I agree completely with Matthew Yglesias’ analysis. The GOP will justifiably ridicule John Kerry if he chooses the anti-free trade advocate, Richard Gephardt. Kerry is also having enough problems convincing Robert Rubin, Brad DeLong, and the other pro-growth Democrats that he is really on their side.

John Edwards indeed does have the edge. His good looks is the number one reason. People will go out of their way to give him the benefit of the doubt. John Kerry, it must be noted, is a stealth candidate who must hide his liberalism if he wants to be elected. Edwards is something of a Rorschach test---one will see whatever they prefer.

I don't see how nominating Edwards--who was the presidential nominee who brought anti-trade positions to the forefront--will assuage the doubts of the pro-trade Democrats.

I'd agree with many, inluding Matt, that Gebhardt would be the least attractive VP from the known choices.

But I'd like to point out how well Kerry has handled this. He's stretched it out to get a lot of positive press, but not so long that he gets the "indecisive" label.

ANd he's covered the playing field with so much smoke that no one can predict what will happen.

Among the press rumors I"ve heard in the past day: Gebhardt gets a private plane, huh? The political director for the VP will be a Friend of Bayh? The announcement will be in Pittsburgh but the VP will not be there? Clark will be giving a press conference in NH sponsored by Kerry's campaign? Graham is on the inside track as of the past few days? Etc etc.

In short, Kerry has made it a real cliffhanger.

And, in this world where there are no secrets in politics, it's masterful. No pundit I've heard has predicted with vigor the VP choice in the past day or two. Everyone admits they are just guessing, there is no "inside track."

That's impressive, especially for democrats.

Keef

If Kerry had the guts, he'd choose Howard Dean. As they say : Zogby and Fox polling show that only a Kerry/Dean ticket neutralizes the shift to Nader.

Choosing Dean is the only way Kerry could win.

"I don't see how nominating Edwards--who was the presidential nominee who brought anti-trade positions to the forefront--will assuage the doubts of the pro-trade Democrats."

You are being logical. Alas, we are forced to live in the real world. John Edwards good looks persuade people to lie to themselves. He is anything you want him to be. Many will simply pretend that Edwards never uttered the anti-trade positions. They want to think the best of him. He will be cut a lot of slack.

“Choosing Dean is the only way Kerry could win.”

Hating George W. Bush so far has united the Democrats. This is only because everybody concludes that ultimately they will marginalize the other factions within the party. Obviously, someone is deluding themselves. The How Dean crazies are starting to loses their confidence. Will they really be in control after the election? Can Robert Rubin and Joseph Lieberman be neutralized?

Speaking of the senator from Connecticut, why is he ignored as a serious VP candidate? Wouldn’t that send a clear message to the nihilistic Muslim nutballs that Kerry sincerely opposes terrorism? What am I not getting? Does Joseph Lieberman have bad breath? Wow, wait a minute. Senator Lieberman got slaughtered during the primaries. What should this tell you about the current Democrat Party?

I just turned on the TV. Fox News reports that John Kerry has apparently picked John Edwards. Looks like Dan and I got it right this time.

I know that Edwards appears to exude some sort of happy-feel-good field, but I would think the Repubs. would be more than happy to roll out the sleazoid trial lawyer cannons for him. Would he really bring that much to the ticket?

The NY Post, as of a few minutes ago, says that Kerry has chosen Gephardt.

Ugh.

If this is true, I still think I'll vote for Kerry. (Cheney notwithstanding, how much influence does the average VP have?) But the guy is so dry, so bland. If nothing else, he won't help with fundraising.

As of this Tuesday morning, the report is that Edwards will be running mate, according to Reuters.

Oops, CNN is saying Edwards. Right choice: I'm glad Kerry got over his vanity on this one.

What does John Edwards bring to the ticket other than his gorgeous looks? That’s real easy to answer: his lack of political experience! Yes, it is ironically a real plus. Edwards can now mealy mouth his anti-trade positions. He can claim that his thinking on many issues is “evolving.” This allows folks like Brad DeLong and Robert Rubin to deceive themselves. Let the Rorschach testing begin. Senator Edwards will be whatever you want him to be.

Johnny Sunshine will smile as he pumps the GOP full of round after round of hot, screaming, metaphorical lead.

“Johnny Sunshine will smile as he pumps the GOP full of round after round of hot, screaming, metaphorical lead.”

That’s exactly what John Kerry wants from John Edwards. He will not say anything that makes any logical sense. But that doesn’t matter. Edwards is the Rorschach candidate. He merely must persuade the middle of the road voter, on a gut level, that he’s on their side.

This presidential campaign is all about pulling the wool over the eyes of the swing voter. The Kerry people aren’t wasting one moment of their time trying to convert me. I’m a lost cause and they know it. The swing voters do not hate George W. Bush. They will also only vote for somebody perceived as a centrist candidate who’s only somewhat conservative or liberal. Thus, the Massachusetts senator must be a stealth candidate. The true John Kerry has to be hidden from sight. John Edwards helps in this regard.

John Edwards, a cheerful Dick Gephardt nobody has learned to loathe.

Since Kerry has done what all the political pros told him he had to do, this pick doesn't help him that much, but does not hurt him either. Kind of emblematic of Kerry's campaign at this point. I wonder how much of Kerry's reported disdain for Edwards, earlier in the campaign, was really Kerry and how much of it was advisors spouting off. This said, Edwards will probably give some good speeches, and be as much of an asset as a Veep choice can be. (Not very much.) I wouldn't want to see him as President, though -- too protectionist for my taste.

BTW, I do look forward to an Edwards/Cheyney debate. Edwards has the forensic skills (and experience) to dismbowel Mr. Epitome of the Obnoxious Side of Corporate America. Should be fun.

Wait a minute, are my ears deceiving me? I just heard John Kerry on TV talking about picking John Edwards---and all those American jobs being lost overseas. Oh my goodness, where are Brad DeLong and Robert Rubin when you need them? I’m so confused. Wasn’t Kerry suppose to be stop with this anti-trade nonsense? I need to open a can of sterno, squeeze it through a rag, and get totally blasted. This is getting so funny. DeLong and Rubin are being played like punks.

"Wasn’t Kerry suppose to be stop with this anti-trade nonsense?"

Let's try this again:

Wasn’t Kerry suppose to stop with this anti-trade nonsense?

Edwards has zero executive experience. He hasn't even been a committee chairman in the Senate. He has zero legislative accomplishments, as you can see from his own bio. The only bill he claims (a boon for trial lawyers) passed the Senate, but not the House.

The qualities that poeple admire in him are those that would make him a fine member of a boy band. But a potential leader of the United States? This choice shows us, I think, much about Senator Kerry's decision making.

Jim Miller wrote:

Edwards has zero executive experience. He hasn't even been a committee chairman in the Senate. He has zero legislative accomplishments, as you can see from his own bio. The only bill he claims (a boon for trial lawyers) passed the Senate, but not the House.

How much of this would be true for John Kerry as well?

And I suppose if Kerry had picked Gephardt, there would have been complaints that he was sticking to inside the beltway candidates, tired, musty, fust, gusty. You can't win.

I've never subscribed to the theory that one needs to be a compleat Washington insider to be a President. I think Governor's do have an advantage (Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter) in having some executive experience, but that may be less important that others think.

Except of course that the Texas governorship is institutionally the weakest in the Union, providing the least amount of executive experience around. As three and a half years have amply shown.

Doug:

If inexperience were the problem, you'd think the President would be getting better at this stuff as time went on.

"This choice shows us, I think, much about Senator Kerry's decision making."

Damn straight. Is 6 years government experience enough? Are trips to Mexico more important than the Senate Intelligence Committee? Is it more important that the President or Vice-President be a pro, from day one, on foreign policy? I can't wait for the GOP to try and figure that one out.

And hey, what's with all this Republican Quayle-bashing? I thought 41 made an

Also, don't forget former JCS Shalikashvili endorsed Edwards in the primary. What miliary backing did Gep, Vilsack have?

So yes, indeed, this shows a lot about Kerry. His supporters are happy (and I'm happy, too).

And it's clear as day to everyone involved that one might as well spell "Gephardt" "U N I L A T E R A L S U R R E N D E R."

Thankfully, that's not what today, and the next 4 months, will be about.

Well, you know you're inexperienced when Dan Quayle has you beat...

Edwards is not bullet - or car bomb, hijacking, suicide bomb - away-from-the Presidency material.

Get ready for the VP debate... by the end, Edwards is going to look like Oliver, saying "please sir, can I have some more".

I thought 41 made an* excellent choice.

Maybe not as the two of them are concerned, but still...

This was the only "right" choice and probably the only VP candidate who could potentially sway some voters in Kerry's favor. Actually, I'm one of those voters. (I like John Edwards based on his early campaign speeches and somewhat pro-war stance -- more recently he's been harder to support.) If this signals a long-anticipated "move to the center" I think the Edwards selection could be a significant plus. But if Edwards job is to shore up the base, then I'm not so optimisitc.

I also think if the GOP attacks the trial lawyer aspect of Edwards it will be a big failure. That would work if Edwards was not the charismatic candidate that he is. Afterall, the numbers have been pretty clear that people want to like the guy (for better or worse). Attacking someone like that is likely to do more harm to the GOP.

Jim Miller-

Just read your Insta-flagged article.

Would you care to wager whether there have been more law degree or MBA presidents?

>Let's try this again:

>Wasn’t Kerry suppose to stop with this anti-trade nonsense?

Let's try this again:

Wasn’t Kerry supposed to stop with this anti-trade nonsense?

[Just teasing.]

I called this last week. Yawn.

This is what I feared would happen. John Kerry, whose political life is a history of finding out what sympathetic organized interest groups want and then offering it to them, decided to accomodate what may be the most powerful organized interest group in the Democratic Party, its campaign consultants.

These people think strictly in terms of what they think will work between now and November. They do not care about Sen. Edwards's views or whether he is in any way ready to be President if something were to happen to Kerry. They think Kerry's campaign needs flash, sex and Clintonian empathy, so they lobbied Kerry to put the man who best embodies these qualities on the Democratic ticket

John Edwards has done nothing in the Senate. He has given no indication that he takes public service seriously. The worthy causes he has boasted of fighting for are coincidentally causes that have made him a very wealthy man. And to campaign professionals in the Democratic Party (and campaign junkies on the Web) none of this matters. Edwards has a really great smile, a nice wife, the obligatory family tragedy in his past, and a soulful expression when he is talking to friendly audiences in front of television cameras. What more could one ask for in a man a heartbeat away from the Presidency?

There were people four years ago who warned about the risks of puttng a man with scant experience in government and no experience with foreign affairs in the White House. There have been other people since who have spent months virtually writhing in outrage over the Bush administration's supposed shallowness and mendacity. John Kerry has been one of those people, and has now given his idea of what ought to replace inexperience, shallowness, and mendacity -- a personal injury lawyer with less experience in government than I have, a man whose only obvious strength is as a campaigner.

I don't have much regard for John Kerry, a self-absorbed show horse throughout his career in public life, but if the election goes the way I think it will and he is elected we all had better hope to God nothing happens to him.

Let me point something out here -- there's a vast difference between VP and President. The fact that Dubya had little experience in foreign affairs was a clear strike against him, whereas it is less of an issue for the VP candiate Edwards.

As long as the Demos have a solid Foreign policy and national security team I'm not terribly concerned.

Prediction: If Kerry wins, Gephardt will be Secy. of Labor. To counterbalance, Kerry will then pick a very Rubinesque Democrat as Treasury Secretary. And a pro-Business Secretary of Commerce. Give both sides something to be happy over.

Dean?
No. Dean has proven he's just to flat-out weird... even for Kerry. (Consider the impact of that statement for a moment....too weird for Kerry?)

In a broader sense; I'm not convinced that any of the possibles would help the Kerry ticket in the general election. History shows us rather clearly that a VP Pick cannot help a poor choice for the top of the ticket... and Kerry is that. A VP choice, insofar as the general election goes, can only hurt you. Who would not exepct Dean's melt-down to go front and center, once he's on the ticket? Even excluding that, Deans voting record does not serve as any kind of a balance againt the extreme liberalism of Kerry. Indeed it adds to it. This may help with the Democrat core voter, but it's a liability in the general election.

As to Edwards, his one term in the Senate doesn't provide much fodder for the Lexis/Nexis searchers. Indeed, Edwards is such a lightweight, that Kerry's own comments about Edwards and his qualifications, will come back to haunt him.

Assuming of course the press actually sits up takes note of, and reports such comments.

Like, for example, "Kerry doesn't need the south to win".

I wonder if any of the so-called news services will press Mr. Kerry on that matter?

Just out of curiosity, why is everyone here concerned about the electoral effect of protectionist pronouncements from Kerry and Edwards? While they're very worrying for the nation, protectionist ideas play very well with the public. They might dovetail nicely with Edwards' trial-lawyer background - "I'll work to keep your jobs here, and to keep the big corporations from screwing you over." That kind of feel-good populism does nicely.

This pick harkens back to Reagan's pick of Bush in 1980 more than anything else. A besieged president with a bad economy and lousy foreign policy news facing an energized opposition party who is willing to bury the hatchet on intra-party disagreements to choosed the most electable ticket.

The best thing to be said about that, elliottg, is the implications for a Bush landslide on 11/2

It's on, baby. Roll back the South, the New South is on it's way.

As for Edwards' positions - who cares? If you aren't voting against Bush for the shear thoughtlessness and stupidity of his actions over the last 3.5 years, you aren't going to vote for any Democrat.

I like our chances. We've still got 4 more months for Bush to screw something new up, and I think Edwards will help keep the ABB base motivated.

At the end of the day, Edwards really only has two negatives - the trial lawyer thing and not coming from a swing state. Lack of experience? Please... The presidency is not a lifetime achievement award. People care about what a candidate promises for the future and to a lesser extent, whether they can be blamed for the failures of the past. Edwards wins on both counts. George Bush had an uninspiring run as Texas Governor (an easy job as far as governors go) and Dick Cheney was a forgettable Congressman, Defense Secretary, and CEO. Actually, this makes me rethink the trial lawyer thing, I'll take my chances with a trial lawyer against a CEO in this climate. I mean, Warren Buffett was calling CEOs liars and thieves in today's Washington Post. Even if you dismiss Buffett as a grumpy old man, a lot of people agree with him.

What about Edwards' positives? Well, he is good-looking, but it is more than that. He is positive. I find it absolutely stunning that so many Republicans spent the better part of the last month explaining how Ronald Reagan's optimism revived this country, brought about the end of the communism (something no serious Soviet scholar has endorsed to my knowledge), saved the Republican party, and qualified him to replace FDR (who merely kept the country together during the Depression and saved democracy) on the dime. Now, these qualities in Edwards don't matter? Sorry to burst your bubble, but anybody other than the truly hard-core Bushie has to like Edwards chances against Dick "The Prince of Darkness" Cheney. What is Cheney going to do in a debate? Tell Edwards to F--- himself? Perhaps he'll explain the connection between Iraq and 9/11 that nobody except he and Bush seem to know about.

People get tired of being scared, whether it is of Al Qaeda or their livelihoods or the environment or whatever. Edwards tells everyone that things will be okay, that we can change things and make lives better. Bush and Cheney don't have a comparable message. Honestly, how appealing is their central campaign theme - "The world is dangerous, and Kerry can't be trusted to protect you" - without even considering the fact that at least half the electorate thinks the statement is completely inaccurate? I'm a born pessimist and I still prefer hope to the doom and gloom the Brothers Grimm are selling. Throw in the fact that I think Bush and Cheney are too stubborn and inflexible to be effective in fighting terrorism. I mean, do they honestly believe that stopping terrorism is as simple as a police action? I can't guarantee that Kerry has the answers, but I will take any bets that Bush and Cheney won't make any serious headway in the "war on terror" (even the Bush-given name reeks of an inability to understand the complexities of global terror) given another four years. Besides, all Kerry has to do to respond to questions about his fitness to fight terror is ask the simple question - "Where the hell is Osama anyway?" He could also respond with, "I'm sorry, I was distracted by my three Purple Hearts", though that might seem a bit smug.

BTW, I'm probably as in favor of free trade as anyone on this board, so Edwards' rhetoric bothers me a little, but significantly less than Bush's actual protectionist policies (tarriffs to protect the long-dead steel industry, anyone?) The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating. Besides, I defy anyone to find me the last candidate hurt by being protectionist.

"He probably plays better with swing voters across the country than Kerry's other options."

A lot of Edwards' supporters during the primary were moderates, a lot of us were also McCain fans. A lot of us were not happy about Kerry getting the nomination and let it be known that picking Edwards as a running mate would not be enough for him to get our votes.

But in the last four months, I know that I personally have become more fed up with Ashcroft and Rumsfeld. I've heard some others express increasing dissatisfaction with the Bush administration. Are we fed up enough to vote for Kerry for President? Perhaps the choice of our favored candidate, a fiscally conservative moderate, as VP will tip the scales in his favor.

At the end of the day, Edwards really only has two negatives - the trial lawyer thing and not coming from a swing state.

Actually he’s got quite a few more than jus two negatives. He, like Kerry, has the notoriety of having voted for authorizing the use of force in Iraq while then voting against the $87 Billion for the troops. He’s got an almost non-existent record of accomplishment in the Senate (along with Kerry) which undercuts any claim that he or Kerry would be able to manage anything better. He’s got no real record of political accomplishment other than being elected once in the Senate (his poor showing when running for President doesn’t help) and could conceivably fail to carry his home State (much like the last Southern Democrat to run). Socially he’s about as radical as Kerry which puts him out of the mainstream of both the South and Midwest. While some people may have found him “charming” others are probably going to be reminded of the last “slick” candidate who told them what they want to hear.

What about Edwards' positives? Well, he is good-looking, but it is more than that. He is positive.

Not hardly. Edwards’ early on staked himself out as the protectionist candidate and ran on a theme of “Two Americas.” You are kidding yourself if you think that’s either a positive message or anything comparable to America as a “Shining City on a Hill.”

People get tired of being scared, whether it is of Al Qaeda or their livelihoods or the environment or whatever. Edwards tells everyone that things will be okay, that we can change things and make lives better.

So what you’re saying then is that he’s going to provide a nice contrast to pretty much everything Kerry has said since he decided to run for President in which he’s done nothing but try to scare people.

What I hear is an awful lot of Kerry supporters whistling past the graveyard...

Edwards couldn't convince even a significant portion of *Democrats* that he was a viable choice to fill the big seat...Now we're supposed to believe that he'll somehow bring out the swing voters? Pulease...

Time after time in primary after primary Edwards' supporters claimed that he would be able to increase the Democratic base and defeat Kerry for the nomination because of his appeal to conservative Democrats and swing voters...We all know how well that turned out, don't we?

Somebody remind how many states he won again? How about reminding me how many states did he even come close to winning? And these were the people that his populist message would be most effective with...His us vs. them mentality won't fly with moderate or conservative voters - no matter how much his supporters might try to convince people of that - the numbers don't lie...

There have been repeated polls testing the viability of Kerry/Edwards vs. Bush/Cheney and the numbers have shown over and over again that he doesn't add anything to the race for Kerry.

To say anything else is just wishful thinking...

"Fiscally conservative" Democrat? Are you kidding me? That's an oxymoron if I ever heard one...

The complaint that both of these candidates have been making is that citizens aren't giving enough of their hard-earned money to the government to pay for even more government programs....

That's not fiscal conservatism...that's socialism...and there's a difference...

You may not recognize the difference, but the majority of Americans do....

Susanna wrote:

A lot of Edwards' supporters during the primary were moderates, a lot of us were also McCain fans. A lot of us were not happy about Kerry getting the nomination and let it be known that picking Edwards as a running mate would not be enough for him to get our votes.

But in the last four months, I know that I personally have become more fed up with Ashcroft and Rumsfeld. I've heard some others express increasing dissatisfaction with the Bush administration. Are we fed up enough to vote for Kerry for President? Perhaps the choice of our favored candidate, a fiscally conservative moderate, as VP will tip the scales in his favor.

Just so we’re clear then, Susanna is saying that Edwards’ appeal might be in bringing on board other Democrats such as herself who were debating whether or not they would vote for Kerry for President. Geeze, if the Democratic coalition is really so fragile, perhaps Daniel Drezner ought to start a thread entitled “The Looming Democratic Civil War” although truth be told, I have yet to see any evidence that Edwards qualifies as a “fiscally conservative moderate.”

The complaint that both of these candidates have been making is that citizens aren't giving enough of their hard-earned money to the government to pay for even more government programs....

By default Bush has become the most fiscally conservative Presidential candidate in 2004.

'What I hear is an awful lot of Kerry supporters whistling past the graveyard...'

What I hear is someone (you) spinning furiously.

'Time after time in primary after primary Edwards' supporters claimed that he would be able to increase the Democratic base and defeat Kerry for the nomination because of his appeal to conservative Democrats and swing voters...We all know how well that turned out, don't we ?'

No, we don't. Primaries do not bring out swing voters, do not bring out independents, and do not bring out that many centrists (of either stripe).

'The complaint that both of these candidates have been making is that citizens aren't giving enough of their hard-earned money to the government to pay for even more government programs....'

Actually, what I'm complaining about is that citizens aren't giving enough of their money to even pay for current government programs, let alone paying down debt. When Cheney says "Deficits don't matter", that tells me who is fiscally conservative and who isnt

'Just so we’re clear then, Susanna is saying that Edwards’ appeal might be in bringing on board other Democrats such as herself who were debating whether or not they would vote for Kerry for President. Geeze, if the Democratic coalition is really so fragile, '

What's fragile about this ? Republican and Democratic parties always struggle to hold onto their coaltions. The wavering part of their coalitions (Gay Republicans or Gun Owning Democrats) do need to be "brought home". That might not add more than a few point to a candidates vote account, but every vote counts in this close an election.

Time after time in primary after primary Edwards' supporters claimed that he would be able to increase the Democratic base and defeat Kerry for the nomination because of his appeal to conservative Democrats and swing voters...We all know how well that turned out, don't we?

'Good point. It seems to me that there really isn’t any evidence to support the proposition that Edwards would attract very many new voters to support a Kerry-Edwards ticket. '

AP exit polls in the primaries showed that centrists, swing type Demos voted for Edwards over Kerry in most states.

I don't expect Edwards to bring a lot of new voters over. But even 1-2 % points in a few states can be crucial.

Several of you asked me questions. I'll try to answer them in a follow up post tomorrow or, possibly, Thursday. (And any others that I find for me here or elsewhere.)

Jim B writes,""Fiscally conservative" Democrat? Are you kidding me? That's an oxymoron if I ever heard one..."

Jim you are so 1960s. I didn't think that anyone was still pushing this 'Democrats are tax and spend', or whatever they used to say. Seriously, how can you stand by this old saw when the facts refute it? You can conceivably argue that Clinton can't take all the credit for going into surplus in the 90s because of the booming economy and the mid-term Rep. majority in the House, but it did happen during Clinton's watch. Compare that with the historical budget deficits of Reagan and Bush.

I understand that reasonable people can disagree on various policy, trade and social issues, but can reasonable people really think anything other than the Reps are now the more fiscally irresponsible party? Don't just flame me, please. Present some facts for this view, post Johnson's presidency.

I wrote something on this earlier in another blog. You may not think this important, but don't underestimate the mental depression that many Americans are suffering right now. See Mr. Barnettt's 2:48 post.

The appeal that Edwards has for many is that:

He just looks like our ideal of what our country is (or used to be) - youthful, open, smiling, optimistic, inclusive, self-made.

You may not agree, or think it pollyannaish, but a large segment of the population is really sick at heart over all the "smoke em out" "wanted dead or alive" and other unseemly, nasty rhetoric coming from the Bush Admin. This doesn't mean that we don't take national defense seriously, it's just that the current admin seems a parody of the very worst of America.

Lansing wrote:

Seriously, how can you stand by this old saw when the facts refute it? You can conceivably argue that Clinton can't take all the credit for going into surplus in the 90s because of the booming economy and the mid-term Rep. majority in the House, but it did happen during Clinton's watch.

What of it? That something occurs while someone happens to be in office does not mean that they were the cause of it happening. If you want to argue that Clinton deserves credit for lower levels of spending, you’ll have to do more than say “well he was there, so he MUST deserve credit for it.” I’ll grant that a Gingrich-lead House probably pushed him to the right on spending (after he managed to blame the GOP for shutting down the federal government) post-1994 however considering that Clinton also tried to stick us with the Kyoto Accords (which would have cost us about 1-2% of our GDP on low end) as well as trying to nationalize one-seventh of the economy under the guise of “health care reform,” I wouldn’t call him a “fiscal conservative” by any stretch of the imagination.

Compare that with the historical budget deficits of Reagan and Bush.

I’m sorry but refresh my memory, other than the $87 billion for the troops in Iraq, which spending exactly did Kerry and Edwards come out against? I seem to recall that both of them were all too happy when their party controlled the Senate to support agricultural subsidies and new education spending and supported their party’s filibuster to bid up the $534 Billion Medicare prescription drug benefit while saying that they wanted the $700-900 Billion one instead. Add on top of that the fact that Kerry wants another $900 Billion health care entitlement (more like an insurance industry bailout actually) and unlike Bush does not want to offer any sort of reform of Social Security, and Bush is still the better candidate on fiscal issues.

Mike and Susanna are the only people I have ever heard or read who might base their vote on the candidate for VP. Let us get real! The VP's opinion means nothing against the P's, his experience is no biggee as there are so many advisor roles available, and who really votes thinking the pres will die?

Why would a swing voter or independent vote for Kerry because he picked Edwards when Edwards could not draw enough conservative dems - the closest thing the Dems have to swing and independent voters- to win more than one (1!) state?

Mike- In addition to the nothingness that a VP pick is, Kerry released his pick at a really poor time- everyone is just getting back from the 4th of July and if not ignoring the news as they regear for work, they are looking for the big news they missed. Perhaps if Kerry had picked a surprise candidate like Albright, but this . . . yawn

Mr. Winston:
Hmmm. Last I checked we generally do hold the president accountable for what occurred during his/her watch, given their responsiblity /accountability for the budget. The Clinton Admin kept spending down and actually had us in the black. New spending had to be funded with cuts elsewhere. Both the Reagan and Bush Admins have us in historical deficit. And, the present admin does not support the measure to continue ensuring that new spending or tax cuts are paid for with reduced spending elsewhere.

You state that Clinton WANTED Kyoto, health care, etc. Further, you state that Kerry SUPPORTS this or that. But, none of these are really facts on the ground, or money spent, are they? What has really happened is that Reagan and Bush put us in the hole and Clinton raised us out. You may not like it, but it is a fact and therefore it is illogical to continue calling dems fiscally irresponsible when the reps are the the party in charge that more consistently puts us in the hole.

And let's not forget Cheney's (in)famous remark:

"Reagan showed us that deficits don't matter."

Translation, not that it's good for the country or anything, but we can spend to our hearts' content and our party base will not object.

'Why would a swing voter or independent vote for Kerry because he picked Edwards when Edwards could not draw enough conservative dems - the closest thing the Dems have to swing and independent voters- to win more than one (1!) state?'

Let me repeat something again that I've said before. Edwards does not have to bring all conservative Dems, or all swing voters over. He just has to get 1-2 % points to make a crucial difference in very close states. A few swing voters would be all thats needed.

FWIW, Cheney helped Bush in 2000, and will probably hurt him in 2004.

Lansing wrote:

Hmmm. Last I checked we generally do hold the president accountable for what occurred during his/her watch, given their responsiblity /accountability for the budget.

Only to the extent that it was or was not the result of polices the administration in time supported or opposed.

The Clinton Admin kept spending down and actually had us in the black. New spending had to be funded with cuts elsewhere. Both the Reagan and Bush Admins have us in historical deficit. And, the present admin does not support the measure to continue ensuring that new spending or tax cuts are paid for with reduced spending elsewhere.

Sorry but that never happened:

Still, the unalterable fact of Bill Clinton's first term is that if Congress had approved carte blanche all White House spending requests, the deficit in recent years would have been substantially higher, not lower.

Amazingly, Clinton even managed to outspend Congress by about $54 billion when it was controlled by Democrats Tom Foley and George Mitchell -- hardly known for their fiscal tightfistedness. On at least three separate occasions in 1993 and 1994 -- the fiscal stimulus package, the Clinton health plan, and the crime bill -- the president attempted to make the deficit situation worse but was undercut by members of his own party.

In four other instances, bipartisan deficit reduction initiatives were rebuked by Clinton. "Penny-Kasich would have been enacted into law," recalls a still-frustrated Tim Penny, the Democratic co-sponsor of the package of spending cuts, "if the President had not feverishly rallied the entire White House lobbying operation against it." The same might be said of the failed balanced-budget amendment this year.
Source:

You state that Clinton WANTED Kyoto, health care, etc.

In so far as Clinton proposed legislation to nationalize one-seventh of the US economy and actually signed the Kyoto Accords which would have cost us about 1-2% of our GDP minimum.

Further, you state that Kerry SUPPORTS this or that.

In terms of the legislation that Kerry has actually voted for, tried to vote for, or new spending initiatives that Kerry has proposed. Funny how for all of the whining about what Bush has or has not done, people seem to ignore the fact that aside from the $87 Billion for our troops, Kerry supported the spending (or more) and has proposed even larger levels of spending on top of the current ones.

But, none of these are really facts on the ground, or money spent, are they?

Only because Congressional Republicans killed Clinton’s attempt to nationalize one-seventh of the US economy and President Bush got us out of Kyoto. In which case Clinton’s fiscal record only looks better because two of his most expensive proposals were either defeated or undone by Republicans. How this somehow translates into trying to reinvent Clinton as some sort of “fiscal conservative” is truly amazing.

A couple of comments.

First, the no-brainer: lansing asked for some facts about which party was more fiscally conservative. For those who still stick with the old canard that Republicans are more fiscally conservative - try to spin this: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table1

Second, Mr. Winston claims that Edwards is not "positive" and cites his "Two Americas" plank. How is pointing to a (perceived, if you insist) problem and promising a solution negative? How is this different from Ronald "the Great Optimist" Reagan and his claims that America wasn't great but could be great again? Perhaps "hopeful" or "optimistic" would have been a better choice of words, but EVERY commentator who watched Edwards's speeches (including Mr. Drezner) came away incredibly impressed. The man can spin a great message and really inspires people. Oh, and the point isn't to inspire the jaded (or the hopelessly Republican) the point is to inspire the Soccer Moms, the young, the undecided, and those who are just sick and tired of the Bush White House (which, if you look at the opinion polls is a LOT of people).

Next, for those who complain of his inexperience; what exactly is an acceptable level of inexperience? Why is 6 years as Governor an acceptable level of experience to be President, yet 6 years as a Senator is not? Why is someone who was out of politics for 8 years an acceptable choice for VP, yet someone who has been immersed in the day-to-day for the past six years not qualified?

Sorry about that last paragraph; I'm sure that everyone who has qualms about Edwards's inexperience voted for Gore/Lieberman, rather than the woefully inexperienced Bush/Cheney team.

Finally, could someone please explain to me what Kerry's "liberal" voting record entails? Exactly how is being a "liberal" an objectively bad thing? In what ways does your definition of "liberal" differ from "conservative"? In what ways does George Bush fulfill your definition of "conservative"? I'm just looking for a little more discipline to these (relatively useless) labels.

Here's something to consider.

We only see fiscal conservatism when the parties are split in Congress and the White House. A split means few new tax cuts, few spending increases (except for military, which is needed in any case).

So, since the House and Senate are going to remain with Repubs, fiscal conservatives should ensure the WH goes to Demos.

One more thing to consider: Clinton was a fiscal conservative in many ways. When he came to power, it is rumored that his advisors urged him to cut the deficit, and he fulminated about f**ing bond traders. His first budget was pretty centrist from a fiscal viewpoint, and the part that was not centrist was cut by the Repubs (spending increase). Similarly, comments about Clinton wanting to nationalize 1/7th of the US economy are basically nonsense. Hillary's plan was a muddle, but it was far from that.

Clinton was a fairly centrist President in terms of fiscal policies.

The market has spoken! People in Iowa were selling Bush and Buying Kerry hard. 12 cent swing

http://128.255.244.60/graphs/graph_Pres04_WTA.cfm

Possible double digit bounce in the polls in Kerry's favor could be coming real soon.

Self-Flagelating Self-Reference to a prior thread here:

"What just about everyone still is missing is this: (a) Kerry does not think Edwards is prepared for the presidency; (b) Kerry does not think Edwards will help him in N. Carolina; (c) Kerry is not close to / does not feel comfortable with Edwards."

Okay, so I'm sitting here enjoying a healthy portion of crow a la mode, with a side of shoe leather tartare -- as in "open mouth, insert loafer." Pass the ketchup, please. Heinz, of course.

Wow, how wrong could I have been. Still, I am surprised Kerry did pick Edwards. Many of you here have noted the many possible de-merits of the Edwards selection.

The great thing about junior punditry is that past predictions gone totally wrong are no prologue to a moratorium on confident new assertsions. Thus, with such disclaimer ....

Per Patrick Barnette: "Next, for those who complain of his inexperience; what exactly is an acceptable level of inexperience? Why is 6 years as Governor an acceptable level of experience to be President, yet 6 years as a Senator is not?"

(1) It's not September 10th anymore. Six years in office (even as governor) may have passed muster -- barely -- in 2000, but today that's not a recipe for voter comfort on hands-on experience in general or foreign affairs/national security credentials in particular. (Which is possibly one of the reasons why Edwards did not do so well in the primaries.) (2) Nine of our 42 presidents -- that's nearly 1/4 -- have succeeded their presidents in office due to death or resignation. Kerry has had treatments for cancer. (3) Conservatively (in the benefit of the doubt sense), Edwards made his Senate duties a second priority for two years (fully a third) of his one term, as he campaigned for president and vice president. (4) Prior to 1998, he never ran for elective office (W did, unsuccessfully); never was involved in or close up to politics or policy (W was); and never even began to vote until the mid 1990s. (5) Executive experience, even if in a weak-state governorship like Texas, is arguably preferable to Senate experience because the job of governor -- administrating large bureaucracies, managing large numbers of people, setting the agenda, working with or through a legislature -- is more akin to the job of president than is senator. (6) Al Gore ran for president in 1988 at age 39 after a mere four years in the Senate (though after eight years in the House), and the senior punditry (e.g., Jim Lehrer) was appalled. He was not ready, voters agreed.

I know, I know. John Edwards can "talk a squirrel out of a tree," in B. Clinton's estimation. He won a lot of trials and people think he's cute. Haven't the Dems really gone for style over substance -- "big time," as Cheney would say?

“Wow, how wrong could I have been. Still, I am surprised Kerry did pick Edwards. Many of you here have noted the many possible de-merits of the Edwards selection.”

I have a right to gloat for I accurately predicted that John Kerry would pick John Edwards. This may only prove that a broken clock is still right twice a day---but I will enjoy the glory nonetheless. Just understand this: guys like Dick Gephardt have been in politics for a very long time. Folks would therefore roar with laughter if Gephardt tried to back away, for instance, from his well established trade protectionist views. Not so, regarding Edwards. He can always claim that he is “growing” and able to rethink past positions. Also, Edwards is better looking and appears much younger than fifty. Does John Kerry open himself up to ridicule? Of course, but it’s a risk that he’s forced to take. He is a stealth candidate who must con the middle of the road voters into believing that the Massachusetts senator is not a flaming liberal. John Edwards is by far the best person to help him with this scam. Well, except for Senator Joseph Lieberman. The question you should ask yourself is why Lieberman is now a marginalized figure in today’s Democrat Party?

I will now put myself on a limb. This is my new prediction: John Kerry will not get a major bounce in the polls. His campaign is about to collapse. Unless the liberal media can manufacture a new scandal to hurt George W. Bush, the President will start to dominate the polls by a comfortable six to eight points.

There is one more point that I should add. Please take notice of the posters like “Jor.” John Kerry appreciates this individual’s efforts on his behalf---but will run the other way if approached by them in the street! The Kerry campaign is trying to hide their extreme leftists. They do not want the swing voters to know that Jor is one of their supporters. What should this tell you?

For what it is worth:

http://www.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=12298&pg=1

Synopsis:

1. Cheney is easily the least popular of all the Prez/VP candidates. As many people view him unfavorably as favorably. Something tells me this won't be improved come debate time - remember that no non-haired candidate has beaten a haired candidate in the TV era. That, and Dick Cheney just comes across as a negative, slightly mean, and slightly petty person.

2. Edwards is the most popular, but not by much. Importantly, however, only 16% have a negative view of him, compared with 40-45% for all the others.

3. An overwhelming majority of people (67%) view his experience as a trial lawyer as a strength. Amazing!

4. Only 20% of people think his lack of experience is a major weakness (35% consider it minor), while 17% think it a major strength.

5. 57% think he is qualified to be VP. This is consistent with most of the recent VP nominees, including Dick Cheney.

6. A full 24% are more likely to support Kerry now, while only 7% are less likely.

7. A large majority of those polled could care less who the VP candidate is.

'The Kerry campaign is trying to hide their extreme leftists. '

As opposed to the Bush Campaign/RNC, that has as its keynote speakers liberal Republican Arnie, Rudolf "I suppport illegal immigration" Guiliani, centrist and maverick John McCain ?

DT, like always, you are a paragon of reason. Posting a link to an electronic decision market's reaction to Kerry/Edwards is the hallmark of Leftist politics. Where do they find people like you, seriously?

On a related note, Cheney has so much baggage, that Edwards should kill him in a debate. Besides dropping f-bombs for fun, it now appears pretty clear that Cheney was lieing about Al Queda http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373547553