Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Edwards costs Kerry

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    Post Thanks / Like
    If Kerry had chosen Gephardt, he gets Missouri and enthusiatic union support. If he picks Richardson, he gets New Mexico. In either case, he puts pressure on Bush. He picks the Breck girl , and gets...NOTHING. Why did he pick this nothing man? It's grounds to really wonder if Kerry is all that smart in the first place.

    I don't expect we'll ever see VP picks like either Cheney(the old hand) or Edwards again when poliitics has become so divided and retail.

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, NC
    Posts
    3,682
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Bugg[/i]@Oct 30 2004, 12:43 AM
    [b] If Kerry had chosen Gephardt, he gets Missouri and enthusiatic union support. If he picks Richardson, he gets New Mexico. In either case, he puts pressure on Bush. He picks the Breck girl , and gets...NOTHING. Why did he pick this nothing man? It's grounds to really wonder if Kerry is all that smart in the first place.

    I don't expect we'll ever see VP picks like either Cheney(the old hand) or Edwards again when poliitics has become so divided and retail. [/b][/quote]
    He picked Edwards because he was the most competent opponent he had during the race for the democratic nomination, to help get the NC vote (as that is a critical and very divided state; I should know, I live here), and possibly votes from other southerners as well. Not only that, but he's a handsome individual, and that can garner the women's vote. Of course he doesn't have a great resume, but America usually doesn't tend to care about the VP's record for the most part.

    Gephardt, in hindsight, might have been a better choice. However, choosing Edwards over him probably is not what will make or break Kerry. Edwards is a decent running mate who definitely didn't bring NOTHING to the table. In any case, the average American won't remember much about him years from now if Kerry loses.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    41,588
    Post Thanks / Like
    ...

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    41,588
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Jetsfan80[/i]@Oct 30 2004, 02:45 AM
    [b] Not only that, but he's a handsome individual, and that can garner the women's vote. [/b][/quote]
    And therein lies the great political blunder of the 2004 campaign

    Woman stopped thinking with their twats the day it became apparent their childrens lives were literally at stake in this election ... thus the conversion of soccer moms to security moms

    No longer was some smooth talkin stud gonna get their juices flowing ... now it became about WHO is gonna protect my child from meeting the same fate as those children who were dropped off at school one day by their moms {in Moscow} only to be tortured and slaughtered at the hands of Muslim terrorists

    Obviously 9/11 made this election about the war on terror ... first and foremost this election is about 9/11 and fighting the war on terror ... but make no mistake about it, that massacre of school children in Moscow at the hands of Muslim butchers also had a dramatic effect on moms throughout the USA, from coast to coast, cause they easily {and rightfully, IMO} projected their own children meeting the same fate if we should fail to select an administration that will fight like hell to prevent such an event from ever taking place on U.S. soil ... an administration that will take the fight to the terrorists where they live and breathe {i.e. the middle east}, as opposed to fighting that war in the streets {and school houses} of America

    So at that point the handsome slickster became a complete after-thought to moms from coast to coast ... single moms as well ... this election became all about PROTECTING THEIR CHILDREN

    And that's why you see GWB, in poll after poll, doing better with women voters than any Republican candidate since Dwight Eisenhower

    And that is the great untold story of this campaign ... the one that will be discussed by the media for weeks and months following this election ... had John Kerry simply done AS WELL amongst women voters as demoracts normally do, NOT BETTER but simply AS WELL, John Kerry VERY LIKELY defeats GWB

    But his cynical selection of John Edwards ... INSULTING SELECTION of John Edwards ... to think women would vote with their twats when their childrens lives are literally in danger ... was one of the greatest miscalculations in Presidential campaign history

    Although I think the man is a massive phony, he would have been much better served had he chosen Wesley Clark ... at least then he would have had a running mate who could make a credible case for taking the fight to the terrorists, a former General with ribbons all over his chest, and that would have appealed to women voters {who are interested only in saving their children from the evil monsters who seek to kill them} FAR MORE than a cute face and a smile

    Lastly, even women who have no children are interested in security as well ... for themselevs and their families {brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, etc.}

    A cute face and sexual fantisies may have floated their boat during peace time {see Bill Clinton}, but that was not gonna happen during a time of war ... and certainly not during a time of war where our enemies seek to hit us where we breathe, as they did on 9/11

    But again, cause I cannot emphasize this enough ... I believe that massacre in Moscow, the massacre of the children, at the hands of Muslim extremists, was THE STRAW THAT BROKE THE CAMELS BACK for moms from coast to coast, RIGHT HERE IN THE USA

    On that day a cute face and a nice smile became totally irrelevant to these women ... on that day it became about one thing, PLEASE DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN TO MY CHILDREN

    Not about who's gonna better protect my reproductive rights

    Not about who's gonna better provide daycare services

    Not about who's gonna provide more pell grants

    [i]Not about who has the cutest face?[/i]

    [b]WHO'S GONNA PROTECT MY CHILDREN FROM THESE MONSTERS?[/b]

    end of story

  5. #5
    Tom The Nader Fan™
    Guest
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Jetsfan80[/i]@Oct 30 2004, 01:45 AM
    [b]
    He picked Edwards to help get the NC vote (as that is a critical and very divided state; I should know, I live here), and possibly votes from other southerners as well. [/b][/quote]
    Then why didn't they go with Zell Miller? They would have got the southern vote in spades.

    John Edwards won't even win his senate seat at this point.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    hey the same thing could be asked of Bush, why would he keep a man (Dick Cheney) on his ticket who has an approval rating in the teens? - he's the most dispised public figure in America. If this were a Bush-Guiliani ticket the GOP would win in a landslide.

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, NC
    Posts
    3,682
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Green Jets & Ham+Oct 30 2004, 04:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Green Jets & Ham @ Oct 30 2004, 04:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Jetsfan80[/i]@Oct 30 2004, 02:45 AM
    [b] Not only that, but he&#39;s a handsome individual, and that can garner the women&#39;s vote. [/b][/quote]
    And therein lies the great political blunder of the 2004 campaign

    Woman stopped thinking with their twats the day it became apparent their childrens lives were literally at stake in this election ... thus the conversion of soccer moms to security moms

    No longer was some smooth talkin stud gonna get their juices flowing ... now it became about WHO is gonna protect my child from meeting the same fate as those children who were dropped off at school one day by their moms {in Moscow} only to be tortured and slaughtered at the hands of Muslim terrorists

    Obviously 9/11 made this election about the war on terror ... first and foremost this election is about 9/11 and fighting the war on terror ... but make no mistake about it, that massacre of school children in Moscow at the hands of Muslim butchers also had a dramatic effect on moms throughout the USA, from coast to coast, cause they easily {and rightfully, IMO} projected their own children meeting the same fate if we should fail to select an administration that will fight like hell to prevent such an event from ever taking place on U.S. soil ... an administration that will take the fight to the terrorists where they live and breathe {i.e. the middle east}, as opposed to fighting that war in the streets {and school houses} of America

    So at that point the handsome slickster became a complete after-thought to moms from coast to coast ... single moms as well ... this election became all about PROTECTING THEIR CHILDREN

    And that&#39;s why you see GWB, in poll after poll, doing better with women voters than any Republican candidate since Dwight Eisenhower

    And that is the great untold story of this campaign ... the one that will be discussed by the media for weeks and months following this election ... had John Kerry simply done AS WELL amongst women voters as demoracts normally do, NOT BETTER but simply AS WELL, John Kerry VERY LIKELY defeats GWB

    But his cynical selection of John Edwards ... INSULTING SELECTION of John Edwards ... to think women would vote with their twats when their childrens lives are literally in danger ... was one of the greatest miscalculations in Presidential campaign history

    Although I think the man is a massive phony, he would have been much better served had he chosen Wesley Clark ... at least then he would have had a running mate who could make a credible case for taking the fight to the terrorists, a former General with ribbons all over his chest, and that would have appealed to women voters {who are interested only in saving their children from the evil monsters who seek to kill them} FAR MORE than a cute face and a smile

    Lastly, even women who have no children are interested in security as well ... for themselevs and their families {brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, etc.}

    A cute face and sexual fantisies may have floated their boat during peace time {see Bill Clinton}, but that was not gonna happen during a time of war ... and certainly not during a time of war where our enemies seek to hit us where we breathe, as they did on 9/11

    But again, cause I cannot emphasize this enough ... I believe that massacre in Moscow, the massacre of the children, at the hands of Muslim extremists, was THE STRAW THAT BROKE THE CAMELS BACK for moms from coast to coast, RIGHT HERE IN THE USA

    On that day a cute face and a nice smile became totally irrelevant to these women ... on that day it became about one thing, PLEASE DON&#39;T LET THIS HAPPEN TO MY CHILDREN

    Not about who&#39;s gonna better protect my reproductive rights

    Not about who&#39;s gonna better provide daycare services

    Not about who&#39;s gonna provide more pell grants

    [i]Not about who has the cutest face?[/i]

    [b]WHO&#39;S GONNA PROTECT MY CHILDREN FROM THESE MONSTERS?[/b]

    end of story [/b][/quote]
    What about women who don&#39;t have children?

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Edison, NJ
    Posts
    26
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]Lastly, even women who have no children are interested in security as well ... for themselevs and their families {brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, etc.}
    [/b][/quote]

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us