John Edwards was pretty much a waste on the Democratic ticket

That is proof? The vice presidential debate has nothing to do with who got elected. You know that.

 

I watched the debate, and I am more than capable of forming my OWN opinions. I don't need Republican or Democratic commentators to think for me.

Edwards was schooled, according to ME.

 

of course he was as was Bush in the first debate.

 

Well, that's obvious since according to the media and you liberals, Bush/Cheney got the sh!t kicked out of them in every debate.

Keep on bringing your sorry ass Dem candidates and we'll keep on dominating the White House, Senate, Congress and the Supreme Court.

Hillary in 2008??
I can't wait. This is going to be fun.

Shoot, we'll run Zell Miller against her just for sport.

 

It seems like you saw something different than everyone else here.
Does Michael Moore have a new documentary on the debates that we
don't know about or what are you smokin? :thumb: :lol:

Remember, according to the exit polls John Kerry did win!

The media threw everything they could at the president for a year and the
bumbling fool Kerry still couldn't take advantage of the media in his corner
and the attacks against Bush.

 

Debates are not judged on presentation, rather it's what's said that counts. Kerry was glib and smooth but also showed that he had no clue of the inner workings of international affairs. "I can do better" ain't gonna cut it.

And I was the 1972 USL freshman debate champion so I know of what I speak :wink:

 

presentation aside, Kerry won the first debate on most all aspects if you happened to watch it.

 

To the original point of the thread... When Kerry added Edwards to the ticket, in my opinion it did not accomplish anything positive. Edwards somehow managed to do well in democratic primaries and by doing so became Kerry's choice for vp running mate. All Edwards ever amounted to was to be a political parrot that mocked the words of Kerry. Nothing he said or did set him apart from Kerry or complimented Kerry in any way. Kerry definitely could have picked a more suitable running mate.

If you contrast Kerry/Edwards to Bush/Cheney.... It is obvious that Cheney has his own opinions and does not agree with Bush on everything. Yet they do have a good working relationship. That is what I hoped for in a running mate for Kerry.

As for Edwards hurting Kerry, I do not think he did. He just did not help very much, if any, in getting additional votes. To me if Kerry were elected and somehow passed away or was taken out of office, then when Edwards took over there would not have been much difference.

 

I disagree, but even if he did, so what? Didn't mean a hill of beans, apparently.

 

John Edwards was picked as the VP candidate for three reasons:

-Ideological balance. Edwards would be packaged as the "moderate." Either the Democrats think we're all stupid, or they have a whacked out definition of moderate.

-Geographic impact. They were hoping that putting a Southerner on the ticket would win over a few Southern states in play, not necessarily North Carolina, but maybe Florida or Arkansas.

-Because he's young, fresh, and good looking, which they hoped would sway some less intelligent women voters and cancel out John Kerry's "basset hound" looks and put-you-to-sleep speeches and mannerisms.

He failed to deliver on any of those. But he was not brought on to win over North Carolina; the DNC knew very well Edwards was retiring because his ultra-liberal voting record meant he had an uphill battle for re-election. They were trying to give Southern voters a wolf in sheep's clothing. Thank God most did not buy into it.

The idea that running mates will bring a state or region with them is long dead. It hasn't worked since 1992, when Al Gore helped win Tennessee over for Bill Clinton, and before that, it had been since 1980, when Bush Sr. helped Ronald Reagan capture Texas. But, in 1996, Jack Kemp failed to bring New York into the GOP fold, and Edwards sure wasn't going to bring North Carolina. I'm glad Bush did not pick his running mate in 2000 based on that strategy, but even then, he faced pressure to choose a running mate for just those reasons, like Pennsylvania's Tom Ridge.

Since it's failed so much, I don't think it will be a consideration for either party in 2008.