Am I the only one who wouldn't mind seeing an Obama/Edwards or Edwards/Obama ticket?

[grace0418]

I'm still undecided who I'm choosing, since Gore refused to enter the race and make it easy for me. Heaven forbid I *ever* get to vote for a candidate I'm excited about instead of "making due" with the best of what's available. But I digress.

Anyway, I'm finding a lot of positives and negatives about both Edwards and Obama. I'm also finding that it seems like they could complement each other pretty well. In a best case (yet realistic, I'm not hoping for miracles here) scenario, I would be reasonably excited if Obama and Edwards were to join forces.

Does anyone else see this as an exciting prospect? Is it at all possible?

I apologize to Hillary supporters, and certainly don't want to get into a flamefest with any of you, but I personally do not find her an acceptible choice at this point. If she wins the nomination, I'll have to decide what I want to do at that point. But for now, she's simply not the candidate for me. No offense.

[ananda]

1. If Edwards isn't at the top, I'd prefer..

.. that he not be Veep.

I think Attorney General would be great.

[grace0418]

2. Good point.

He would make a great AG. And I bet he'd remember stuff too!

[grace0418]

6. What about if Edwards *is* the nominee?

Who would you see as his Veep?

[AndyA]

3. There's one major difference between Edwards and Obama.

Edwards will not take lobbyist money. And Obama is flush with it.

Obama is going to owe corporations and their lobbyists big time if he wins, and that will make it difficult for him to bring about any real change. The corporations control government these days.

That might be a deal breaker, because Edwards is very much against the status quo, and it would seem Obama is OK with it, despite what he may say. He is, after all, taking the money that comes from big business.

[terisan]

7. Well said. nt

[surfermaw]

40. I agree..if he has a lobbyist for a helper in his campaign

Then we don't want him, we got plenty on the take already.

[frazzled]

8. Not true, just completely not true: check Edwards's lobbyist money

In this graph from Open Secrets (via a Kos diary):

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/7/21238/61296/221/432022

As you can see, Hillarly tops out the lobbyist money (among both Ds and Rs), Obama is down in 9th place at $76,859; Edwards is close by in 11th place with $18,900. Given that Obama has raised 3 times as much as Edwards, their percentages of lobbyist donations is about the same as a percentage of total funds. And it is a very very low percentage.

So, let's put that myth to rest: John Edwards HAS taken money from lobbyists, IS taking money from lobbyists, and it's not at any less of a rate than Obama. Neither is "awash" in it.

[AndyA]

43. Edwards has refunded money from lobbyists several times this year.

But it still must be reported. He has stated repeatedly that he is NOT accepting lobbyist money. Since it's so easily checked, do you think he'd be stupid enough to make such a statement if it weren't true?

You cannot explain how Barack is going to bring about real change when he's so indebted to the very entities that have made things in America such a mess. A vote for Barack is a vote for more of the same. He can't bring change, he's compromised himself.

Edwards is the only candidate in the polls that CONSISTENTLY BEATS EVERY REPUBLICAN RUNNING. The GOP will mop the floors with Barack if he's the nominee. This election is too important to take chances on winding up with someone who will maintain the status quo.

Put the Kool-Aid down and follow the money. Watch the media: they aren't hardly talking about Edwards because their corporate owners are terrified of him. And that would be good for America.

[grace0418]

12. "Flush" is an overstatement and Edwards isn't perfect either.

For me, neither is a golden boy.

[cali]

13. there's one real difference:

Obama has a long history of working on meaningful lobbying reform, both in the Illinois Legislature and the U.S. Senate. John Edwards did nothing on lobbying reform.

And please stop deliberately spreading a lie. Obama has not taken any lobbyist money in this campaign.

In any case, it's all irrelevant because Edwards has such a very slim chance of becoming the nominee.

[HeraldSquare212]

4. They both have top-of-the-ticket messages

I don't think they could credibly retool into attack dog and surrogate for the nominee for Pres.

[Labors of Hercules]

5. Edwards/Obama gets a big thumbs up! nt.

[Thrill]

9. Edwards offers nothing as a Vice President

Nothing. He can't carry his own state. So he offers nothing

[Lerkfish]

11. well, he's anti-corporation, pro-labor, pro-accountability

I'd say that's something in my book.

[grace0418]

14. Nothing? Really?

Man, for a Dem/left-of-center forum, I sure do run across a lot of absolutes around here.

[Lerkfish]

10. I feel an Obama/Edwards combo ticket, either order, would be unbeatable.

bu they, that's just me.

I'd have preferred Edwards/Kucincich.

[grace0418]

17. I'd have preferred a lot of different scenarios than what we're going to get but

I guess I just want to see a silver lining. :hi:

[Arugula Latte]

15. That's been my dream for months. nt

[grace0418]

19. I don't know why it just came to me now. I think I've been avoiding even thinking

about it because I've been so depressed about having Hillary shoved down my throat.

[Arugula Latte]

36. Hah! Me too.

I did buy into "Inevitability" because I thought the Dem. Establishment + Media would make it so.

[Adelante]

16. Obama/Somebody Else nt

[grace0418]

18. Who else?

Have anyone in mind?

[Adelante]

20. Biden or Clark, maybe nt

[politicasista]

22. I prefer that too n/t

[stlsaxman]

23. Obama/Biden would ROCK! n/t

:headbang: :bounce: :headbang: :bounce: :headbang: :bounce: :headbang:

[grace0418]

25. Interesting. Thanks.

Really makes me wonder how all of this is going to shake out.

[madmunchie]

21. Obama/? is more preferred than Obama/Edwards

JE needs to do some PUBLIC SERVICE for meager wages for at least ONE WHOLE term before he tries to hold the most important and powerful PUBLIC SERVICE office in the (arguably) world.

[grace0418]

24. I understand your point, but unless he gave away his entire fortune that would

be impossible. I mean, he could do it (for instance, he could do something and refuse payment), but he already has a huge fortune and that isn't going anywhere. Nor would I expect him to give away his money. Not with a very sick wife (who would probably be getting shitty medical care without all that money) and young children.

[madmunchie]

31. The point is that he was elected Senator for 6 years, during which

he spent almost 3 years planning and actively running for the WH, never really fulfilling his "promises" and "pledges" as a Senator. Combine that with some absolutely horrible votes.....(which are very contradictory to his present positions) and I ask where is "public service"? It looks pretty self serving to me.... Go to the Senate and use that as a springboard for the WH...... He talks about fighting for the average person, but never really has SHOWN what he could accomplish as a public servant.

I could have accepted him if he just would have completed ONE term w/o getting such grandiose ideas about his skills.

[SaveElmer]

26. If Edwards is on the ticket...I'll be looking elsewhere...nt

[grace0418]

27. I guess I feel the same way about Clinton. Except that I don't know what alternative

we have right now. Let the Republicans win?

[SaveElmer]

28. If Bloomberg looked viable...I would certainly support him over Edwards...

The only way I would vote for Edwards is to keep the Republican from winning...and hope Edwards is a one termer...

[grace0418]

33. Viability is really the issue, isn't it?

Just once I'd love to vote for someone I was really passionate about. Oh well.

[Catchawave]

29. Edwards/Obama would give us 16 years....guaranteed.

Obama/??? would give us 4-8 at best. Just my opinion, I could be wrong :toast:

[madmunchie]

32. You probably are wrong considering that Obama will have 2 solid wins

over JE by tommorrow.

[Catchawave]

41. Well good luck for the Obama Administration

Jus'saying....he's on his own :D

[grace0418]

34. How do you figure?

I'm just curious.

[Catchawave]

42. 8 years Edwards + 8 years Obama = 16 years

I think that's our only winning team right now. Good grief, at the END of Obama's last Presidential term, he'll still be about short of social security :shrug:

That's how I chose, per topic question :hi:

[LSK]

30. I like the idea

[Didereaux]

35. Only if the ticket is edwards/Obama the reverse is not acceptable in my eyes.

[bpeale]

39. there you go. i agree completely. i would like to see a VP more in line

with edwards message.

[BenDavid]

37. Hell, a vast majority did not support edwards in 04 to become

democratic candidate and only supported him because Kerry took him on as vp candidate. So what has changed in 4 years? You could take what edwards said throughout the country in 04 and what he says now at it is the same old tired 2 america's......

You wanna win in 08 then obama better come with one hell of a vp choice and I ain't talking bout john edwards....I doubt serious that if obama gets the nominee that hrc would take it.....

I have a feeling that if hrc is not the nominee she will have her sight set on becoming the majority leader in the senate....

Ben David

[bpeale]

38. yep. you're the only one

[grace0418]

45. I am not!

:P

[AZBlue]

44. I'd love it!

[Milo_Bloom]

46. I wouldn't vote for a ticket with Edwards on it.