John Edwards is the only one on that stage who you can't say is"electable"

[cleveramerican]

He's the only one who's faced the national electorate and he lost.
He didn't even deliver his home state for the ticket.
Thats the minimum that the VP is supposed to do.
He didn't.
I'm a pretty literal person
No Way you can say he's "electable".
If he was he'd be VP now.


You could make the case that if JK had chosen Dick Gephart or Bill Richarson or Joe Biden,He'd be president now.


So from my point of view, with the exception of John Edwards, They can all optimistically assure their supporters that "I am the most Electable"

It is a phrase that has lost all meaning.

[peacebird]

1. good grief...

:eyes:

[lligrd]

2. That Is Ridiculous! nt

[Adelante]

3. I agree the phrase is meaningless

But everybody thinks the candidate they support is "electable" and the other guy isn't. However, John Edwards won an election to the Senate that time, so he was electable at least once, which should probably be included in your presentation.

[cleveramerican]

4. not a national election

which is what the term is used to infer.

[Adelante]

6. It's an indication he can be elected to public office

Since he did it. I would say he was electable as a moderate. Since he did it. How electable he is in his new incarnation is something else. I tend to think the 2004 model might be doing much better in 2008 than the new model is doing. Voters who liked him in 2004 may be wondering where the guy they liked has gone. The image conflicts will be exploited and exploited and exploited in a GE, so I don't see him as terribly "electable" as far as it goes, but his not having won more than one 2004 primary or won on the national ticket says less than those things, in my opinion.

[Catchawave]

12. JE's electable...beat an incumbent R in a red state n/t

[liberal N proud]

5. It was 2004 (1984 delayed 20 years) for gods sake

You can't count 2004 as a loss just as you can't count 2000 as a defeat for Gore.

[frogcycle]

7. not so clever, america

[Kolesar]

8. Reading *that* was a waste of thirty seconds. ... eom

[lojasmo]

9. Kerry was unelectable.

Nobody votes for Vice.

[karynnj]

23. Kerry was electable

If there were sufficient voting machines in Ohio. There is no need to attack Kerry toi support Edwards. In the 2004 primaries, Kerry slaughtered Edwards - it was only the fact that the press liked him that gave him any credible chance of winning after the first multi-state day. Kerry won MO, DE, ND, NM, and AZ. In OK, the reddest state likely the most anti- NE liberal ever - look at their Senators, Clark won with 30%, Edwards had fewer votes, but also 30% and Kerry at 27%. Edwards only big win was SC, the state he was born and partially raised in, where Kerry came second. The states that day favored a Southern populist - if he couldn't win these, he was an inferior candidate to the MA liberal.

Kerry faced toughest election that any Democrat faced in decades and nearly won. His opponents were a sitting President in a time of war at nearly 50% approval (some disapproval was from the RW side - and was not likely to go to any Democrat), an echo chamber that had taken over most of cable as well as talk radio, parts of the Catholic church, and a government willing to terrorize America by raising the terror levels for political reasons.

In Kerry, the Democrats had a candidate with undeniable foreign policy experience and better connections to the military and veterans than any 2008 candidates. You also had a candidate, who though basically liberal had Gary Hart like ability to impress moderate Republican businessmen with creative, innovative, thoughtful approaches in his health care and alternative energy programs. (Even the big three auto makers liked Kerry's idea of re-insurance for catastrophic costs) Much of S-CHIP, the biggest expansion of federal heath insurance, was written by Kerry in the bill that he and Kennedy wrote that Kennedy and Hatch modified to become the S-CHIP bill. He led the effort to get the NE governors and the Canadian leaders to adopt a cap and trade system for sulfur emissions that were the cause of acid rain.

In addition, in a 25 year career, he had no major accusations of any type of corruption and had authored the Clean Elections bill with Wellstone for real campaign finance reform. There was also the POW/MIA chapter in John McCain's book. That showed not only the incredible accomplishments made by Kerry, which McCain said would not have happened without him, but it showed the meticulous, careful, calm way he handled a group of prima donnas, including Bob Smith, Bob Kerrey and John McCain. It was Kerry who pushed for the unusual extensive effort on the part of the Vietnamese and other SE countries to repatriate as many American remains - a fact, that Kerry had the grace not to mention when Dean's family got his brother's remains back. Kerry had a career as commendable as his actions as a war hero, willing to risk his own life to save someone and as a man with the eloquence, intelligence and the courage to speak the truth to the Senate in 1971.

In addition to all Kerry had to face, he had a party where many of its most prominent people on TV did not have his back at all. The two that I see as most guilty were Begala and Carville. They did their daily attacks on Bush, but they never went out of their way to ever cover Kerry's major proposals or speeches or to counter any lies - except the SBVT. Imagine if they would have used their megaphones to repeat things Kerry was saying on health care, the environment, or terrorism and Iraq. In 1992, they were helped by every Democrat out there to protect Bill Clinton on things where he had actual liabilities. Every candidate needs others to help protect him and in 2004, many Democrats did less than they could have.

[MethuenProgressive]

10. John Kerry/ Wes Clark would've won. Edwards added nothing to the ticket.

What ever happened to Johnny Edwards, anyway? He got nominated, stashed his staff away, and then just disaapeared... until the next election cycle.

[Catchawave]

16. Then you weren't paying attention :) n/t

[saltpoint]

11. I think what you need to do is replace the text of your post with a

couple of excellent holiday recipes and perhaps a poem or two by Adrienne Rich and W.B. Yeats.

Otherwise there ain't much in it.

[Ninga]

13. The redeeming value of this post is I get to say a cheery "good morning" to you.

by the way....I wonder what is the won/loss record of those who achieved political greatness....

I would bet that John Edwards is in some very decent company.

[saltpoint]

15. Ah, the pleasure of hellos is mine, Ninga. Good morning to ya.

Yep. Agree with your point.

The historical perspective counts a lot.

Edwards is not badly positioned at all and wins praise on his thorough command of issues from some very heavy folks, including Mario Cuomo.

[Catchawave]

17. Yes, OC always brings a touch of sunshine to cloudy threads !

:hi:

[Ninga]

18. Yes indeed....very cloudy thread and very cloudy here in NE Ohio..but the sun will shine TONIGHT !

Go Indians !

[saltpoint]

20. I follow the path of established sunshine-generators such as those

very dedicated Virginia Democrats, of which I could name one in particular who single-handedly elected Jim Webb over Cement-Head Allen in 06.

Howdy right back, Catchawave. Good to see ya.

[AmBlue]

33. here, here Crusoe ...

[QueenOfCalifornia]

14. He lost?

That election - as I recall was stolen.... Please.... You are buying into the ridiculous media bias spin.

[Evergreen Emerald]

19. They won the popular vote. They lost the supreme court.

He was elected. And frankly no democrat is electable with republican-voting-machines.

[Enrique]

21. electable means he can be elected

the fact that he lost a previous election does not make it impossible to win a future one.

Therefore, he can win now.

Therefore, he is electable.

As a literal person, I'm sure you will appreciate this.

[karynnj]

24. The fact is that he has NOT run as the Presidential nominee

It was not Edwards who decimated Bush in all three debates.

The fact is that no one knows how Edwards would have fared vs Bush in 2004 as the candidate. Had he been the candidate, the Republicans would have hit him and his record - not Kerry. In February, when he was still running for President, Kerry did far better in match ups versus Bush. Edwards did not, and does not, have Kerry's wealth of foreign policy knowledge or his decades of public service.

It is possible that had he won the nomination that he would have convinced people to trust him with the national security. My opinion is that he wouldn't have - but that is just opinion.

[racaulk]

22. So a losing VP is "unelectable" in future runs for President?

Google the election of 1920.

Further, losing Presidential candidates have gone on to later mount successful campaigns for the Presidency, such as Taft, Cleveland, and Nixon.

Just because someone has faced a national electorate and lost, doesn't necessarily mean that they are not electable in future runs.

:eyes:

[cleveramerican]

25. 87 years ago is getting to be a long time ago

Say he's a good speaker
Say he's passionate
Say you like him
Just don't say he's electable.

I actually do think you only get one bite of this apple.

[last_texas_dem]

26. Hmmm...

By your logic, Cheney would be an electable Presidential candidate for the Repugs this time around, 17-percent approval ratings and all, because, as the VP candidate, he "carried" Wyoming for Bush. Oh yeah, and Lieberman would make an "electable" Democratic candidate because, after all, his presence on the ticket "carried" Connecticut for Gore.

Yup, really logical premise you got here...

:sarcasm:

[saltpoint]

27. So. Just what is it you don't like about Uncle Dick?

Cuz I love 'im.

[last_texas_dem]

30. I don't know...

Maybe it's that smile of his. You just can't trust a man with such a warm, inviting smile. haha

[saltpoint]

LOL! It IS a warm smile. Such a cuddly guy, that Dick Cheney.

[cleveramerican]

31. I do think Darth Vader would be the favorite on the other side

Liebermen couldn't claim the be electable for the same reason, he wasn't elected on the one chance you get.

I can provide evidence for my point.

This is why you won't hear it out of JE's mouth himself, He'll leave the claims of "electability" to others for this very reason.

[1932]

28. According to that logic, FDR shouldn't have run in '32.

[saltpoint]

29. FDR would never have been elected if he'd run. Everyone knows that.

(Hi, 1932. Long time no say hi. Hope it's going smoothly for ya these days.)

[truebrit71]

32. First he won. Second Gore LOST his home state in 2000 and he was the HEAD of the ticket...

...so I'm not sure what your point is..?? Other than bashing John Edwards that is...:eyes;

[cleveramerican]

34. what did Edwards win?

Did he win the vice presidency? I must have missed it.

Did Gore lose Tennesee and win The Vice-Presidency?


Ohhh I get it .
He lost Tennesee and He lost the election, when he was on the top of the ticket.
which I think proves it does help when it comes to winning.