Kerry's running mate

HasimirFenring · July 6, 2004

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/special_packages/election2004/9085641.htm?1c

I can hardly wait. My guess is either John Edwards or Howard Dean. The article mentions a few names. Who would the rest of you think will be John Kerry's running mate?

EDIT: another link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/06/politics/campaign/06veep.html

ordos45 · July 6, 2004

I think Gephart or Vilsac.

I'm hoping against Hillary Clinton. Pity about that intern or whatever it was met with that accident...

GUNWOUNDS · July 6, 2004

Edwards was chosen !

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/06/kerry.vp/index.html

ordos45 · July 6, 2004

Edwards was chosen !

And he still hasn't taken down the article on his website slamming John Kerry!!

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=740

Sen. John Kerry is the clear favorite and at this point will be hard to beat. But Edwards more than rivals him in many ways and on many issues. We are also very troubled by how out of touch Kerry was with an economic development project

HasimirFenring · July 8, 2004

I have read lots of articles about this and was wondering what you all think: will Edwards help Kerry/Democrats in general, and if so in what ways? How does he compare to Cheney?

The articles that I've come across suggest that Edwards will help Democrats in congressional races becuase he may encourage trial lawyers to contribute to campaigns, and he will help Kerry take some southern states.

As to comparing him to Cheney, Edwards is everything Cheney is not (charismatic, for example). Cheney creeps me out; Edwards seems idealistic and good-natured.

Any thoughts?

GUNWOUNDS · July 8, 2004

Edwards will be a huge boost to Kerry because Edwards is a clean slate.

HasimirFenring · July 8, 2004

Edwards will be a huge boost to Kerry because Edwards is a clean slate.

GUNWOUNDS · July 9, 2004

i would rather have edwards and kerry switch positions.

it would be more appealing if edwards was the prez candidate.

if i were a democrat that is.

danielsh · July 9, 2004

My Republican buddies are already complaining that Edwards was an ambulance-chaser who bilked insurance companies out of money in malpractice suits based on unscientific information, and is an inexperienced, smooth-talking snake-oil salesman who's all charm and no substance.

As for me, I'm happy with the choice.

thomas · July 9, 2004

Hmm edward's kinda "con'ed" his way from welfare to riches, don't most rebuplicans? :D

COUGH Kenny lay, tyco CEO, halliburton (c'mon they have like 50 differant lawsuits for fraud right now) COUGH

TMA_1 · July 9, 2004

There were some scandles with edwards, and I do NOT see why people think of him as "pure" or somehow a "good guy". He sounds just as fake as any other politician. Supposedly he pocketed lots of money from his non-profit work as a lawyer. I will have to reread some of the details.

I agree though that he is a hell of a lot better choice than gephart or other people like that.

Frankly though even if kerry does win I dont think anything will change. he is a politician with motives that are more words than any sort of action to me personally.

danielsh · July 10, 2004

Frankly though even if kerry does win I dont think anything will change. he is a politician with motives that are more words than any sort of action to me personally.

I can't recall offhand whether it was Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn, but one of the two (I think the former) made the point that if Kerry is elected, he won't change anything himself, but could be affected by a social movement. That chance does not exist with Bush.

Still, no one really expects Kerry to change anything (or, at any rate, no one should). He's just as weak as any other Democrat, and will only reverse Bush's negative changes, not bring any progress of his own. However, this is a case in which Americans must choose the lesser of two evils: the politician backed by fewer corporations, with fewer special interests, with fewer ulterior motives, and with a slightly less blackened and twisted soul.

Wolf · July 10, 2004

That's quite a Republican analysis, really.

danielsh · July 10, 2004

That's quite a Republican analysis, really.

Yeah, except that my point is we should be electing someone Lefter :-).

Seriously, though, I don't think there's anything partisan about that analysis. I haven't heard anything from Kerry to make me believe that he's offering some kind of brighter, better future

GUNWOUNDS · July 10, 2004

the people have to want it too ....

if 51% of the electoral are voting republican you will never get a true lefty in the office no matter how hard you try. Its not the party's fault its the people's.

the *people* have to want it as bad as you do Dan.

danielsh · July 10, 2004

The people don't want freedom? The people don't want justice? The people don't want equality?

The Right subsists on "culture wars." Lower-class citizens who would benefit from liberal economic policy are convinced that they would be harmed by liberal social policy

HasimirFenring · July 10, 2004

the people have to want it too ....
if 51% of the electoral are voting republican you will never get a true lefty in the office no matter how hard you try. Its not the party's fault its the people's.
the *people* have to want it as bad as you do Dan.

The people vote the way they do because they are ignorant, not because of thier convictions. Last I heard, two thirds of amercians believed that Saddam was behind (or at least had a part in) 9/11. You know WHY they think that?

republican strategists (I heard this on an interview on public television) know that there is and never was a connection between al qaeda and Iraq; they couldnt have bush or anyone else say that. So what did they do? Brilliant manipulation of the masses: never mention Iraq without mentioning 9/11. Dont ever mention a connection, but always mention them togther. Through stuff like this, half the country is kept republican (and the democrats are hardly [if any]) better.

Edric O · July 10, 2004

I'm really dissapointed by this nomination. I was hoping that Howard Dean would be Kerry's running mate. Edwards is far too right-wing for my tastes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he supposed to be the most conservative of the Democratic front-runners? What was his economic platform in the primaries?

I agree with most of Dan's comments, and I'd like to add a few things: The practice of dividing the working class on social issues is a tired-and-true strategy of the Right. It's the old trick of Divide and Conquer. Make the poor hate each other, so they won't notice how they're being screwed by the rich. This strategy is so old that even Karl Marx wrote about it. In the 19th century, the bourgeoisie tried to divide the workers using racism and nationalism. This practice also continued well into the 20th century, but it fell into disrepute after WW2 (the bourgeoisie tried using Hitler as their nationalist puppet, but they lost control of him and things went horribly wrong, so they were not eager to repeat the experience). Although racism and nationalism are still on the agenda today, they've been pushed into the background in order to make way for the new & improved methods of dividing the working class: homophobia, hatred of the unemployed, etc.

As a side note, the very first motto of the labour movement - "Workers of all countries, unite!" - was a statement against this Divide & Conquer strategy. It's funny how things haven't changed much since Marx's day after all...

HasimirFenring · July 10, 2004

I'm really dissapointed by this nomination. I was hoping that Howard Dean would be Kerry's running mate. Edwards is far too right-wing for my tastes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he supposed to be the most conservative of the Democratic front-runners? What was his economic platform in the primaries?

I was also hoping for Dean, but picking Edwards, just like picking Kerry, was a purely political decision. Michael Moore is right: this year, it's more important to get bush out to prevent an eventual police state than to move this country in the right direction (and by right, I mean left :D). Most right-wing? Really? More so than Liebermann? That guy creeps me out.

TMA_1 · July 10, 2004

you bring up a good point dan, and one that I am struggling with.

You are right that kerry might actually help in overturning much of what bush has messed up on. Not largely because of his or his aids ideas, but because it would probably create an atmosphere with the people to spark change (I mean people think the president too powerful, he is only apart of the executive branch, and taht is one of three, and really he cant do as much as people think he could, but still it is a fresh start, and a president can definitely do some great good, but you see what I mean.)

so I agree with you dan, but this is the problem. Something within me fears voting for the lesser of two evils. Call it idealism I dont know, but I feel yucky about voting for somebody I dont believein. It is funny that a few years ago I believed that if you didnt vote, you were basically shirking your duties as an american and you were lazy, but now I see that not all people feel this way but are in the same problem that I have. If you dont like either, than how can you vote?

So I am still not sure if I even want to vote, torn between two ideas that I find equally rational, but in different ways. To vote for the lesser of two evils to spark change, or to not vote for either out of moral obligations. hmm this is going to be hard.

danielsh · July 10, 2004

My "lesser of two evils" comment was rather vague, so I'll clarify.

Wolf · July 11, 2004

I agree with Dan as well, however, one of my more favorite Democrats, James Carville, also brought up an interesting point. I hope I get it right however. I think Carville predicts that the American election, however it is won -- either way, will push voters to the brink of marginalization so that they move, as a whole, to change things. There will be an odd union of right and left doctrines (not all rights, and all lefts, some people are just born to disagree) who are unsatisfied as a whole. The union will not last, but it might just stimulate American politics, and get the US out of a stagnant, two-party system.

I suppose, in a way, this is similar to Dan's approach. Only, without the revolution part.

Reply to Edric: I think that's an interesting analysis of how things have been done. I think that it (what you and Marx have said) is pretty much correct and I agree with it for the most part, but I wonder exactly how that (the division of the working class) has been accomplished over the years. Is it an on-going conspiracy by the rich? Or is it more unconcious than that, sort of the natural response of the rich towards the dissent of the poor?

nemafakei · July 11, 2004

Well, the unions here are talking about giving up on funding Labour, though they may still fund some individual Labour MPs.

Are you still under that Third-Reich-esque law banning trade unions?

Wolf · July 11, 2004

I wasn't aware that we had such a law...

nemafakei · July 12, 2004

I know you used to, but that was some time ago. Put more simply: do you have trade unions who back your 'as left as our sponsors will allow' 'Democrat' party.

Sign In

Kerry's running mate

Recommended Posts

HasimirFenring

ordos45

GUNWOUNDS

ordos45

HasimirFenring

GUNWOUNDS

HasimirFenring

GUNWOUNDS

danielsh

thomas

TMA_1

danielsh

Wolf

danielsh

GUNWOUNDS

danielsh

HasimirFenring

Edric O

HasimirFenring

TMA_1

danielsh

Wolf

nemafakei

Wolf

nemafakei

Join the conversation

Activity

Important Information