NBC News confirms that Kerry chooses Edwards as running mate

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-07-06 05:13pm

Forget being a lawyer; Edwards is an unacceptable addition because of his opinions on trade.

What kind of absolute moron insists that trade is "not an economic issue" but "a moral issue"?

Fucking protectionist.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-07-06 05:20pm

Trade? Trade is something I'm not expecting we'll get a clear position on from any candidate this year, so I don't think it'll be a big issue.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-07-06 06:02pm

Edwards and Kerry are both protectionists to an extent greater than Bush.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-07-06 07:56pm

Xenophobe3691 wrote:Well Shit. What a fucking dick. He chose a man who made his fortune by fucking over doctors who were just doing their jobs. Now I know who my parents are gonna vote for, and it ain't Kerry.

You ARE talking about a man who made his fortune by fucking rich broads.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-07-06 08:11pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Xenophobe3691 wrote:Well Shit. What a fucking dick. He chose a man who made his fortune by fucking over doctors who were just doing their jobs. Now I know who my parents are gonna vote for, and it ain't Kerry.
You ARE talking about a man who made his fortune by fucking rich broads.

My parents aren't rich broads for a living...

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2004-07-06 08:22pm

Good. I wanted Edwards as the presidential nominee (sp?), but Kerry is a good person and i think Kerry and Edwards will be a great dou for cleaning up Shrub's messes (which is what they'll be doing for the next four-eight years, methinks. I'm just glad he didnt pick that guy with the Martian sounding name, Villsack or something i think, that woud've been the kiss of death for Kerry's campagin, IMO few people (even hardline born-and-raised democrats like moi) would've been a bit hard pressed to imagine a Vice President Villsack, or whatever his name was.

BTW--i would've prefered Edwards and Dean, but like i said, Kerry is a good silver medal. Two out of three aint bad.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-07-06 08:27pm

As Rob Corrdry on The Daily Show pointed out, in 2000, the Republicans turned "Liebermann" into "Loserman," so the last thing the Democrats need now is a VP nominee with "sack" in his name.

TempestMagister · Post by **TempestMagister** » 2004-07-06 08:28pm

I think Master of Ossus was commenting about John Kerry.

John Kerry I believe reading somewhere would be one of the richest presidents ever if he is elected, mainly from banging the business heiress (forget here name).

Fucking a rich broad and fucking over doctors, two types of people that this board can insult quite easily. If I could vote, I would vote third party, as I see not see any good qualities about either candidates after looking for what they stand for, it is just becoming a battle between the lesser of two evils.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-07-06 10:59pm

Xenophobe3691 wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:You ARE talking about a man who made his fortune by fucking rich broads.
My parents aren't rich broads for a living...

Sorry, I was talking about John Kerry. He married two women worth upwards of $40 million, including marrying into the Heinz family for an estimated $250 million.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-07-06 11:06pm

When John Kerry was first nominated, I was one of the many people who predicted that his obscene wealth would be a problem. I still think that's an accurate assessment: the single biggest impediment to John Kerry going on the offensive on the major issues (Iraq, the Bush Administration's cozy arrangements with powerful businessmen and relative disregard for poor people) is Kerry himself. He agreed that they should go into Iraq, and he's filthy stinking rich himself. So how can he be the frontman for a campaign whose obvious strategy should be to take on the Bush Administration over Iraq and its "let's help our rich business friends" attitude?

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-07-06 11:09pm

I think they're both weasels, but I'd take them over Bush anyday.

Aeolus · Post by **Aeolus** » 2004-07-06 11:11pm

Darth Wong wrote:When John Kerry was first nominated, I was one of the many people who predicted that his obscene wealth would be a problem. I still think that's an accurate assessment: the single biggest impediment to John Kerry going on the offensive on the major issues (Iraq, the Bush Administration's cozy arrangements with powerful businessmen and relative disregard for poor people) is Kerry himself. He agreed that they should go into Iraq, and he's filthy stinking rich himself. So how can he be the frontman for a campaign whose obvious strategy should be to take on the Bush Administration over Iraq and its "let's help our rich business friends" attitude?

What were the Dems thinking? Add all of that to also having an abrasive personality and being from New England. You would think they were trying to give Bush the presidency

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-07-06 11:46pm

You'd think that, except that Kerry has been either neck-and-neck with or ahead of Bush in recent polls.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-07-07 01:09am

Durandal wrote:You'd think that, except that Kerry has been either neck-and-neck with or ahead of Bush in recent polls.

As an outside observer, I think that is an indication of how much people are starting to hate Bush, rather than like Kerry.

Daltonator · Post by **Daltonator** » 2004-07-07 03:35am

Crown wrote:
Durandal wrote:You'd think that, except that Kerry has been either neck-and-neck with or ahead of Bush in recent polls.
As an outside observer, I think that is an indication of how much people are starting to hate Bush, rather than like Kerry.

I've seen polls on that...the number of people who would vote for Kerry and not just against Bush is pretty high. Don't have any numbers at the moment though, but I thought I'd just throw that out there.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-07-07 03:42am

Crown wrote:
Durandal wrote:You'd think that, except that Kerry has been either neck-and-neck with or ahead of Bush in recent polls.
As an outside observer, I think that is an indication of how much people are starting to hate Bush, rather than like Kerry.

Of course, that's how Kerry's going to win the election if he does. He certainly won't win on his own merits.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-07-07 07:35am

Joe wrote: Of course, that's how Kerry's going to win the election if he does. He certainly won't win on his own merits.

That's not really fair; Kerry is a fine statesman, his campaign is simply being overshadowed by the fierce hatred of Bush that a great number of Americans seem to be feeling.

In any case, Edwards was really the logical choice given that he is strong in all the areas that Kerry is not (the South, labor unions) and he has a youthful look about him that plays nicely to the cameras. I've been convinced for some time that a Kerry/Edwards ticket had the best chance of beating GWB and I'm willing to put aside the fact that Edwards probably doesn't share my views on health care reform if it will get Bush out.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-07-07 08:24am

Edward. No S, guys.

Post by **The Wookiee** » 2004-07-07 08:31am

Chardok wrote:Edward. No S, guys.

Dude, his own website says otherwise. Or are you talking about the Crossing Over guy?

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2004-07-07 09:14am

Edwards is not a complete novice when it comes to foreign policy experience. He's been on the Senate Intelligence committee. He has (or should have) access to a lot of the same information that Bush/Cheney have access to, and with his experience as a trial lawyer, should still be a formidable opponent on the Iraq/WMD issue. I don't think Kerry loses anything on foreign affairs with this pick at all.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-07-07 09:36am

Even if Edwards was totallynew to foreign policy, he's just the VP. The president of the current administration had no foreign policy experience to speak of when he took office.

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-07-07 09:41am

irishmick79 wrote:Edwards is not a complete novice when it comes to foreign policy experience. He's been on the Senate Intelligence committee. He has (or should have) access to a lot of the same information that Bush/Cheney have access to, and with his experience as a trial lawyer, should still be a formidable opponent on the Iraq/WMD issue. I don't think Kerry loses anything on foreign affairs with this pick at all.

And he and Kerry voted for the Iraq resolution. Which is exactly why you will NOT see the WMD issue brought up in the campaign.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-07-07 10:45am

The Wookiee wrote:
Chardok wrote:Edward. No S, guys.
Dude, his own website says otherwise. Or are you talking about the Crossing Over guy?

Crossing over guy

HE's my candidate!

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-07-07 10:54am

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-07-07 12:04pm

Durandal wrote:Even if Edwards was totallynew to foreign policy, he's just the VP. The president of the current administration had no foreign policy experience to speak of when he took office.

That's not a bother, FDR had no foreign policy experience either and I'd say that worked out pretty well.