John Kerry has picked John Edwards. Not the out-of-the-blue pick I was predicting last night. But I think this is a solid choice — certainly more attractive to the base than Gephardt.
And ultimately, I think it’s this report from Will Saletan in Slate this spring that suggests why Edwards may be the most potent running mate. Edwards’ appeal among independents and Republicans is higher than among any of the other primary candidates.
What about the fact the Edwards “has no international experience” and “no military experience” and “wasn't out of diapers during Vietnam”? What about this being “not the time for on-the-job training in the White House on national security issues”?
As for his foreign policy experience, neither did George Bush. This is what advisers are for. John Edwards is an extremely intelligent man, a good speaker, and from what I've gathered, great at working with people – I have no doubt he'll be a quick study.As for the “no military” and “was in diapers” comment, you do realize that dispite his youthful look, he's 51, right? Doing the math, he was 12 when Vietnam started and 20 when it ended. Could he have enlisted those last two years? Maybe, but I have no problems with a 19-year-old guy staying in school, especially when the war was coming to an end. And since we then didn't have any major conflicts until well AFTER he was past the draft age, I don't see why him never having been in the military matters at all. Kerry's got plenty of military experience, and certainly more than the sum total of the current administration.
Ok, it's been pointed out to me that those were quotes from Kerry during the primary. Congratulations on successfully baiting me, Jason, though I'm sure I wasn't your intended target. :)For what it's worth, they're quotes from a primary campaign, where each guy wanted to come out on top. I doubt much of what was said by anyone about the other candidates back then was really heart-felt, and I'm glad to see they're now working together.
Yes. The quotes about Edwards were from Kerry himself. I notice Kerry supporters are easily dismissing this as “typical of political primaries” but I wonder why? When John Kerry was saying that John Edwards wasn't the right person for America due to his lack of experience and abilities, were you agreeing with him, or were you saying to yourself, “oh well, he's just making stuff up to get ahead in the primaries”? If the former, how can you now support his candidacy? If the latter, wouldn't you agree you're just supporting a guy who will say anything to win, even without conviction, or as you put it, “heart felt” feelings behind his positions?Rick pointed out how Bush 41 attacked Reagan's economic policies prior to accepting his position. But I see a clear distinction between the two.As I told Rick, the comments by Bush then are akin to an employee saying he doesn't like a company, then accepting a job with the same company. Whereas Kerry's comments are akin to an employer saying an applicant is not qualified for the job, then hiring him anyway.
Hmmm, might those comments be why John Edwards is on the ticket as VICE president, not president? I think some of those were valid points, which is why Democrats gave Kerry the nomination and not Edwards. Not that Edwards is not qualified, but a far greater level of experience was one of Kerry's strengths, and was rightly pointed out by him as such in the primaries, and IMHO is one of the main reason's why he is the nominee today.
That doesn't seem like good planning. If you're picking someone to be ready to assume the Presidency should anything happen, why would you pick someone you think isn't qualified? They put a pretty face on the ticket, but even as Kerry himself said, it didn't add the substance needed to run the country. If Kerry doesn't think Edwards' on-the-job training is good for the country (his own words), how's he gonna sell it to voters?
Leave a Reply to AnonymousCancel reply