Monday, February 18, 2008
The tort lawyer VEEP
Barack Obama often sugarcoats his anti-business rhetoric, so it is easy for productive people to decide that he might not be so bad for us. I am given to those thoughts myself, and despite my snark actually like Obama more than the other two surviving contenders. As things stand today, I am ambivalent about an Obama presidency, which is saying a great deal considering our big differences on policy matters.
But if Barack Obama selects John Edwards as his running mate he will have constructed the most anti-business ticket of my lifetime, and I will swing into resolute and active opposition.
9 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon Feb 18, 09:34:00 AM:
You like this unqualified , disingenuous, certified blowhard more that the other candidates?
This still means you have taste for ---t.
By , at
Mon Feb 18, 10:04:00 AM:
He's gonna make a career out of playing second fiddle in losing Democratic presidential campaigns!
At least the VP doesn't really do anything. It's impossible to take John Edwards serious - can you picture him as, say, the Attorney General?
By 
GreenmanTim, at
Mon Feb 18, 10:11:00 AM:
Obama does not need Edwards to balance his ticket. He is increasingly acceptible to white men (flattering, even) and is strong in the south. What he needs is every edge in delegates. Edwards has 26.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon Feb 18, 12:51:00 PM:
Heck, the Democrats might put Edwards on the Supreme Court. How is that for a nightmare scenario?
I like Obama, too. Like Reagan, Obama has world-class PR skills. We need a President who can communicate effectively. However, I always vote with my wallet in front of me, which means I always vote Republican.
By , at
Mon Feb 18, 04:41:00 PM:
What are we reduced to, discussing game-show hosts? If that's the case, let's turn to a famous old TV commercial, "Where's the beef?"
John Edwards would be a disaster for the Democratic ticket and push it so far to the left that the Dems will mess up a sure-thing this fall and lose the general election. The one thing that Reagan Democrats like me dislike is when the Dems run against the country and posit that everything's bad and needs to be fixed -- and that they're the ones to fix them. Give me a break.
Obama seems to be a good man, but he's inexperienced and would make a huge mistake with Edwards. I can't say which Democrat I would prefer as a running mate, except to say almost anyone (okay, so not Dennis Kucinich).
The Centrist
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon Feb 18, 05:23:00 PM:
"discussing game-show hosts"
No, Centrist, I'm talking about the ability to sell ideas--the core skill of FDR, Churchill, and Reagan.
The ability to communicate effectively is an essential skill for an American leader in today's "global village." Never underestimate the importance of marketing in any endeavor. The salesman-in-chief is always the person at the top.
By Jim VAT, at
Mon Feb 18, 11:02:00 PM:
"As things stand today, I am ambivalent about an Obama presidency, which is saying a great deal considering our big differences on policy matters."
You are kidding, right? How can you be ambivalent on such a choice? You know what Obama is and what he stands for. What is there to be confused about?
By , at
Tue Feb 19, 12:22:00 AM:
Never ever vote for a trial lawyer they are supported by the demacrook party
By , at
Wed Feb 20, 11:39:00 AM:
Sorry, DEC, but what exactly is Mr. Obama selling other than "change?" FDR, Churchill and Reagan promulgated clear ides of what they thought their countries needed at the time. What has Obama really communicate other than he's not the other candidates? And will his communications withstand the intense scrutiny they're bound to get if he's the nominee? Put differently, is there really a message there that will hold up through the general election should he win the Democratic nomination? Maybe there is, and maybe right now all the majority of voters seem to want is someone relatively new (as opposed to a fully developed message on issues). That, though, would be unfortunate, because it would show the public's pronounced lack of understanding of, and caring about, the issues of the day.
Which could signify a difficult first two years of an administration and then big Republican gains in the 2010 off-year elections. The parties really don't get it -- when they get on a roll, the way the Dems did in 1992 and the Republicans in 2000 -- they get arrogant and blow it. It could well happen again.
The Centrist
The Centrist
