode; I think that would be a nice bit of revenge. But I accept that that's not a really good criteria. Shoring up Ohio or Penn is a good criteria, so picking someone from those places would work well I think.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare


[ Parent ]
VP is worth more than you give it credit for - a lot more. (0.00 / 0)
Cheney is an exception to the rule, the rare VP without future political ambition.

The four VP's before him were Gore, Quayle, Bush 1, and Mondale. Those are pretty good odds on winning your party's presidential nomination, no?

I don't know how I feel about Obama-Edwards, but I can guess how Edwards would feel.

 


[ Parent ]
revenge? (0.00 / 0)
I think Obama should pick a woman for VP, cause I think it would really piss Hillary off and I would love to see her head explode; I think that would be a nice bit of revenge

It ended in Indiana.  At that point, the task was to unite the party.  You must think the Obama camp is dealing from a position of strength.  I do.  Then we have to ACT like we're dealing from a position of strength.  Just because idiots like McAuliffe keep blathering on doesn't mean we have to react as though they were a serious force.  Yes, Hillary is giving out mixed messages.  An army in motion isn't that easily stopped, and the Hillary forces are an army.

It's easy to fall for the grossly sexist notion that things are so close because of Hillary's raging ego or something.  No, she's so close because millions of women are very passionate about her.  I support Obama, have for a good while, but I'm also very passionate about Hillary.

Whatever we do, we have to proceed respectfully.  We're the stronger force, and as Spiderman's uncle said, with great power comes great responsibility.  Will, I know you have a good head.  Please provide leadership to others whose heads are still stuck in the quarrels of two months ago.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...


[ Parent ]
Edwards is a bridge to the undecided voters (4.00 / 3)
Edwards would be a fine choice to be VP perhaps BECAUSE he made some poor decisions while in office, because since then he has clearly acknowledged his mistakes and has fought as hard as any major politician for a new way of politics.  He has no record of caving in to the Bush administration since 2004, like most of his rivals for the position.  He's not like HRC or dozens of other Democratic leaders who waited way too long to apologize for their poor choices and weak backbones.  Unlike them, Edwards is an ideal representative of a huge portion of the country, who initially trusted Bush and supported the decision to go to war with Iraq but has since come to despise the war, Bush, and everything he stands for.  These are the undecided voters who Obama still has a chance to persuade; Edwards could be his bridge to them.  I imagine many of these voters see Edwards as "one of us".  

And the best part is, that of this group of Americans who allowed themselves to be duped early in Bush's first term, Edwards was one of the very first to see the light.  Since then, he has been one of the most successful people at helping other duped Americans to see the light.  Over the last 5+ years, Edwards has shown that he is a bona fide progressive, far more so than virtually every other VP candidate with similar appeal.

I had some qualms about Edwards as a presidential candidate, but I think he's an excellent complement to Obama's campaign for the presidency.  If he were a woman, he might be perfect.


[ Parent ]
I listend to that speech live (0.00 / 0)
and I don't recall hearing one reason from Edwards for why people should vote for Obama specifically. Not one. In fact he only mentioned Obama a hand full of times. After heaping much praise on Clinton for many minutes his speech went on about change and America. And what he said could have applied to either candidate as either candidate can bring change. They just each talk about it in different ways. Obama does in in a broader sense of 'hope and change' but doesn't really tell you how he will acheive that, and Clinton does it in a more targeted sense of specific policies and issues.

As for the blending of two messages I don't think there was a blending at all for the most part. Edwards always did talk about change from the beginning of his campaign. The one thing he did always talk about that Obama really has not is poverty. And if Obama tries to co-op that now it will be for opportunity for him not because poverty per se has been a major issue he has spoke about a lot.

Edwards is not going to be VP. He has his agenda of fighting poverty and giving an endorsement was a way to spotlight his cause and himself. As a multi-millionaire and independent operator he can do his own thing and still be with Elizabeth through good and bad health along with being with his children. Being VP won't allow for that as much.

Yeah Edwards might be able to bring along some Bubbas as some here have referred to the White blue collar worker, but Edwards won't be the guy. Besides people will be looking at Obama first and what he stand for. No White southerner is going to cancel out what people feel about Obama.

I do appreciate you Paul mentioning the Reagan Democrats as when I have mentioned here the newbies have fought me that there is such a person. LOL. Of course there is and always will be in the sense of what the definition of a Reagan Democrat is. I will disagree with you though that McCain can't win those people. I'm not sure for your reasons you think that as you did not state any but a guy like McCain who is moderate in many ways and is strong on defense is exactly the type of candidate a Reagan Democrat would vote for. In fact polls have showed that many Clinton Dems would vote for McCain should she not be the nominee. So there is proof positive.


[ Parent ]
Obama has talked about poverty plenty during the campaign (0.00 / 0)
He wasn't as in your face about the issue as Edwards, but it was actually a staple of his stump speech.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

[ Parent ]
Like I said (4.00 / 1)
"poverty per se has not been a major issue he has spoke about a lot."

Call it what you want - not in your face - not a major issue...

I think it all describes it accurately.

For sure his poverty message was minuscule compared to Edwards. That is all I said.


[ Parent ]
But Obama has (0.00 / 0)


Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

[ Parent ]
So has Clinton (0.00 / 0)
but neither Clinton or Obama compare to Edwards on the subject and neither is known for their talks on the subject. For both the subject of poverty gets lost in the rest of what they talk about.

Until yesterday I have not read one post on any blog about Obama's talking about poverty and the mention of it yesterday was only a direct result of the Edwards endorsement - an indorsement that only made the front page of one of the three major newspapers in the US btw.


[ Parent ]
there have been many blog posts about Obama and poverty (0.00 / 0)
And when I saw Obama speak here in Missouri, he made several prominent mentions of poverty in his stump speech.

Judging by your behavior on this blog, you just shut out whatever Obama has to say and insert your own misconceptions.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!


[ Parent ]
And like I said (0.00 / 0)
so has Clinton.

[ Parent ]
Two Candadices For V.P. Not Without Precedent (4.00 / 5)
In 1900 Adlai Ewing Stevenson was nominated to be William Jennings Byran's running mate against McKinely.  This was his second stint as a V.P. running mate as he had already served as the 23rd Vice President of the United States under Grover Cleveland in his second administration.

I disagree with most here about Edwards and the opinons being expressed about what his motives were and his "its about time" endorsement.  I think it was damned smart of him to hold off.  There is no doubt in my mind Edwards would endorse.  As a former Edwards supporter who was disappointingly crushed when he withdrew, I shook it off and moved my support over to Obama, my original second choice.  Though I went for Obama right away after Edwards dropped out I wanted him to wait and hold off on the endorsement.  I'm sure his reasons were the same as mine for waiting.

Though I liked Obama and was in full support after Edwards withdrawal, I wasn't hearing Obama give the same committement to issues of poverty and workers' rights.  As for Hillary, let's face it - working against poverty isn't her thing - its middle class all the way.  Most of you see opportunism here if he announced he was open for the second slot.  Anyone who accepts a second slot in a Presidential race chooses it for reasons of opportunity.  How the hell is that news?  In any event he held off on his endorsement because he was looking for assurances that can't be granted in a run through the nomination process.  Its just not practical.  After listening to his speech yesterday its obvious he got two assurances from Obama regarding policy initiatives:  (1) the inclusion of anti-poverty measures as public policy and (2) assurances that workers' rights would be a mainstay of the DOJ under his administration.  Candidates running for POTUS in the nomination process are not in a position to offer and give policy detail assurances at the expense of broader issues in this part of the run.  Edwards knew that.  Now is the time to get those assurnaces.  I'm willing to bet my mortgage that Hillary wasn't predisposed to do that.  Obama obviously was as I thought he would be.  Obama talks about not just the middle class, he talks about everyone.

Yeah, I'd love to see an Obama/Edwards ticket.  But you can bet that if it doesn't come to fruition, Edwards is a walking cabinet position waiting for the nomination.  As for Edwards' aspirations for another run for POTUS - he's done and he knows it.  You don't get more than two chances in the Democratic party.  But as a sitting Vice President the dynamic changes.  That is the only path left open to him now.

As for criticism's about him not mentioning Obama more than a handful of times in his 17 minute speech, will duh.  One of Obama's main campaign themes is its not about him.  Its about the supporters, the voters and the American people.  Us.  Edwards' speech was in that vain which I'm sure was discussed and approved by the Obama campaign.  He'd be great for the ticket.  But I doubt it will be offered to him.  Attonery General Edwards all the way.

TrumanDem

Truman's Conscience
"The Buck Stopped Here"


[ Parent ]
Excellent, Thoughtful Comment (4.00 / 2)
Though I'm sure there are some who would argue that Adlai E. Stevenson I was "strange."

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
There's no better duo (4.00 / 7)
I don't know if Edwards will consider it, but it sure would be a powerful ticket. Obama simply doesn't have a better choice.

I agree (4.00 / 2)
I think Edwards would bring most of the advantages that Clinton would bring to the VP position (except maybe that level of name recognition), without most of the negatives.  That said, I really don't think that John and Elizabeth perceive themselves as being second fiddle to anyone, for better or worse.  While it makes sense for him politically (he's certainly young enough to be an effective and viable standard bearer in 2016), I think he lives in constant fear that he's just one loss or one slip up away from total political irrelevance (which is why he waited so long to endorse).  I think that even a 1% chance that he could be chosen as VP again and lose again means that it's extremely unlikely he'd accept.

I've ben saying for MONTHS now (4.00 / 5)
that this would be a phenomenal ticket. (Search my comments for evidence.)

Edwards would be a great "reinforcing" candidate, in Chris Bowers' formulation, for Obama, rather than a "shoring up" candidate.

Not only that, but if Edwards really is the fire-breathing populist that is his current incarnation, then it is possible we could have somebody to grow the Obama coalition -- which will not outlast Obama -- beyond 2016, and really set the Democratic party on the road to dominance for a generation.

The only thing I worry about is. . . why did it take him so long to endorse Obama? How could he possibly have even considered enorsing Clinton, given the themes on which he campaigned? It is enough to make one consider Russ Feingold's bluntly-expressed reservations about Edwards.

Yet despite all that, I think an Obama/Edwards ticket would absolutely rock.


Two Thoughts (4.00 / 7)
I, too, wondered about why Edwards didn't endorse earlier.  I have two thoughts.  One is that his wife leans toward endorsing Clinton because she favors Clinton's health care plan.

The second is that Edwards may have felt that the campaign would develop this way, and that his endorsement would mean more coming across as something that Obama had truly earned, that giving it later, rather than sooner would carry more weight with his supporters.

Of course, this is pure speculation on my part.  But at least it would make sense.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
playing poker (4.00 / 2)
The Obama camp I think has shown a savvy handling of their cards and cheery picking the best time to play their aces. Maybe they were instrumental in holding this one.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
The Kerry Endorsement AFTER The Mass Primary (4.00 / 1)
was a HUGE counter-example.

But I think you have a point.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
but he id play the Kennedys before mass (0.00 / 0)
not that it worked.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
this comes up a lot (4.00 / 1)
This gets brought up in the media a lot - that the Kennedy(s) endorsement didn't deliver Mass.

They never mention the possibility that it may have helped in Connecticut.

"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."
-Lawrence Summers


[ Parent ]
or that may have undergirded support across the country (4.00 / 1)
for February 5th. The Kennedys were a major source of media exposure and establishment liberal support for Obama in late January/February.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

[ Parent ]
you mean after NH, right? (0.00 / 0)
Because Kerry endorsed Obama on 1/10, nearly a month before Obama lost MA.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

[ Parent ]
Yeah, I STILL Haven't Had That Cup Of Coffee (4.00 / 1)
But the kettle's on, so that's a start.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Right message, wrong guy (0.00 / 0)
One theory why Edwards waited so long is that he thought Clinton would probably win and wanted to position himself for a spot in her Administration.  Also, it seems pretty clear that Elizabeth supports Hillary.

Count me off this bandwagon, even though I don't have a good alternative to offer and would prefer Edwards to Hillary.  He appealed to white working class people for votes, but did he get them because he was a white man or because they liked his message?  Hard to say.  And he didn't get that many votes.  He does seem a liitle too opportunistic to me, even though I like a lot of his ideas.

I really wish there were an obvious choice, besides Gore (as environmental coordinator).

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
Offense, Baby, Offense (4.00 / 4)
Any VP is going to be vulnerable to some form of GOP attack.  And we can expect it to be (a) vicious and unrelenting and (b) echoed by the press.

We can either go the defensive route and try to pick the VP who will make this the most difficult--just like picking a decorated war hero to top our ticket made it hard for them to attack our nominees patriotism and courage in 2004.

Or we can go on the offense, and pick the VP who will make our case the strongest.

I'm arguing for the latter approach.  But if you want to give the first approach one more try, for old time's sake...

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


Ooops! (4.00 / 1)
This was supposed to reply to bluethunder's first comment to this diary.

I obviously need me some coffee.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
AMEN. (4.00 / 4)
(1) VPs shouldn't just be about covering your blind spot. The Republicans MAKE a blind spot, whether you like it or not. We need someone who will hit THEIR blind spots.
(2) Arguably, there is no better advocate for progressive causes than John Edwards. He makes taking on the lobbyists and taking on the big corporate interests sound as American as apple pie.
(3) Edwards would make a great President. I think that's an important qualification for VP that people ignore when they play games with demographics and labels and images.  

[ Parent ]
I thought so too (0.00 / 0)
watching the speech.  If not VP, Obama should announce that Edwards will be Secretary of Labor [or whatever] and get him out on the campaig trail that way.

However, if it thought that Hillary Clinton -- with all her votes and delegates -- wants to be VP, and Obama instead picks the man who came in third, I think many of her determined supporters would be offended.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.


I Agree Clinton Needs To Be Happy (0.00 / 0)
Realistically, Clinton's going to be too old in 8 years for a clear shot at the top.  She could make it, but not without another fight.  If Obama can work out a deal for her to become Senate leader, it might just work out.

It certainly didn't hurt that Edwards started out his speech endorsing Obama by praising Clinton right up front.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Clinton's racist remarks put her out of the running (4.00 / 2)
Clinton's references to obliterating Iran and to "white voters" favoring her should be deal killers for any place in an Obama presidential administration or for future elective office for that matter.

As Juan Cole pointed out, attacking another country with the aim of obliterating it is a violation of international law.

A country that has been attacked can respond by counter-attacking the attackers militarily. It may not intentionally kill civilians without committing punishable war crimes.

Deliberating stoking white racism is far beyond the pale of anything that is remotely tolerable in American politics.


[ Parent ]
Hillary's Remarks Were NOT Racist (0.00 / 0)
Calling a spade a spade so to to speak is what she did. Obama is not getting anywhere near the WH unless he wins the white vote, plain and simple, for the basic reason there are more white voters in this country than any other. Mathematics 101. Analyze the WV vote, and you'll find even the groups that supported Obama went for her instead. The majority of these people were not voting race, but experience and judgement, which seems to be lacking in many posters to this thread. Racism doesn't just go one way. A 90% black vote for Obama says some A/A may just be practicing a bit as well.

One of the big flaws in everyone's thinking here is that Obama holds all the cards. He doesn't. Half the convention will be Hillary supporters. Let's see what they say about Edwards for VP, 'cause that ain't happening without her support. In fact, read your rules book. Anything goes after the first ballot if a candidate isn't selected. Fun times for all.


[ Parent ]
I can't remember which site (4.00 / 1)
suggested that Edwards has privately signaled that he's open to VP or Attorney General.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
NYT's "The Caucus" blog said as much yesterday: (4.00 / 1)
[ Parent ]
Not opffended, she opposed Obama because of principals (4.00 / 2)
and Edwards as VP signals those principals are understood and dealt with.

Clinton wasnt running on ego, she was defending her healthcare plan and ensuring that pro-working class policies weren't lost in the drive to win.

Smart ass remarks in answer to my post will covered in swarming ants.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
WIth Edwards for VP (4.00 / 2)
and Clinton for Senate Majority Leader -- bam, the Democratic Party is united and ready for the general. Rock and Roll.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Edwards AUMF vote (0.00 / 0)
Some have said that their criteria for a good VP candidate includes having opposed the war from the start.  Would those people make an exception for Edwards?

(OT: I loved Edwards speech, but was really distracted by the shininess of his forehead.  I just felt like I had to say that somewhere.)

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


Well, There's Always Ron Paul (4.00 / 2)


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
vote (4.00 / 1)
I think he gets a pass because he both "rejected and renounced" so to speak his vote and he ended up with the most agressive plan (of the top three) for withdrawal.

[ Parent ]
you only get a pass if you DEnounce (4.00 / 1)
renounce doesn't count. I looked it up at HillaryClinton.com.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
A great comment (0.00 / 0)
I can see how you could spin it the other way (many of of us supported the war at the start, but now there is an overwhelming consensus in favor of ending this war) but I do think this is a problem.

The more I think about it, the more obvious it becomes to me that Clark is the best choice (military background/epereince , against the war, clinton supporter).


[ Parent ]
Clark to me (0.00 / 0)
is a worse hanger-on than Edwards. Clark is like the guy at a party who you have to invite but you just don't want coming to the after hours. I know there are a lot of Clark fans, but I think he's just such a weak speaker and he's been hanging out around presidential candidates forever without really being popular enough to win anything or be a strong voice. Don't get me wrong, I think Clark is a good guy, and I really like Edwards. But Clark is like flat soda as a candidate. My $.02

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
I'm skeptical that this ticket helps win the "working class" (4.00 / 1)
In the past couple of days, I've seen reports that the polls indicate:

-Hillary beats Edwards soundly in the category of the white working class voters;
-both Hillary and Obama lose to McCain in this category at about the same rate.

Of course, I understand none of that shows the effect of a combination of Edwards/Obama, but I think it does raise questions about Edwards' appeal to that group (notwithstanding his message).

Also, whatever happened to the theory that Obama should avoid picking someone who highlights his weaknesses?

And is it a problem that Edwards voted for the war at first? Or is his vociferous opposition since then enough to overcome that problem?


Two Points (4.00 / 3)
(1) I think what we have here is a case of "Who are you going to believe?  Me or your lying eyes?"

Your own eyes watching that video should convince you of how effective Edwards can be with working class whites.  The fact that some polls say that Clinton does it better just might have something to do with the fact that she's been running just behind Obama for the past 3 1/2 months while Edwards has been on the sidelines.

And if not, then ask yourself what those 7 percent of West Vireginians were doing voting for Edwards when they knew he wasn't even in the race anymore?  (Hint: I might could tell you.  I voted for Edwards in California.)

(2) The whole reason that I wrote this diary is that Edwards managed to reinforce Obama at the same time as he shored him up.  Quite an impressive trick.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
If he were that effective with working class whites (4.00 / 2)
Wouldn't he have done better in the primaries?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
But remember the polls of the country (4.00 / 4)
showing Edwards beating all republicans by larger margins. Democrats, to their credit and damnable foolishness, were and always do have different agendas sometimes, than just who will win the most votes,

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
Remember The Media??? (4.00 / 5)
Sheesh!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Yes, and that's a concern (0.00 / 0)
Wouldn't the M$M have the same response to Edwards the VP candidate as it did to Edwards the Dem candidate?

If such could not be effectively confronted in the primaries, what makes anyone think it could be confronted in the GE?

Or, maybe it doesn't matter because the issue is no longer, "electability", like it was during the primaries.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Sure the Medai Will Go Haircut Crazy (4.00 / 5)
But as part of the national ticket, Edwards won't be swamped by it the way he was as an underfunded contender, who nonetheless beat Clinton in Iowa.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
More than haircuts (0.00 / 0)
The basic negative theme on Edwards was one of an elitist that was shifting over to a more populist stance for political gain.  This (no matter how untrue) seems to reinforce the negative media theme about Obama. But, in the grand scheme - maybe these are less important than the positive arguments concerning his strengths on policy and ideals. IF this happens, they need to have a counter-argument for this kind of attack - maybe he should shave his head?

Even so, the bulk of the comments here have made a pretty good case for Edwards as VP.  I like his campaign style (excluding in the 2004 GE) and his name recognition is strong. Not the worst choice, that much is true.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Hmmm.... (0.00 / 0)
IF this happens, they need to have a counter-argument for this kind of attack - maybe he should shave his head?

In light of my "Technocratic for the People" diary last weekend, the first thing that comes to mind is the Michael Stipe look.

I would certainly peg Edwards as a likely REM fan, though CCR is the more obvious choice.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
The media (4.00 / 2)
will try to tear down ANY Democratic candidate. Period, doesn't matter who they are.

They are not our friends, we do not need to be letting them pick our candidates. We pick somebody we believe in, then back them to the hilt.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
its about reinforcing Obama's perceived negatives (0.00 / 0)
but, anyway, as I just said - the reinforcing/compensating POSITIVES likely outweigh these negatives.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Working class whites were his entire base during the primaries (4.00 / 6)
It's why he did as well as he did in Iowa, which he would have won without the shocking youth for Obama turnout.  He then proceeded to split the working class white vote with Clinton, who completely choked off his media coverage post-Iowa, until he dropped out.

[ Parent ]
Don't forget (4.00 / 6)
He had lower name ID, less money, and a lot less media exposure than Clinton. And after he lost Iowa, he was written off.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

[ Parent ]
re: lying eyes (0.00 / 0)
Your own eyes watching that video should convince you of how effective Edwards can be with working class whites.

Unless they don't, right?

I'm not sure what kind of argument you're making here, but you seem to be countering actual evidence of why this wouldn't be a good idea with something along the lines of, "well, just take my word for it."  Likewise, I don't get this:

And if not, then ask yourself what those 7 percent of West Vireginians were doing voting for Edwards when they knew he wasn't even in the race anymore?

Well, I voted for Dean in the TX primary in 2004, and even was a delegate for him at the county convention.  Talk about a lost cause!  But I was immensely dissatisfied with Kerry as the presumptive nominee.

But you know what?  I voted for him in the general anyway.  And I assume that you, as an Edwards voter in California, are planning on doing the same.  You need to come up with some evidence that those 7 percent in WV aren't going to be Obama voters anyway come November.  Right now you're making an assumption that could just as easily be true as not.  And again, the thrust of your argument seems to be "take my word for it!"


[ Parent ]
Evidence Out Of Context Don't Mean A Thing (4.00 / 1)
Your argument lacks credible evidence--evidence that's properly contextualized to be relevant to the argument at hand.

That's why it falls under the "Who do you trust?" rubric.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Still no coffee? (0.00 / 0)
It wasn't "my argument" - it was ThomasPaine's.  I was merely objecting to your response to him.

All I would say is that "evidence [not] properly contextualized" is still more evidence than what you've got.  Far as I can tell, your argument boils down to "This speech by Edwards is teh awesome!!!"  

Your argument rests on the assertion that Edwards has more appeal to white working class voters at the bottom of a ticket than McCain has at the top.  This flies in the face of what we know from the 2004 election, as well as what we know about Edwards's appeal in these last two primaries, as well as the existing poll data (which of course may be insufficient).  Other commenters have made these points and you've offered nothing in response other than out-of-hand dismissals that do not address any of these points with any substance whatsoever.

Your personal reaction to the speech is neither here nor there.  Frankly, I don't find your reasoning the least bit persuasive thus far.


[ Parent ]
speech (4.00 / 3)
He has become amazing on the stump. Really, I think he, Obama, and Bill Clinton (sorry Hillary) are probably the three most gifted orators in Democratic politics in the last 45 years. Quit amazing that all three of them are involved in the same race.  

[ Parent ]
I agree (4.00 / 2)
In theory, I like the idea of Edwards as Obama's VP (and am I remembering this right?  Did the crowd chant VP as at certain point?).  The problem is that I'm not sure Edwards would actually help Obama with the white working class demographic.  He certainly didn't help Kerry with it in 2004, and in 2008 Clinton has done better than Edwards with that demographic with the exception of Iowa.  Against McCain, can we reasonably expect Edwards to have a meaningful appeal?

[ Parent ]
Yes it did, please remember Kerry / Edwards won the election (4.00 / 3)
Its was stolen, as Robert F. Kennedy so eloquently documented in his articles.
http://www.rollingstone.com/ne...
Thats a link to the best one i think.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
WC appeal (4.00 / 2)
Edwards is also a much better candidate now than he was in 2004. His speeches are better because they are not still clinging to some "centrist" or "southern moderate" type of ideal.

As you can see from the speech, he's way beyond where he was in 2004 with his "we'll destroy you (al-qaeda)" speech in front of the convention.  


[ Parent ]
Not buyin' it (4.00 / 2)
"In the past couple of days, I've seen reports that the polls indicate:"

And I don't believe you. You've seen reports of polls? Sounds like "I have this friend that heard from his neighbor who know this guy....".

When has ANYONE polled Edwards since February 1? WHY would anyone poll him?

Got a link for these second-hand polls?


[ Parent ]
I am willing to change my sig if that helps (4.00 / 5)
Obama/Edwards is the perfect ticket.

One of the best things it does is diffuse the potential ill-will of a non-Clinton ticket.

Second Edwards on the ticket can give Clinton a chance to say, "what I fought for, is present in this ticket."

I could go on for hours about how good it is to have Edwards on the ticket, I supported Edwards before Obama, for example. But right now I will just sit back and beam. I'll write a longer post about Edwards and the "expanded role" of the VPotUS since Cheney in a while.
But I could not agree more.

Heres another thing, If Edwards had endorsed earlier, his becoming the VP wouldnt be the healing it is now. Edwards wonderful praise of HRC before his endoresment yesterday, which was brilliant and funny (where's my jetski?), will go a long way to applying balm to this brutal contest.


Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


Only unforunate thing (0.00 / 0)
there was just one thing that maybe Edwards could have chosen better and that would have been to say "there is one PERSON" instead of "there is one man". old habits die hard.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

I thought about that and felt (4.00 / 2)
possibly he meant it as a tip of the hat to Hillary.

"There is one man who can save America" and one woman too.

Just my thinking, Im sure Elizabeth reads his speeches.


Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
I don't see a problem (4.00 / 1)
And saying "one person" instead of "one man" would have thrown off the cadence of the speech.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
people don't vote for veep (4.00 / 1)
I'm not sure how having a veep that didn't help Kerry beat Bush is somehow a dream ticket for Obama. I don't think Edwards' angry populist rhetoric really meshes well with Obama's optimistic, unifying style either. And how many people are really going to vote for Obama because of who his vice presidential selection is? The way to win white working class votes is to contrast Obama's proposals with John McBush's. Edwards is not a bad veep pick but there are better ones.  

Oh Yes! A White Paper For The White Working Class! (4.00 / 2)
The way to win white working class votes is to contrast Obama's proposals with John McBush's.

A white paper! Now why didn't I think of that?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
don't be stupid (0.00 / 0)
Not a white paper. It's called campaigning.  

[ Parent ]
And--Though It Frustrates Me No End--Issues Don't Move Low-Info Voters (4.00 / 1)
Which is why I used the "white paper" metaphor.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Obama is going to need some sort of attack dog (4.00 / 4)
to protect him from the Republicans.  An angry populist is going to be able to contrast with McCain better than a mild centrist will.

[ Parent ]
yeah (0.00 / 0)
I agree - and I'm a former Edwards supporter. He didn't seem to play the attack dog role in '04 for some reason. In this go around he played up the populist angle but after '04 I'm still not convinced Edwards help Obama enough to be the best choice. A good choice, but maybe not the best.  

"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."
-Lawrence Summers


[ Parent ]
This is the traditional role (4.00 / 1)
for VP's, after all, "pit bulls." They say the things the president has to be too "above it fray" to say out loud. Things that need to be said, from time to time.

I think Edwards has got enough pit bull in him to do a fine job.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
One seminal speeches (4.00 / 1)
I think Obama has missed an opportunity since he gave the race speech. Considering how well that was received I've thought he should have gone on the offense with those and given more such speeches, rather than only giving one when he's up against the wall.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

Yeah, I'm surprised he hasn't been reinforcing the message (4.00 / 1)
of that race speech, particularly when the Wright stuff resurfaced.

[ Parent ]
That too (0.00 / 0)
he's not returned to those themes. good observation.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Obama and Edwards MUST win Kentucky Now. (0.00 / 0)
Edwards lost the primary in '04.

Cheney wiped the floor with him in their debate.

He failed to win NC for Kerry.

He didn't win on primary in '08.

What am I missing here?


Youy've Got All Your Talking Points (4.00 / 7)
What you're missing is a balanced consideration of all the facts.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
We live in a conservative country (4.00 / 4)
We don't trust radical America-hating elitists who would appease Nazis and terrorists.

America's not ready to elect a black man.

McCain is a traditional war hero who will take the south, west and rust belt in a cakewalk.

Obama has zero experience and a speech and Edwards is a pretty boy lightweight.

Democrats are doomed, McCain will win in a landslide.

Frank Luntz owes me a lot of money.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
I Like Edwards, but... (0.00 / 0)
What does he bring to the table, electorally speaking? He couldn't deliver SC for Kerry in '04.

He'd make a great AG, but I don't think he strengthens the ticket as VP.


the speech (4.00 / 5)
just watch the speech.

It's all about message reinforcement.

Obama soars and puts your head up in the wondrous idealistic sky while Edwards stokes the fire in your belly and reminds you who it is is keeping us from Obama's vision (hint: rhymes with smorporations) and why we need to get off our asses and fight in the streets to make it happen.


[ Parent ]
The more I think about this, the more I like it (4.00 / 6)
if they were to campaign in this way, it would be the perfect good cop/bad cop routine, as well as nice, continual pressure keeping Obama to the left on economic issues

[ Parent ]
Good Cop/Bad Cop (0.00 / 0)
Good analogy from my point of view.

But they would need to make sure it came across as they actually agreed with each other.  I barely got that from this speech.  Paul says he "seamlessly blended" Obama's message with his own, but I only heard Edwards saying what he always said.  If there was any blending, I missed it.


[ Parent ]
This Isn't 2004, And Obama Isn't Kerry (4.00 / 2)
A precdent is only as good as it is a good precedent.

In this case, the election cycles were radically different, the Presidential candidates were radically different, and Edwards himself is radically different--no longer a new-comer, but now a brand name.

Kerry was never going to win SC in 2004, even if he had responded aggressively to the Swift Boat Liars.  But Obama is quite competetive in a number of states where Edwards is very strong.  The dynamics are entirely different than they were in 2004.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
And remember, while Kerry wrote off the South in 2004 (4.00 / 2)
the only state where Kerry outperformed Gore was... North Carolina. Even MA voted in higher numbers for Bush, even though the Democratic Convention was held in Boston and Kerry hailed from the state.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

[ Parent ]
This needs to be pointed out over and over (4.00 / 1)
The fact that we had the same electoral map in 2000 and 2004 is an abberation, not a prediction for 2008.  We can't analyze this election based on the 2004 map.

[ Parent ]
Kerry ran a swing state strategy. Obama is running in 50 states. (4.00 / 2)
And Kerry STILL outperformed Gore in NC. Imagine what Obama-Edwards could do for 2008.

Besides that, Edwards has boosted major cred with the "white working class" vote that has been manufactured into Obama's problem. He has rural appeal, union appeal, and -- yes -- conservative appeal. Not just because of his political positions, but because of his personal style.

There's no doubt in my mind that even if Edwards ran a third place campaign, he was a lot of peoples' second choice.


[ Parent ]
WC (4.00 / 2)
"Besides that, Edwards has boosted major cred with the "white working class" vote"

This is absolutely true. There are many many people for whom Edwards reminds them of some combination of Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter (the last Democratic president who carried lots of southern states the first time he was elected). A southern populist fighter.  


[ Parent ]
About those demographics (4.00 / 4)
The two groups Obama supposedly is having the hardest time connecting with - working class and seniors - are probably the two most difficult groups for anyone to get while trying to unseat a popular incumbent.  I think that's a large part of what we are seeing.  The so-called low information voter, who actually just doesn't have the time or desire to get heavily involved in the details, and the person set in their ways will naturally back the brand name they already like.  For them, things were good in the Clinton years so they're going with a Clinton again.  It is what her campaign was banking on at the start and were not able to effectively sell to all the other groups but these two.  Just because a certain person votes for Clinton does not mean they are deciding NOT to vote for Obama - and that's how their actions are being mistakenly interpreted.  

Forget the election for a second (4.00 / 1)
I think that at this point, the fall election is almost entirely in the bag for Obama. His choice of VP won't make a big difference -- not between defeat and victory, though it might make a slight difference in the margin of victory.

What I do think we ought to consider is that the VP will be around doing important work for the entire term, and the second term as well. Who do we want to have 8 years in that position? Remember how effective Cheney has been in implementing Bush's agenda, how Quayle worked tirelessly to pull the teeth of environmental enforcement, how Gore so effectively shrunk the size of the government. What would Edwards do as VP, behind the scenes?

Personally I think he fits better as AG, but then I don't have a better answer for VP, except perhaps for Gore (and he won't take it).


See, that's my favorite reason for picking Edwards (4.00 / 4)
I like the idea of his presence in an Obama administration. The worry with Obama is that he might be too much of an appeaser. Or perhaps too ethereal, too committed to abstract "process" concerns (as Paul has documented).

Edwards could be the guy in the room saying, "Hey, assholes. Remember why we're here."  


[ Parent ]
Thats exactly why Id like him in AG (0.00 / 0)
because there he would be even more independent of the oval office. He's give a whole shit load of power he can just exercise. VP is so dependent on the President going along with your advice.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
The problem with AG for Edwards (4.00 / 2)
The AG enforces rules, the ptoblem is that big oil, big pharma, big insurance etc. etc. have already written all the rules.

We need Edwards to be involved in new rules.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
Feingold (4.00 / 1)
You're exactly right.  We need a vice-president who will actually have a progressive influence on an Obama administration.  

Obama has the potential to preside over the most progressive period of reform legislation since FDR.  He is also quite capable of disappointing on a Clinton-esque scale.

I think his vice-president could be the difference between how progressive an agenda he actually pursues.  The best choice for this role is, without a doubt, Russ Feingold.  He would also be a fabulous choice for president in 2016.

John Edwards is not a terrible choice for VP, but Russ Feingold would be better.


[ Parent ]
Well, Yes, I Would Prefer Feingold, Too (0.00 / 0)
But from a campaigning POV, it's quite arguable that Edwards would be better.  And from a governance POV, it's arguable that he would be good enough, while we would still have Feingold as a principled high-profile voice in the Senate.

In contrast, I see pretty serious down sides with most of the proposed alternatives out there.  Most are not really that progressive, and appear to be better on paper than they are likely to be on the campaign trail.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
We consider this election 'in the bag' at our peril (0.00 / 0)
McCain is very dangerous.  At this point in 2004, everyone was talking about head to head numbers of Kerry versus Bush, and Bush's historically low approvals, and the breaking AWOl story and Abu Gharib, and declaring victory for Kerry.  And we know how that turned out.

[ Parent ]
I Don't Think Anyone Credible Was Declaring Victory For Kerry (0.00 / 0)
Zogby said it was Kerry's to lose almost exactly 4 years ago.  And that's what Kerry did.

Many in the left blogosphere may have been much more optomistic--and those who were did have some basis for that, given Kerry's pledge not to repeat the errors of the Gore campaign.  If he'd just kept his word, he'd be cruising to his re-election today.  But we generally under-estimated the depth of the CW hooks in the Dem party back then.  I think most folks have corrected for that, this time around.

So, while I agree 100% that it's dangerous to consider this election "in the bag," I don't think it's misleading to be thinking about possible knock-out punches, that if thrown early and effectively enough would prevent this from ever becoming a nail-biter.  Making Edawrds the VP could be one such knock-out punch.

We'd then have two candidate who can give top-flight speeches laying out a vision that has broad support, vs. one candidate who mumbles, snaps, and flip-flops, plus a player to be designated later.

I loves me them odds.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
I love Edwards, but... (0.00 / 0)
don't think he's the best VP pick.  And that's after several months volunteering for him.

Though not as substantive, the media would eat up the selection a woman as VP, and I think this would have a huge impact on keeping women voters on the Dem side.  This is a key demographic that we need to win.

And I think the regional consideration is important too, which is why in some ways I like Napolitano - she would help him carry the west.  And the west is another shift in demographics that we need to pay attention to.  Obama has captured the young, the urban, african americans, the Republicans have alienated the Latinos.  Women will be key.

That said, I don't know enough about Napolitano's policies to comment if she's progressive enough for me.  But I think a woman from the west would be best.  I'd die for Boxer to be on the ticket, but don't think she'll add value to the western states.  After all CA is its own world! :)

I like Granholm, but she's not a citizen nor did she support Obama.  Too bad for her on both counts.

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. -- Martin Luther King, Jr


What sucks though (0.00 / 0)
is that Napolitano is single and it would be a distraction in the campaign.

Besides the fact that she's pretty conservative on a lot of issues and not a great speaker.  


[ Parent ]
Is "single" code for, um, anything? (0.00 / 0)
And if so is it true, and would that be a problem?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Yes. (0.00 / 0)


John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
Unfortunately, yes (in terms of it being a distraction..sad that it still would be).

[ Parent ]
Reagan, not Regan Democrats (4.00 / 2)
As far as I know few if any Democrats voted Republican because they liked Donald Regan (and if they did, don't tell Nancy!). In any case, I've always had problems with the term Reagan Democrat, since many of them--or their parents or older relatives--were originally Nixon Democrats. I.e. working class white urban and suburban Democrats who switchd to Nixon in '68 over "law and order" issues, which was code for being against war protesters, civil rights advances, hippies, social liberals, and all the other disruptive societal, cultural and political transformations of the 60's. These were New Deal Democrats who couldn't "deal" with all this "new" stuff, and so fell in with Nixon because they could relate better to him culturally (or, perhaps more accurately, just felt more comfortable with him because he represented the old white traditional order that predated the 60's). Reagan merely picked up on this and made the switch permanent, over race, law and order, tradition, "values", and all that stuff.

And I think that, to the extent that a VP can help bring such people (or their kids and grandkids) back into the Democratic fold, where they rightly belong in terms of serious issues (sorry, but anyone who thought that legislation forcing schoolkids to recite the pledge was a serious issue, was and is a moron--which I personally protested when I refused to stand up and recite it every morning in high school in the early 80's), Edwards might be a better pick than Clinton or many other viable VP choices. Ironically, both came rather late to the populist position (which always made me a bit leery about their sincerity on it), and thus neither is necessarily the best VP choice in terms of this specific issue. Dems like Rendell, Casey or Strickland might be smarter picks if getting back Nixon/Reagan Democrats is Obama's priority and viewpoint, and he believes that this is part of how to do that. However, I'm not sure that it is. Sure, he wants to get them back, but not necessarily this way, I think. To get them back, he himself has to win them over, with the VP merely an added bonus--as it should be.

However, all substance aside, it's undeniable that the optics of picking Edwards is very appealing. Two youngish, attractive, smart, dynamic post-DLC Democrats who collectively represent and have gained the support of most of the groups that Dems will need to retake the White House: African-Americans, poor, working and lower middle class voters--especially more culturally traditional ones--young voters, college-educated voters. Hillary does better with older, Latino and female voters, though, so perhaps it's a wash. And one could make similar arguments with Richardson, Webb and casey. In the end, though, I still believe that he should pick the person whom he feels would make the best president should he no longer be able to serve, who would also be most representative of his values, goals and thinking. In my mind, that's someone like Edwards or Richardson, or perhaps Chris Gregoire, Maria Cantwell or Kathleen Sibelius. Not Hillary (who I think should remain in the senate and be his point person/foil on health insurance, where she'd be a greatest service to the country).

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


Actually, Donald Regan Was A High-Level Sourcerer (4.00 / 2)
whose spells and incantations altered more voters' perceptions than you or I will ever know.

In other news, I now have my first cup of coffee right in front of me, and have almost finished it off.

I, too, don't like the term "Reagan Democrat", and I winced a bit as I typed it.  But I knew that people would know what I was getting at. Also, hadn't had that coffee yet.

It's a bad rap to say that Edwards is a latecomer.  He was a populist throughout his career as a trial lawyer.  He lost his way a bit in DC at first, and that's what he should be criticized for, and judged in terms of.  I think he's learned his lesson, but others are free to disagree.  Misrepresenting his record, tho, is entirely different.

The alternatives you suggest are all national unknowns.  Edwards is not.  Edwards is a brand, and that's the biggest consideration, IMHO.  You don't need the campaign to be about introducing the VP.  You want it to be about the VP reinforcing the candidate.  This would be true even if any of those mentioned were as good on the issues as Edwards is, which they are not.

Dems like Rendell, Casey or Strickland might be smarter picks if getting back Nixon/Reagan Democrats is Obama's priority and viewpoint, and he believes that this is part of how to do that. However, I'm not sure that it is. Sure, he wants to get them back, but not necessarily this way, I think. To get them back, he himself has to win them over, with the VP merely an added bonus--as it should be.

I have no idea what the logic here is.  The Democratic Party needs to get those voters back.  And the only logical way to do that is not via Obama or any single candidate. What split them off from the party was identity-based wedge politics--"us vs. them" politics.  By its very nature, you counter that via relationship-based politics, and this necessarily works best as embodied in a relationship, not a lone individual.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
And I feel like noting, once again (4.00 / 1)
that many so-called "Reagan Democrats" were actually Dixiecrats that realized in 1994 that their nice, segregationist home was in the Republican party

[ Parent ]
A process of self-awareness that began in '68 (0.00 / 0)
Thus, I think, the more appropriate term Nixon Democrat. I knew such people growing up in the early 70's. These were the "America, love it or leave it!" idiots that the Archie Bunker character was based on. And it wasn't just southern Dixiecrats, but also northern and midwestern working and middle class whites who were reacting to the civil rights advances, Vietnam protests and other societal unheavals of the 60's. Riots, forced busing and rising urban crime had a lot to do with it, because it was all around them. Racism was at the core of all this, but it was about a whole lot more, that made possible the whole "values" wedge issues that the modern GOP has based its electoral success upon.

LBJ predicted all this, of course.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
ah. (0.00 / 0)
I was actually thinking more along the lines of someone who was a Wallace voter in '68

[ Parent ]
but you clearly have a very good point (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
True (0.00 / 0)
Wallace got the Dixiecrats, who weren't quite ready to go over to the GOP back then (folks like Lott and Connolly were still Dems back then, IIRC). But Nixon got the urban working and lower middle class Archie Bunker types who began to view the Democratic party as having been taken over by longhairs, radicals, black militants and commies. The New Deal coalition was cleaving into three pieces, these two of which would join the GOP--along with the soon to be subsumed bible thumpers, who also used to be Dems way back in the day of Bryan--to form the base of the conservative revolution. And the Democratic party was left smaller and fractured, with its remaining members splintering off into single issue groups who were often at odds with each other, most of them unhappy with the direction that the party was taking.

It took literally this long for us to get our act back together, and for the GOP to play out its inevitable rise and fall. Now it's their turn to wander around in the wilderness for the next few decades, and ours to reassume our rightful leadership role in American politics. Archie Bunker is dead, Jane Fonda has mellowed out, and their kid is all grown up and ready to take over.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
The logic... (0.00 / 0)
was meant to be reflective of Chris's diary a day or two ago, which I thought asserted that by picking a VP because he or she shored up a perceived weakness on Obama's part (whether or not this was a genuine weakness), Obama would instead remind voters of this weakness, instead of shoring it up. E.g. if he picked Hillary because he felt that he was weak with women, he'd remind voters that he was weak with women, negating whatever advantages there might be in picking a woman as VP.

So by this logic, if Obama picks Edwards as VP to address a perceived weakness on his part with white working class voters, he merely reinforces this weakness without necessarily making up for it with Edwards on the ticket. Instead, if he sees this as a genuine perceived weakness on his part, he has to appeal to such voters himself, and show them that he's their candidate, and not via a VP proxy who is supposedly stronger with such voters. People vote for the top, not bottom of a ticket.

So picking Edwards might certainly complement him as the top of the ticket, and I'm not saying that he would be a bad pick at all. But it would not, I suspect, help win over such voters unless he made the effort to win them over himself, on his own merits. If he does this, then Edwards can certainly help, but more as icing, not cake.

No go have another coffee, Paul. You're sounding a wee bit cranky this morning, and that just makes me cranky. ;-)

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
I'm Going To Do A Diary About This (0.00 / 0)
but here's the core argument: what's happening here is interactive, not additive.

If it's addditive, then Chris's argument applies.  But if it's interactive, the perceived weakness at the outset is overcome over the course of the campaign.  And the very nature of the Edwards endorsement sets the tone for an interactive approach.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Yur makin my head explode Paul! (0.00 / 0)
Either that, or it's jet lag, pollen and Seattle weather...

Looking forward to your diary.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
Bad idea (4.00 / 1)
The Republicans are going to try to define Obama as a limosine liberal and a light weight.

Edwards was savaged in the press as the "Breck Girl," mocked for his $400 haircut, called a hypocrite for daring to own a nice home, and characterized as a blood-sucking trial lawyer.  The pudits aren't going to stop this characterization.  It seems to be one they truly relish.

Although the Republicans have to actually work to flesh out the rich-out-of-touch elite image for Obama, the work is already more than half done with Edwards.  The smart choice for Obama is someone who adds gravitas, and someone who isn't well known already, and who isn't easily subject to the exactly same attack as is planned on Obama.

It's funny that many are rejecting Clinton as the VP because she's such a ready made, juicy target, but embracing Edwards who is just as easy a target, and one that perfectly REINFORCES the exact themes the Republicans want to develop.

Since this is something that will play so easily into the Republican attack playbook, I anticipate the DNC will immediately embrace it.


Almost convinced me... (4.00 / 4)
...that Edwards wouldn't be too bad.  If he only reinforces the Republican's lame attack plan without giving a new avenue, that sounds pretty good.

[ Parent ]
Sherrod Brown might be a better choice for these reasons (0.00 / 0)
but who else?

[ Parent ]
Russ Feingold (0.00 / 0)
Feingold and Brown are the two best choices.

Feingold would make the best vice-president and indeed, best president.  He reinforces Obama on numerous fronts, solidifies his support in the North Central states and Florida, and makes a mockery of the GOP attacks that Obama is pro-Hamas and anti-Israel.

You pick Brown if you're really nervous about winning and you want to see Ohio in the bag.


[ Parent ]
Except That (4.00 / 3)
Outside of Ohio he's an unkown.  A really effective VP candidate would be one who doesn't have to be introduced to folks.

Sure, Ohio is important.  But Edwards would impact a whole swath of states.

Who else can do that?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Also (4.00 / 1)
Has said in the Hill that he wouldn't accept the VP slot. Wants to take the place of Howard Metzenbaum (Actually specifically mentioned that at his victory party in DC in '07).

[ Parent ]
An Admirable Goal (4.00 / 1)
Would that every Senator aimed so high.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Big Deal (4.00 / 3)
The media is going to attack no matter what.  Read Free Ride. Read Great American Hypocrites.

The key is to go on the offense, and not psych ourselves out trying to play defense.  Read the polls.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Wow. (0.00 / 0)
The Republican party spends millions of dollars on polling and consultants to craft an effective message. One tack they will take is elitism.

Hillary Clinton made significant inroads against Obama by portraying him as an elitist.  Edwards was badly damaged by his $400 haircut and his house.

And your answer is to just ignore a poll tested and experience tested effective strategy, because they'll attack anyway - as if all attacks are equal, or portraying Obama as an elitist is no more effective than the story about gay sex in a limosine with a mental patient?

Where, exactly, in Free Ride, did you get the idea that defense in any contest isn't as important as offense?


[ Parent ]
I Got The Idea In Great American Hypocrites (0.00 / 0)
We can't expect any Obama-headed ticket to attack McCain the way that Glenn argues we need to.  But independents--starting with us--can.

However, the notion that the media's "Haircut" narrative on Edwards fatally damaged him with working-class whites is hardly credible, given his continued strong showing vs. McCain nearly a year after the haircut narrative first broke.  The "Haircut" narrative was almost entirely a heremetically-sealed media narrative whose purpose was to give them something to talk about re Edwards when they absolutely had to talk about him at all.

OTOH, Clinton outperformed Eswards because she had money, money, money, establishment connections out the wazoo, money, money, and money.  

All this changes if Edwards has the capacity to speak on his own--as the VP slot would afford him.  The more the media tried to portray him as elitist and out of touch, the more this would simply backfire on them for the key demographic we're after--at least if the head-to-head polling over most of 2007 and early 2008 means anything.  It will certainly play well with the FAUX News crowd--a rapidly shrinking demographic.  Boo hoo!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
If the evidence is (0.00 / 0)
that these attacks on Edwards won't gain traction, then of course the objection is diminished.

Not knowing all the evidence - that is, the specific polling data that would probably focus on working class conservative Democrats, independents, and moderate Republicans - I can only express my general impression that this was a theme that prevented Edwards from getting more traction, although it may be that the general refusal to cover Edwards at all was the greater problem.  I do sense a great reluctance to cover Edwards fairly.

As to Clinton's advantages, she had more money and connections than Obama as well.  Edwards didn't have a tale to get him out of the aumf vote, so couldn't grab the anti-war faction.  His "two Americas" rhetoric was too direct for a front runner in a country that is afraid to talk about social class.  Obama has done much better, offering a big group hug instead of hard realities.  I don't think he's as talented a politican as either Clinton or Obama.  But these things are certainly subjective.


[ Parent ]
Now Paul ... (0.00 / 0)
independents--starting with us

:>)

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...


[ Parent ]
I've agreed with these concerns up-thread (4.00 / 1)
but, reading over all the rest of the POSITIVE reasons to consider Edwards for VP, on balance, he seems a good choice.

Hillary Clinton is more than a target for these same kind of attacks - her negative ratings are very high - much higher than Edwards' (last time I saw numbers for both, anyway).  I think Clinton can "reinforce" the Obama Administration much more effectively in the Senate - and this would be synergistic with Edwards as VP - especially when it comes to "universal" health care.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
I know (4.00 / 3)
let's pick a Republican for VP!

That way the media won't make fun of them!

Problem solved.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Hmmm... (0.00 / 0)
Well, that was a good Edwards speech, but not a great endorsement.  In fact, he kinda forgot to do any actual endorsing.  It sounded more like he was supporting having a Democrat as president generically, not Obama specifically.  He certainly didn't make the case to vote for Obama over Clinton.  Given the timing of the endorsement, that is fine.  As I stated yesterday, this is more about putting closer to the primary and moving on to the general election than it is about who to vote for in the primary.  

I do like the fusion of what Edwards says with what Obama says.  While I don't like the idea of Edwards in the VP slot, I can see how it might form a good overall narrative.  I'd rather go for a more strongly Western strategy, though.


I'd Like A More Western Strategy In Theory (4.00 / 1)
because I agree with Tom Schaller's Whistling Past Dixie argument.

But you go to the elections with the candidates you have.  And I just don't see a Western counterpart to Edwards.  Richardson, in particular, can't speechify himself out of a paper bag.  And none of the potential figures is as broadly progressive as Edwards is.

Besides, winning the outer South is still consistent with Shcaller's major thrust, which is not to try to out-bubba the Reps.

As for specifically endorsing Obama, I think you need to take another look.  He stronger reinforced Obama's message of change and unity, albeit with an Edwards slant.

IMHO, it was actually a much stronger endorsement than your standard issue "endorsement speech."

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Reinforcement (0.00 / 0)
Ezra made a similar point today:

Talk of the Two Americas always begged the question of how we could build one. It was never a question Edwards had a very good answer for. But nor did I think he ever really needed one. Surely step one was the simple recognition of the country's bifurcation. A candidate willing to admit our condition was better than one who sought to deny it. But last night, Edwards offered a fairly novel reply. Before you can knock down walls, he suggested, you need first unify those who live on either side of the barrier. Obama, Edwards said, could do that.

To me it seems that people who like Edwards are hearing what they want to hear.  Certainly, I tend to be pretty tone death when it comes to Edwards ("no, I don't want the extended warranty with that!") so perhaps it is just me.


[ Parent ]
YES! (4.00 / 2)
This is the dream team I would like to see.

The funny thing is, I was sitting in my friend's kitchen last week, and her 70 (?) year old mother said to me, "you know who I want to see as Obama's running mate? John Edwards." And I thought, "that makes all the sense in the world, yet I have not seen his name floated on one blog.

Until now. Thanks, Paul!

Montani semper liberi


reason (0.00 / 0)
reason it hasn't been floated is he's said he won't accept VP.

We'll see if that changes I guess. It sure would be nice.


[ Parent ]
I question our methodology for picking a VP (0.00 / 0)
Traditionally, the VP candidate is selected by what voting blocs they can pull in.  But we face a unique situation -- two candidates in a near tie, with both sides highly passionate, mobilized and motivated, and if Hillary wants the VP slot, I think she should get it.

I think most important task is to unite the party.  And I say that as an independent, dammit!  There are fights to be had down the road, to be sure, but fact is that if we can unite the party, the votes will be there.  Let's face it, the Republicans haven't had the successes they've had because they've been so clever at picking VP's (Dan Quayle, for Chrissake!), but because they've been able to move in lockstep.  One reason we're going to kick their asses this fall is because that lockstep has broken down.  For good reasons.

Some might consider this beyond reach.  If we don't pick Hillary for VP, we will lose her supporters, if we do, angry Obama supporters will defect, they might say.  As an Obama supporter, I don't think I'll have a lot of pull with Hillary people.  But as an Obama supporter, I can tell other Obama supporters to cut the crap!

A load of sexist trash has been unleashed in the heat of battle.  All's fair, some might argue.  But the war is over.  While these sexist attacks were NEVER justified, I'd say that anyone continuing them because some Hillary supporter said something dumb this afternoon is just a total idiot.  We're contending for president, not king of the schoolyard.

Amends must be made.  In our touching enthusiasm for Obama, we've inflicted hurt, and that has to be dealt with.  Hillary for VP.  Have Hillary supporters inflicted hurt?  To be sure.  Racist hurt?  Of course.  Leadership is called for on our part.  This requires affirmative action.

And if we can't show some human feeling in this, if we can't demonstrate some magnanimity in our victory, then we don't deserve the White House.  

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search