Does anybody think that Edwards was chosen as VP looooong ago?

[cidliz2004]

Like before Kerry was securely in the #1 spot? I believe that he was. Clark was mainly in their to be a substitute for Kerry since Kerry was going nowhere fast.

When Kerry didn't need to be replaced and he rebounded, the use for Clark evaporated. I firmly believe that Edwards was chosen because he is charismatic and viewed as the future of the Democratic Party - PERIOD.

Furthermore, I believe Edwards was "ordained" as VP long before Kerry was solidly in the #1 spot. There was no way in Hell that Edwards could have ever seriously competed for Presidency with his lack of experience, but as #2, well he was a foregone conclusion. The "running for President" was merely to get his name out there and to get support started for the Dems. That is why he stayed in the race so long and that is why the media loved him, there was a choice already made, the DNC was playing with us or strategizing or whatever! Edwards got a lot of attention competeing with Kerry and being the lone stalking horse for a while. It all was fun and games. Edwards never seriously was a threat to Kerry.

Not all a bad thing, but I don't like being played with, especially when I am told that my vote is so important! So far in 2000, it didn't count, in the primary it wasn't even needed (I'm in Illinois) and as far as the VP spot, well Edwards was not my first choice.

When Edwards was chosen, it all made sense to me - Edwards was the guy all along, the real question was who was going to run against Bush for the Presidency.

any thoughts?????

[noahmijo]

1. It makes sense that he was and I think he was

From day one of the Democratic Primaries I always was praying for a Kerry/Edwards ticket mainly because you could see they were very similar in beliefs and ideology, however they had very different personalities and put very different attitudes but with the same message.

Plus I remember I think it was either on Letterman or Leno it actually sort of slipped when Edwards was asked something along the lines of "So you're going to take the VP spot if Kerry wins....oops" and you could see the look on Edwards for like a split second that sort of said "damn they know"

[cidliz2004]

3. You were for it

so, you probably don't feel duped - as in you were for another choice for VP and what you wanted didn't matter because the system was never allowed to be played out. In other words, we didn't select the Presidential Nominee (not really, Kerry was chosen long before the Primaries got to Illinois) and Edwards was already a shoe in...so, why are we voting again?

[BeFree]

6. It is called politics, eh?

And our two candidates know how to play and win!

Everyone loves a winner, and Edwards is a winner. He came out of nowhere to win a senate seat 6 years ago, now he's about to become the V.P.

Is Edwards good, or what? A roaring American Success!

Kerry has been around the block a few times, and he's the most capable candidate for president maybe ever. Besides that, he did win the most votes.

Folks, we have a winning team. Don't worry, be happy. <grin>

[noahmijo]

17. Well it's just my guess I mean I could be totally wrong

I was just really in favor of a Kerry/Edwards ticket the whole time so of course my biased eye looked for any and all indications that it could come true.

It's like wishing for rain and counting every storm cloud you see ignoring the areas that aren't grey.

[olddem43]

2. Speculation - and not very likely.

[TheDebbieDee]

4. Looking back on things now..........................

I think Edwards was the VP pick early on, but to get free publicity through speculation, the DNC and Kerry made a show of getting everyone to believe that the VP pick could be someone other than Edwards.

They had me believing the VP could be Clark!

[janx]

7. How did the DNC and Kerry do that?

:shrug:

I ask only because that wasn't my impression. I thought he would choose Gephardt, and I'm glad he didn't only because Gep and Kerry would be somewhat of a subdued combination.

[jdj]

12. They had Kerry be a little bitchy to Edwards during

the primaries for one. A Tupac/Biggie kind of thing.

[janx]

5. What do you mean by

"Clark was mainly in their to be a substitute for Kerry since Kerry was going nowhere fast." ?

There was a Clark quote from last spring that said virtually the same thing, but I didn't understand it then either. He said that he got into the race because Kerry wasn't getting any traction. ?

[cidliz2004]

25. Kerry's campaign during the Primary was on the downward

spin. He fired his campaign manager, hired new staff, mortgaged his home and put much on the line to "revive" his chance for the nomination. He then put all of his eggs in Iowa and came out victorious. Don't you remember that Kerry didn't have any momentum, he had bad numbers and was getting nothing but negative press. Dean was the darling (and I think that the DNC didn't want Dean, they banked on more of an "insider" like Kerry. Clark was seen as a "Kerry substitute" but not as far out of the DNC as Dean - at least he wasn't the anti-Democrat/Democrat. I believe that Dean was the DNC's greatest fear. With terror and Iraq probably being a frontburner issue, the DNC wanted a candidate to be able to go toe to toe with GWB (which Edwards NEVER could have done) that is where Clark came in.

Of course after Iowa, the dynamics totally changed and the rest is history.

[JI7]

45. the PEOPLE voted, they LIKED Kerry , they LIKED Edwards

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. Dems don't have much luck with VPs

The Democrats have not had much luck running ex-VPs.

Gore was VP and though he won the election, it was not convincingly enough (in five minds).

Mondale lost.

Johnson declined to run in 1968. The 1964 election was kind of a special case due to the assasination of Kennedy in 1963.

Only Truman made it, but that was 56 years ago.

In contrast, Nixon and Bush made it while Ford did not, but he was a special case: damaged goods due to Nixon-Watergate.

One can imagine an elaborate conspiracy that manages to keep a secret, or one can realize Edwards ran a charismatic campaign that was modestly effective.

[Tansy_Gold]

9. No, I don't think Edwards was picked long ago.

And this is coming from someone who WANTED and BELIEVED IN a Kerry/Edwards ticket looooooooooooooong before the primaries.

I think that if the DNC had had it their way, it would indeed have been Kerry/Gephardt, but Edwards proved himself to be a better national-level candidate. He not only did well in the primaries considering his lack of name recognition and experience, but his supporters gave him super-high marks in likeability, and given Kerry's (perceived/assumed) lack of crowd-appeal, Edwards was the logical counterweight. Gephardt would have added NOTHING in the charisma column.

And I also think Kerry may have done some arm-twisting with the DNC.

but what do I know?

[cidliz2004]

26. Still think it true

Edwards was up for consideration with Gore and was noticed back then.
Edwards has consistently been touted as the "future" of the Democratic Party.
Edwards campaigned and didn't really go after any of the candidates because he was trying to appeal to the PUBLIC and not insult his future running mate.
Edwards could NEVER have seriously considered himself a contender for the #1 spot during a time of war....this was merely an exercise to get his name and face out there for the American Public. The fact that he didn't drop out until the very end and that EVERYBODY media, talking heads, Bill Maher, other politicians- Ann Richards, ALL chose Edwards when the VP has always been a surprise. They played and played with the "decision" and dangled the carrot for all to see. It all fell into place once I found out that Kerry chose Edwards. I, of course was dissappointed, but who am I....just a voter who is waiting to vote and actually have it mean something.

Edwards is appealing, smart and w/o much history in Washington - so he is acceptable as far as I am concerned, and he is going to be easy on the ticket and he is an attractive candidate. Come on now, this is the age of CHARISMA - without it you are not going anywhere and Edwards exudes charisma. Remember the question - "who would you rather have a beer with?" and Bush of course won hands down against Gore? Well, now that we know what a beer drinking buddy can do unchecked in the WH, I hope we have raised our bar (no pun intended) at least a little bit when we judge and choose the next President. I hope that we come up with a better question.

[Tansy_Gold]

28. It really depends on what you mean by "long time ago."

I was touting a Kerry-Edwards ticket as having the best chance to beat boosh as early as May 2003, long before most people knew anything about Edwards or had heard him speak. I based my choice on the most shallow of reasons: Edwards was Southern to balance Kerry's Massachusetts liberal image, and Edwards was young and good looking. I felt that given the nature of campaigning these days, looks is important. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it's a fact of political life.

But if Edwards had not done well in the primaries, he would not have been considered. If he had bombed in Iowa, his aspirations would have died. Going into Iowa, Dean was the odds-on favorite, and Kerry had just about been written off. I can't imagine the DNC choosing Edwards if Dean -- with no Washington experience and little national recognition -- had got the nomination. I think Dean would have needed a Gephardt or a Bob Graham to govern, if not necessarily to campaign. But I also think Dean would not have had the personality to bring on a running mate as charismatic as Edwards.

I do think the DNC had their eye on Edwards. Why wouldn't they? Young, attractive, articulate, intelligent -- all the potential in the world. And to groom him as Kerry's VP for 8 years and then boost him into the presidency -- perfect script for 16 years of Democratic domination.

There might have been a decision made after Iowa and Edwards' surprising showing there, but I don't think there was any decision before that, and probably not until at least well into the primary season. They -- the DNC powerbrokers, that is -- would have had to give him an audition on the campaign trail. After all, they also had Wes Clark available, too: he's a little more exciting than Gephardt!

But Edwards was a perfect candidate for "grooming," I do believe, and I'm glad he's on the ticket. How long ago he was "chosen," I don't know, but I don't think it was very much before the announcement was made.

[never_get_over_it]

10. No Edwards was not picked long ago

Edwards was picked for two main reasons one he is from the South which balances the Northeast issue. You mentioned on another post that Clinton didn't care about balancing the ticket. That may be true but traditionally balancing the ticket geographically is usually a consideration.

The second reason Edwards was picked is he ran consistently second in the primaries to Kerry. In my book picking the top two contenders in the primaries when there was a race with 10 candidates originally is a good idea.

You are disappointed that Clarke didn't go further but the facts are that he did not do well in the primaries and got out fairly early. If you go to this web site you can see the results. Clarke won only one primary and Edwards came in right behind him in OK

http://www.deitschel.com/democrats-2004/democratic-winners-by-state.html

Here is the breakdown

There were 35 primaries

Kerry participated in every primary won 32 of them came in second two times and 3 once

Edwards participated in 34 of the primaries won one came in second 21 times, third five times and fourth seven times

Clarke participated in 13 primaries came in first once (barely) second three times, third three times, fourth two times and fifth four times

Like it or not Clarke didn't do that well in the primaries and he opted out early on February 11th. There is a reason he opted out. Edwards didn't and he ran second to Kerry plain and simple. That's politics

[Protected]

13. It's "Clark" by the way.

:crazy:

Like it or not, Clark kicked the ass of some seasoned politicians.

[never_get_over_it]

16. Hey I feel your pain

sorry for adding the e on Clark's name - I was a Kucinich supporter so I know your disappointment - do you know how many Dems I heard say I LOVE DENNIS but he can't win so I'm not voting for him - well hello maybe if you'd vote for him he could win - and do you know how no matter what the man did the press ignored him....so I understand your disappointment - but like I said that's politics

I was not a Clark supporter for a number of reasons ...but I liked his speech at the convention and I hope Kerry finds a great place for him in the admin.

[JohnKleeb]

24. I heard that too many times

about Kucinich and all.

[janx]

23. He did very well in his first experience with politics

and elections. He was great.

[cidliz2004]

27. Sorry but won't agree

Clark was not showing strong in the south but was showing stronger in the west and would have if he had stayed in the race.

Edwards showed so many seconds because.....again he was the only viable candidate running in many of those races. Clark beat Edwards in NH and OK, sure it was close, but he would have continued to done a dance with Edwards, which wouldn't have shown Edwards in such a favorable light.

Besides which Edwards was getting ALL of the favorable press and Clark was getting a virtual BLACKOUT - I know I watched it happen. The DNC made up their minds after NH that Kerry was their boy and with that question off of the table Clark was needed no more. Many of the people that "worked" for Clark went straight to the Kerry campaign when Clark was "withdrawn" from the Presidential race. The plug was pulled because the DNC had a plan and Clark was no longer in it. The DNC is as manipulative as the GOP, just has different goals (THANK GOD). Dean was sabatoged, Clark was sabatoged because the ticket's #2 guy was already chosen. "The future of the party" and all that.

Edwards looked so good because the press sold him, the DNC sold him -it all was very orchestrated. I remember reading ABC'S "The Note" right before Clark was pulled out and it said that the "reporters are getting instructions from the higher ups to concentrate/talk about the GE and Kerry" (It was further reported on by "The Moderate Independent" by a lead that I provided) Clark was still running, so was Dean, so was Edwards, I am not sure about Liebermann. Go ahead and read how we are led around.

If Edwards were treated like the other candidates were....well things would be very different right now.

[JI7]

35. oh, please, that's a bunch of crap

i supported Kerry in the primaries . i also paid attention to edwards. kerry and edwards were both seen as having no chance at certain points. but they did well not because of the dnc but because they worked their asses off. i saw it them do it. the people liked them when they saw them. they never gave up. and they got NO media until they actually won something. they were written off and it took them to actually win before they got attention. and they won because of their hard work.

[cidliz2004]

38. Everything you said is true for Kerry, but not for Edwards

Edwards has been the "media darling" since Iowa - period.

[JI7]

42. and yet Kerry still won even AFTER Iowa

so there is no conspiracy. and the fact that Kerry and Edwards are doing so well campaigning together shows Kerry made a very good choice.

kerry and edwards spend time together in secret between the time edward dropped out and when kerry made his vp decision. and kerry felt very good working with edwards, they got along with each other which we can now see in their campaigning together. i believe this was the thing that got him to make his final decision on edwards .

[K-W]

43. Im sorry that you dont agree with the choice, but you are grasping

at straws. Edwards did well in the Primaries and had a good public image. This is all the more reason to believe the official story about his selection. If he was very unpopular, then your theory would hold more water.

[cidliz2004]

77. No, it just means that it was a good choice by the DNC

and that the voters are not upset by it either. Listen it isn't that I don't like Edwards, I don't agree that he was the best choice - but looking back it is really quite obvious that Edwards was the choice long before the Primaries were over. Other viable candidates fell away and were either smeared (Dean) blackballed (Clark) or just failed dismally Gephardt, Liebermann, Braun, Kucinich, Sharpton. That just tells me that Dean and Clark were "pulled" out because of thier lack of need (Clark - Kerry rebounded) or threat to establishment (Dean - too anti establishment for the DNC) Clark had the plug pulled out from his campaign when his campaign manager unbeknownst to Clark announced that Clark was pulling out from the race, he was raising more money than Edwards and he would have shown much stronger numbers in the West and some in the NE, the polls reflected that his strength was coming in the near future primaries, He was pulling even overall with Edwards despite the fact that Edwards was getting all of the favorable media attention (even though by the media standards, you wouldn't have know it)

Dean was slandered with the Iowa implosion and scream that was misplayed over and over and over and all of the backround noise that Dean was "screaming" over was dubbed out and never brought out until it was too late. He was SLANDERED. The playing field was cleared so that Kerry and Edwards could get the clear majority of the votes and attention. Kucinich and Sharpton sure as hell weren't going to.
The sparring between Kerry and Edwards began and it was a show for all to see and witness. The game ended with the VP guessing with all of the polls....Free publicity for the Dems, and I don't blame them one bit, * gets all of the publicity all of the time anyway.

This is not left to chance. It isn't "conspiracy", it is how politics are done in the U.S. and it has to be done carefully.

Once Kerry took off, everybody was cleared away, everybody that is except for Edwards.

[K-W]

79. No it isnt how politics are done.

The DNC does not control elections in the way you suggest, it does not decide elections in the way you suggest, and there is no evidence to support your theory of American politics.

[never_get_over_it]

96. You know I hope you can get over your bitterness about Clark

and keep you eye on the goal of defeating Bush. You state that had Clark stayed in he would have done better than Edwards - the fact is that in the 13 primaries that Clark ran in Edwards bested him 8 times. You have no way of knowing that Clark would have shown strong if he had stayed in. And also why in the world wouldn't Clark's volunteers run to the Kerry campaign - he was the very obvious front runner and you know human nature is to go with the winner. I agree with alot of what you say about the media and probably even the DNC - but the DNCs job is to get someone elected against Bush - do you think Clark having never held a political office could have beat Bush - I think not and personally I think it is the height of arrogance to begin your political carreer running for President. If any supporters should be really pissed off about how this whole thing played out it is the Dean supporter - Dean was completely screwed by the media over the scream issue. And my candidate was so completely ignored that alot of times in the press coverage they didn't even mention that Kucinich was running.

You are never going to change your mind about this - but Edwards is a good candidate he was the natural choice after the primary season and the Kerry campaign did the right thing. I do not agree with you that the DNC wanted Edwards to be VP for a long time - I do agree with you that they probably favor Kerry - and didn't like Dean and they certainly didn't do anything to help Kucinich. But as I have said that is politics.

Many of the things you say about your candidate many of us could say about ours - but at this point it is futile and we need to look ahead to defeating George Bush. Clark seems like a great man and I do hope Kerry gives him a great spot in the admin

[cidliz2004]

97. I agree with a lot of what you said

but I don't feel "bitter" just dissappointed in our system. As far as Clark's arrogance..1st off he was "drafted" into running for the Presidency and 2nd he had way more "experience" for the job than a one time Senator who didn't even complete his one and only term. That Senator also "ran" for the Presidency and he never was in the Government prior to that (unless you consider being a lawyer a Government job).

The media screwed all of us in the election, Dean and Kucinich and Clark never had a chance. They all were treated badly by the press and it isn't right. WE SHOULD CHOOSE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS, right?

I like Kerry and I like Edwards, Kerry had "paid his dues" and was part of the "Washington Establishment" and was due this chance to run for the Presidency, he just had to prove that he was a viable National candidate. I still think that Edwards was already chosen - "so to speak" (he also had to confirm his viability by campaigning and getting his name out there). Barring any unforseen events, Edwards was the VP before, Kerry secured the nomination. I know that this isn't provable- - at least not yet, but I would go as far as ALMOST BETTING on it, and I am not a betting person by nature.

Since this isn't fact, and only opinion, I do expect debate and realize that this may even seem outlandish to many, but then that is me! My mind has never been burdened by boxes.

[never_get_over_it]

99. Well lets just get the freak out of the White House

because I just can't stand it anymore and I don't think the country will survive four more years of these criminals. And as for the arrogance of runnig for President as your first try at political office - whether it was the party who drafted him or Clark or whomever and this is just a personal opinion - I just don't like anyone starting at the top - just a thing with me.....

[WLKjr]

11. IMO, he was a long time ago

I had suspicsions about that for a long time before he was even considered. Dean was a maybe and so was clark. But the whole time I was comming back to Edwards. Hell, when Dean dropped out Edwards was the first that came to mind when I voted in OH's primaries in March.

[janx]

14. Really? I never thought Kerry would pick Dean or Clark for VP.

Dean would have been too outspoken for Kerry, and Clark's addition to the ticket would have been military overkill. So I guessed it would be either Gep or Edwards, or someone else that would be a complete surprise.

[never_get_over_it]

18. Nlot only would Dean have been too outspoken

but the folks in the south probably wouldn't have liked the two New England Yankees and I absolutely agree with you on the Clark military overkill aspect.

[janx]

20. Not that Kerry doesn't value outspoken people--Teresa Heinz

Kerry is marvelous at speaking truth with grace. And it turns out that Dean is doing wonders for Kerry/Edwards and the party as an advisor and advocate. Things couldn't be better at this point.

Clark is an asset too, because of his experience, knowledge, and thoughtfulness. I hope he winds up in a prominent place in the Kerry administration.

As far as the "Yankee" aspect goes, I'd have to question that a bit. Southerners aren't as provincial as they used to be (at least not the ones I've known). They are not naturally suspicious of people from other places--unless they're very far right. And those people wouldn't vote for a Democrat now anyway.

[WLKjr]

19. well see I was hoping for

a Dean/Kerry Ticket or maybe a Dean/Edwards or Edwards/Dean ticket, but I always felt in the bottom of my heart that it would be Kerry/Edwards from the get go. Dean I feel will become a VERY BIG PLAYER very soon and will have some(which he already does)clout.

[janx]

22. So was I! I was a 44-year-old Deaniac as far back as fall of

2002, but I knew just after (maybe before?) Iowa that Dean would not win and would not be on the ticket. There are some unwritten rules in this democracy (and party) of ours. And I'd never paid close attention to primary politics before.

But Dean's relatively young. He might run again someday. Even if he doesn't, he's a real American hero. He breathed life into the Democratic Party and the electorate in general. (I was an independent before Dean came along, like many others.) He gave people enormous hope, and he still continues to do so.

Samuel Johnson may have said it best: "The natural flights of the human mind are not from pleasure to pleasure, but from hope to hope."

I wonder if this isn't true especially in the worst possible times. No doubt it is. ;-)

[Kazak]

15. It's like picking your baby's name...

You can decide on it early, but it become true until it's actually picked and lots of things can change to effect the outcome.

[Aunt Anti-bush]

21. I predicted it right after Edwards dropped out.

I was a little bummed out because he was originally my pick for pres. The day after he dropped out I got an email from his camp saying something to the effect of don't give up hope, we're still going to be involved in this election...

I just had a gut feeling afterward that Edwards was chosen during the initial debates and Kerry asked him then, which is why Edwards dropped out.

[kentuck]

29. Here was my post from May 2nd....

Edwards is going to be VP......


Listening to John Edwards on CNN, he was overly enthusiastic about John Kerry, as if he knows something none of the others know. He said, "we can compete everywhere" then he changed it to "John Kerry can compete everywhere". Edwards is the man! That was my interpretation. Anyone else think likewise

[cidliz2004]

30. I didn't hear that

but I totally believe that it was a choice made long ago.

What bugs me about the whole thing is this, why do we vote? Why are we involved with the process? If so much of this is a foregone conclusion, then where is our Democracy? Of course things have to play out and be proven or shored up, but, do we really have much if anything to say about most of this?

[K-W]

31. Convoluted theory, its possible, but why?

It doesnt make any sense. Why would they pick the VP before picking the Pres candidate, that would be stupid. It is much much much more likely that they decided after Kerry won the primaries. There is nothing fishy about the way they chose him, your theory seems a bit 'out there'.

[cidliz2004]

32. Not so hard to figure out

DNC knows that Edwards is and "attractive" candidate, but doesn't have the experience in defense or in Government period to actually run head to head against an incumbent during wartime. The DNC knows that Edwards won't "hurt" the ticket. The question is who is going to fill the #1 spot? That is the question that is up in the air. The "Party" has stepped in before when it came to running mates.

Edwards was always toted as the "future" of the Democratic Party and was without question the favorite of the media, other politicians (like Ann Richards), talking heads like Al Franken, Bill Maher...come on how in the world could EVERYBODY know without it being a foregone conclusion?

I don't mean to say that it was written in stone, nothing is. But according to plans, Edwards was an easy pick for #2.

Kerry flatlined and wasn't going to be the nominee if he continued on the way he was going last fall - who would be? Dean looked like the possible candidate, Clark was in there to replace Kerry if Kerry didn't revive his campaign. Edwards was always in there to get his name out there, talk to the American Public, prove that he was an attractive candidate, help with the South and keep the race more interesting FREE PUBLICITY.

Looking back on it, I see it as a no brainer....one more time Edwards would NEVER have been able to do anything in the #1 spot, he was always slated for #2.

[K-W]

33. You have yet to give a motive.

There is just no reason to buy into your improbable theory that implies something of a conspiricy. The more obvious explenation is that Kerry won the primary and he, his people, and the party weighed various choices and chose Edwards because they thought he completed the strongest ticket and he had the backing of the right people.

Why should I suspect that there was some conspiricy to make him the VP candidate? It just doesnt make any sense. The party isnt run by a mad scientist in a volcano.

[JI7]

34. there isn't any conspiracy, Kerry chose Edwards long ago

but it was AFTER Kerry wrapped up the nomination in terms of winning enough delegates and after Edwards dropped out.

he made the decision on edwards as vp some time before he actually announced and i'm sure edwards probably knew it was going to be him. but it wasn't some conspiracy. i think everything he just looked at pointed to edwards being the best vp choice for him. the fact edwards did the best in the primary after kerry is one obvious reason. and edwards was leading in all polls for vp choices. and edwards made it no secret he wanted to be vp. he openly "campaigned" to be vp. while most potential vps try to act as if they don't want it, edwards did the opposite.

and one thing to remember is that Kerry in 2000 "campaigned" to be vp just as edwards did this year. so i'm sure Kerry was very impressed by that also.

and the fact that edwards provides geographical balance including appeal to moderate voters is another thing.

you are right, there is no conspiracy. kerry picking edwards was pretty predictable but that's because it was very obvious edwards was the best choice.

[JohnKleeb]

39. I agree Edwards was a great choice

The guy really can connect with people, and I see that Kerry adopts a lot of what he says, really its nice to see my final 2&3 on a ticket, Kerry and Edwards respectively were that rank for me in the primaries.

[cidliz2004]

36. Not a conspiracy!

Why do you have to phrase it that way? Do you think that the DNC sits around and WAITS to see what happens? OR Do you think that the DNC PLANS THIER STRATEGY FOR THE ELECTION AND DOES THEIR OWN STUDIES AND POLLS?

It is simple, Edwards can get votes PERIOD. THAT IS WHY. THAT IS THE MOTIVE PURE AND SIMPLE. Edwards isn't ready to run against Bush one on one, during war time, but is a safe choice for VP and is actually attractive with Kerry. This, of course, being the DNC's opinion based on thier research and study. This isn't a crap shoot -

Sporting events are strategized, game plans are studied and other players are studied on opposing teams and the games plans are based on who would best BEAT the other guy. Politics is the biggest GAME in this country. Why do YOU think that the DNC would wait until late winter, early spring to pick the #1 and the #2 guy for the biggest contest in the world. This affects the world economic market, safety of the world.....you honestly think this is a "let the chips fall where they may" game?

[K-W]

40. The DNC is not what you think it is.

It isnt run by leader and it isnt a homogenous unchanging group. It is a political organization. It isnt capable of doing the things you discuss. There are many factions within the DNC and many people all with different ideas, theories, strategies, etc. The DNC's actions are the result of a complex mix of all these factions and people and the results of elections.

The DNC doesnt have one strategy, and if they did it certainly wouldnt revolve around who thier VP choice was going to be.

You still have not presented a motive for why the DNC would have chosen him as VP before the primary. You still havent explained how or why they would have done that. Your theory is a bit of a conspiricy theory in that it implies that the factions and people of power in the democratic party have conspired to make Edwards the VP outside of the stated process. It is outlandish and unnecessary, your theory just doesnt make sense.

[cidliz2004]

47. OK, I give up

Terry Mc isn't the HEAD of the DNC and they don't have meetings and they don't strategize and they don't plan on how best to unseat Bush. Only KKK does that against us. O.K.?

MOTIVATION????? They think Edwards is a winning member for the ticket, but they know Edwards CANNOT be in the #1 spot that spot was to go to Kerry, Gephardt, Clark, Dean (viable choices).

It is the same as a huge corporation that has offices, warehouses, distribution centers...all around the country. Decisions are still made at the top as to who is going to run the Corporation, there are EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES for such things,or in political terms LEADERS of the PARTY. I find it rather naive to think that this all unfolds as it happens. Please, the stake are higher for this than anything else on the planet, you think that it is left up to chance? No, the media gets cued as to who to cover and who to ignore. Proof, Iraq War and not asking the questions that needed to be asked. Reagans' funeral being shown for 1 week. The Reagan movie not being shown on CBS, Dean's howl being played ....how many times?????? and being falsely misrepresented by blocking out the sound of the backround. The media reporting Edwards coming in 3rd in NH when he came in 4th behind Clark (This was reported over and over and over again virually uncorrected) The media is as controlling on what we see, who we see, and how we see it/them. They get their orders from their bosses. This is NOT left to chance. There are variables that are unpredictable and there ARE DECISIONS made that we are not privy to. We are sheep face it. Read the "Moderate Independent" around February and their story on how to "cover the campaign", read all of the other literature about the media.

The DNC, GOP, MEDIA THEY ALL HAVE THIER AGENDAS AND THEY ALL ARE RUN PRETTY MUCH OUT OF OUR VIEW. If you don't believe it then, I don't know what to tell you.

Kennedy and Johnson were pretty good examples, the ORGANIZATION calls the shots and Kennedy had "a lot" of help getting into office over Nixon. The decision is too important to let anybody else control the outcome. For God's sake, if nothing else, if we don't control it, then someone else from somewhere else might.

[JI7]

53. PRIMARIES decide now, not party insiders as was the case then

why do you ignore the fact that PEOPLE voted for these candidates. that people actually liked them. doyou think people only liked your candidate ? there is a tendency for supporters of candidates that didn't win to try to act as if the winners won because of some conspiracy rather than accept that there are people who like and supported them. i think it makes them feel better rather than accepting someone else did better than the candidate they supported.

[cidliz2004]

67. Most of the candidates dropped by Super Tuesday

or were "forced" to drop, the votes didn't even come from the biggest electoral college vote states besides which how many of the early primary states are actually "Red" States, so how many Democrats actually got to vote for their candidate of choice? The early Primaries were in primarily RED states that pretty much carry no electorate college vote, so how could that be representative of the Democratic voters?

[JI7]

73. because they knew they would have lost in those states

and they weren't "forced" to drop out. they dropped out because they most likely could not win in those states. and there are democrats in red states. actually the first two states, iowa and new hampshire are swing states.

kucinich didn't drop out until just about a week or 2 before the democratic convention.

funny that many didn't complain when it was assumed Kerry was going to lose iowa and new hampshire and therefore was seen as having a dead campaign. in fact some who complain about the primary system had no problem declaring Kerry's campaign to be over based on polls in a couple states even before voting took place.

[K-W]

56. Unreasonable conspiricy theories mask the true causes of events.

You are the one mischarecterizing the DNC, not I. The DNC does have a head, it does have meetings and they do strategize. No one is arguing with that and nobody, including the DNC denies it.

You have not given a motivation other than saying that Edwards was a good VP choice, which doesnt give them motive for choosing him ahead of time anymore than it gives them motive for choosing him when they said they chose him. You have not given motive for your alternative theory of the events at all.

The DNC agenda is the result of a very complex interaction of people and groups that you oversimplify into one big conspiricy, and by doing so you have come up with a VP theory that makes sense to you, but not to those of us with the patience to understand how parties work rather than painting them with rediculously broad strokes as some kind of monolithic transcendent entity.

At this point you have basically revealed that you think the world is run by conspiricies, and I wish you would have just stated this in your first post to avoid any confusion about how you look at the world.

[cidliz2004]

65. You are the one hung up on conspiracy theories

There is "no secret society" making decisions. There are leaders in the party deciding who to and not to promote.

You are not comprehending my answer to motivation. I didn't say that Edwards would make a good VP choice, I said that he had charisma, and was considered the "future of the party". Edwards was not the product of years of working to be VP or President, he didn't even enter into the Political world until - what 6 years ago? He was looking like a viable prospect when Gore ran in 2000. No, this has been on the drawing board for some time now.

If you are so hung up with the words "conspiracy" I suggest you use them when referring to the GOP and what happened against Clinton and not when describing "routine" events in politics.

[JI7]

66. claiming Edwards as vp decision was made before primary

is a conspiracy theory.

[K-W]

71. Stop backing away from your own theory.

You certainly did propose a conspiricy. And there is nothing wrong with that, except that fact that the conspiricy you proposed just doesnt make any sense and isnt supported by reality.

You still have not presented a motivation as to why the DNC would choose Edwards as VP before the Primary. How would the DNC have benefited from this? What motive did they have to lie and plot in the way you have suggested?

The official explenation for how the Vice President was chosen fits all of the facts you have presented. Thus you have not made an adequate case for your alternative explenation. That is the simple fact of this thread.

[JI7]

44. Edwards is way more qualified to be President than Bush is

[JohnKleeb]

46. Edwards actually is senate wise qualified more than RFK was 36 years ago

I think Edwards would make a fine candiate on his own :shrug: maybe its me but I think he would, he's got charisma, the smarts, and is a likable guy with good thoughtout positions, something about those kids too always makes me smile. Lil Jack and Emma Claire remind me of my bro.

[JI7]

49. yup, unlike Bush

he would actually be willing to learn about things and then make decisions based on what he learns.

bush on the other hand doesn't care about the facts and doesn't care about learning about things. it's his way only, even if the facts don't support it.

[JohnKleeb]

68. I personally think Edwards was the best choice

Now some will say he only really chose him because he was popular but Edwards is an asset, the guy can connect with people really well and he has some good plans of his own.

[cidliz2004]

48. So is Barney!

[JI7]

54. you are the one who claimed Edwards isn't ready to run against Bush

[cidliz2004]

58. I set my bar higher than that

In my estimation Edwards wasn't the best choice as a head to head candidate against Bush.

Bush is someone that I didn't vote for and never would have voted for he is too f**king dumb. Barney is more qualified than Bush, at least Barney isn't a liar.

Bush is the bottom of the barrel pond scum.
Barney rates higher than Bush.
Edwards rates higher than both.

Which doesn't make Edwards qualified to be President. Not saying that he never will be qualified, and not saying that if he wasn't running against an incumbent and we weren't at war and the economy wasn't in the tank and the world didn't hate us, I'd say "Sure, let an inexperienced guy be our President, what do we have to lose?".....oh, isn't that what happened in 2000? (Just joking) Edwards couldn't mess things up this bad if he was tried.


The point of RFK...not a good one, RFK was raised in a super political family where they were actually groomed to take office.
Bobby was very close to his brother while his brother was in the WH, so, I believe that Bobby had a better view of what was really going on in the Oval Office and what needed to be done. He was afterall, JFK's closest confidant and advisor.

[JohnKleeb]

70. my point was that RFK was less experienced technically

Actually Bobby wasnt groomed at all, Bobby had no desire to become a politican intailly, he wanted to be a journalist.

[VOX]

37. If you "don't like being played with," why not direct that concern at * ?

After all, BushCo is playing with all of us, and in ways that threaten our basic Constitutional freedoms.

Looking backwards now seems counterproductive. Kerry-Edwards make a fine ticket.

What the DNC may -- or may not -- have done is probably small potatoes at this point, IMO.

[cidliz2004]

41. Believe me I do

I am a realist though, and while * is not ever going to be an acceptable option, we need reform and we don't have a prayer in Hell's chance of getting it if * gets another 4 years. So #1 desire - see * bite the dust. If God forbid * is somehow back in office, I will be in Washington marching and throwing rotten eggs along with millions of other Americans, because there will be a real revolution if * is handed 4 more years.

[VOX]

51. I also think that there will be hell to pay if * is "selected" again...

I totally understand what you're saying about reform, and I absolutely agree with you that down the road, some changes *must* come.

I'll also be hitting the streets if the unthinkable should happen. But for now, I'm doing everything I humanly can to assist in the legitimate election of the Democratic ticket.

Best to you -- :toast:

[Spazito]

50. I believe the DNC ticket was Kerry/Edwards from the getgo....

when Kerry seemed to lose traction, Clark was persuaded to enter the race ( I am a BIG Clark fan)to counter Dean. Once Kerry gained traction after injecting more cash into his campaign, then it became Kerry/Edwards again.

I would have loved to see Clark go further but it was not in the cards, the party, imo, controls all and they have always "picked" the candidates well in advance and it will always be so, not much different than in Canadian politics, unfortunately. There is a game to be played through and, in the end, it usually comes out the way the plan was laid out.

[cidliz2004]

52. THANK YOU!!!!!!!! ANOTHER VOICE OF WISDOM!!!!

[K-W]

57. Wise people dont oversimlify large organizations as though they were

storybook villians. Wise people understand that party leadership does not operate in a vacuum and that placing all the locus of causation on the party or on any organization is pointless and intellecutally rediculous.

[Spazito]

59. Party politics is the "clout" that controls the choices...

that is neither a good or bad thing, it just is, imo. As long as there are parties, be they democratic or republican, they choose the candidates, that is simply a fact. The general populace has little voice in this, in reality. To believe otherwise would be to believe in a multi party system which does not work in the US as it has been proven time and time again. Party leadership is not villainous, it simply is the vehicle by which the "best" candidate is promoted and, most times, chosen to run, by the two parties that control politics in the US, the democratic party and the republican party.

[K-W]

61. You are ignoring part of the picture.

Yes the party organization has a great deal of control over which candidates are chosen. I cant imagine anyone would disagree with that. But they dont have sole control. If everyone had voted for Dean in the primary, Dean would have been the nominee. But yes, Kerry had the most establishment support and that gave him a huge advantage.

But the big thing you are missing is that the Party does not operate on some transcendent plane. What the party is, and who has power in it is controlled by other factors, one of the main factors being election results and public opinion. One of the other main factors is unfortunately money sources, because money gives access to public opinion and election results.

The Party is not some monolithic entity. It is a structure that is controlled by various people and groups who get that control through thier ability to win elections and influence people. Thus placing the locus of control on a fictionalized view of the party as the power broker misses the true function of the political system.

[JI7]

63. Dean also got Al Gore's endorsement and Tom Harkin's

Bill Bradley's also.

[Spazito]

69. When you say the party is "a structure that is controlled by various...

people and groups" it is, in essence, a monolith because it is the makeup of the "various people and groups" that determine who the candidate will be. To ignore the power of the "groups of various people" to determine not only the candidate but the message is naive, imo. It was highly unlikely Dean would have gotten the nomination as the "various people and groups" would not have supported him as the nominee, ergo, the "various people and groups" do, indeed, form a monolith because they determine where the money, support and influence will go. Again, I am not saying it is bad or good, it just is. That's politics and always has been, remember the Tammany, not much has changed in terms of control, imo.

[K-W]

74. No, that is why it ISNT a monolith.

You seem to be quite confused. You are the one ignoring the efects of the people and groups, I have not ignored them in the slightest.

It cannot both be a monolith and also be controlled by various factions and people. The two are utterly mutually exclusive. Either it is controlled by one unified entity or it is controlled by various entities.

[Spazito]

83. A monolith, when using the term to describe an organization,...

can be comprised of groups of people with the same intent and goals, it need not be a single group. A unified body is not necessarily an identifiable single group but rather a variety of persons with the same goals, objectives and values as is, I believe, how one could describe the DNC. I don't understand why there seems to be the denial that the DNC can dictate or, at least, control the manner in which the candidate is chosen, why is that an anathema? It is, after all, politics as it has been practiced from its inception.

[K-W]

86. Ah, theres your problem.

The DNC does in some sense share a common goal, to win elections, but that is about it. The groups involved have differing ideas of how to do that and who should be doing it. They are not unified.

The DNC is simply an organization. Yes that organization exerts a great great deal of power over the political system. No one disagrees with that.

The point is that it isnt a bunch of people who sit in a room agreeing with each other on everything. All of the people involved have two goals, to keep the party powerful in influencing US elections and to keep thier power in the party.

This means they often do not have a unified goal. They all go into it with thier personalities, allies, resources, and strategies. Some of those personalities succeed, some of those strategies work, some of those resources prove valuable. Some of them dont. Thus certain people gain more or lose power in the party. This determines what the party as a whole does. Thus the true cause of the party's actions, which do greatly influence american politics, is the system itself. The DLC got power in the democratic party because DLC members won elections. The hard right took over the republican party because they won elections. There are other groups on the right and left that are vying for power and there are groups that dont have candidates but use thier power to influence things. It is a very complex system that you seem to want to place into a very simple mold.

[Spazito]

89. I don't see it as "a simple mold" but do see it as a composite...

and the "preferred candidates" are lined up early and, barring any unforeseen complications, become the nominees for President and VP. The debate is more in the message and values to be projected than the candidates chosen to project those values, etc. Power in the party waxes and wanes, I agree there, but the basic premise that comprises the whole, the DNC, remains static, that is, to win the Presidency and to take control of the Senate and the House if possible.

[K-W]

90. Exactly right, but that doesnt support what you seemd to say earlier

Yes, the party chooses the candidates. To a large extent it controls which candidate wins. But the party isnt some transcendent group. The party is controlled by the personal decisions of thousands of people including you and me.

The candidates presented are all people who have convinced power brokers that they are capable of winning elections and are going to ideoligically support certain positions.

If those candidates were not able to get our votes, they would not get power. If those ideoligical ideas did not get, or at least fail to hinder votes, they would not get power. It is a very complex system that is not run by any group of people per se. There are certain groups, like the wealthy that control a resources, money, that has, and always will have the ability to win elections. Thus they are fairly entrenched, but even money cant win elections on its own.

So youve got a system of thousands of people all working with various ideas, connections and power. Approaching a primary they all talk, network, work and of the group of politicians emerges a handful that enough poeople with enough power think can do the job or think deserve the spotlight. Oftentimes a plurality of power is behind on candidate who creates a coalition within the party power structure, but each candidate has a coalition of some size, even if it just consists of individual voters.

They go into the primary and the votes influence things. A candidate that seemed to have a strong coalition isnt capable of getting the votes and thus people switch up thier support. In the end one candidate wins and most if not all of the system support him and start working to gain power and influence with him and in the new shape of the party.

There is plenty of competition for power within the party and there is the ultimate accountability of votes. This makes sure that the scenerio a few seem to be pushing in this thread does not come to pass. You wont have people who's ideology fully steers the party, they can and are held accountable. Probably not accountable enough, and I am certainly no big fan of the system, but painting a picuture of a party organization that is unified and controls elections outright is wrong and discourages us from using the power we do have to hold them accountable.

If we could gain power over votes, we could take over the party, it is as simple as that.

[Spazito]

92. I think where you and I differ in is what we believe our influence is...

I suggest it is marginal at best, nil as an average. Unless one becomes one of the "party powerful", one's influence is that of paying into the party in order for the party to do what it needs to win, including choosing the best candidates to win, whether those "chosen candidates" are yours or not.

When the democratic party shortened the primary "season", it was an indication, imo, that they had their chosen candidates and wanted to spend the time fighting the current resident rather than fighting each other, ergo, they had their "preferred choices" already picked. Kerry bottoming out for a time gave them a bit of heartburn, I have little doubt, but there is also little doubt in my mind that they worked very hard, behind the scenes, to get Kerry back on track. Edwards was always the second, that never changed, imo.

[K-W]

94. We dont really differ there.

Certainly, in the various decisions made by the party organization we have very little say. And yes, most of the power is held by a small number of people.

Where we disagree is that the small group of people is unified and constant.

Our power comes not from our ability to make the parties decisions, we have none, but ultimately all of the parties power comes from us and our ability to vote. Without the votes and elections political parties wouldnt exist, they would have absolutely no power. The derive thier power from us and ultimately are accountable to our votes. Because of that, why do you think polls play such an important role in politics? Everyone involved in the system must constantly keep the voters in mind. Yes they try to manipulate the voters, yes they try to get away with things that are not in the voters best interests, but they do so only insofar as they can without being held acountable. If the public held them accountable, they would stop.

If the public voted for progressive candidates in primaries and in general elections, progressive ideologues would take over the reigns of power in the party and progressive candidates would take over the political positions.

So yes, the party organization has a great deal of power, but they arent some mysterious conspiracy, and we cant ignore the fact that in the end the system derives its power from our votes, and that if we can people to use thier votes the right way, we can control the system. Meanwhile also need to recognize that the system does follow votes, the DLC got power because it won elections. Karl Rove has power because he wins elections. If they did not, they would have no power at all. If the hard right wasnt so successful, they wouldnt control the republican party.

There is a give and take and the system does exert control over the society, but the society also exerts control over the system and it seems like you are ignoring that side of things.

[K-W]

55. You miss a major part of the picture.

The people who control the party are in a large part determined by who wins elections. You are acting as though everything is caused by the leadership, which is silly. Kerry had a large faction of the power brokers in the party behind him. Gephardt had a faction, edwards had a faction, dean even had a small faction. Kerry was considered the favorite going in, Clark wasnt brought in by the DNC, he was brought in by a faction of the democratic establishment, some of which im sure thought he could counter Dean, but many of whom simply thought he would make a great candidate.

The problem with your anylisis and the initial anyalisis of this thread is the assumption that the DNC is some monolithic stable power broker. This is incredibally far from the truth. This is why conspiricy theories get a bad rap, they usually assume rediculous conspiricies where more organic explenations are far more parsimonious.

[cidliz2004]

60. The DNC is a powerbroker and there is a "small faction of them that

control what is "presented" for us to vote up or down. They also package their presentation is a way for us to accept them as they want us to accept them. Sure others had backing some more than others, that is where the "race" came in for the actual "candidate" for President. Kerry came into the race as the leader but failed to produce. The majority of the "establishment" never got a chance to "vote" for their candidate, they quit or were forced out. Kerry was the winner after Iowa for sure, but if the VP were to be decided by "vote", then Edwards had an unfair advantage, he was the only one in the majority of the Primary season. Most of the candidates were out by Super Tuesday....how does that make for a fair representation to be presented to the American voter? Aren't we supposed to be the ones to choose our elected officials???????? The biggest electorate didn't even enter into the voting for the candidates. California, N.Y. Florida, Illinois ALL HUGE STATES didn't even get a real choice by the time the Primaries got to us. Come on the process was very carefully managed to control the outcome.

[JI7]

62. Kucinich stayed in long after Edwards

and the vp was decided by Kerry alone. he took many factors into account when making his final decision.

[K-W]

64. Fine invent your own reality.

There is no point in debating if you are going to postulate the existance of some crazy cabal controlling the democratic party.

Kerry did not in any way shape or form fail to produce. He wiped the floor with the field in the primaries.

The democratic party is not controlled by one small faction, that is the invention of your own mind.

You bring up a completely unrelated issue, that the primary should be held on one day for all states. I agree with you, the system at the moment gives certain states unfair power in choosing the candidates.

The system is convoluted, and the establishment does have a great deal of control. But you cannot jump from that to placing all the power in the system in the hands of a fictionalized party run by some secret conspiricy.

[cidliz2004]

72. You just contradicted yourself.

DON'T YOU THINK THAT THE DNC KNOWS PERFECTLY WELL HOW UNFAIR IT IS AND PLAYS TO HOW IT WILL WORK FOR THEM? AND HOW TO MANIPULATE THE OUTCOME BEST?

I agree with you, the system at the moment gives certain states unfair power in choosing the candidates.

The democratic party is not controlled by one small faction, that is the invention of your own mind.

"The system is convoluted, and the establishment does have a great deal of control. But you cannot jump from that to placing all the power in the system in the hands of a fictionalized party run by some secret conspiricy"



Kerry did not in any way shape or form fail to produce. He wiped the floor with the field in the primaries.

WHAT I MEANT WAS THAT KERRY WAS NOT PRODUCING BEFORE NOVEMBER/DECEMBER OF 03'. HIS CAMPAIGN WAS LOOKING
LIKE IT WASN'T GOING ANYWHERE. I DON'T MEAN NOW OR EVEN AFTER IOWA.

[K-W]

75. I didnt contradict myself anywhere, what are you talking about?

The DNC doesnt know anything, it is an organization, stop talking like it is a person. It doesnt think anything, it doesnt know anything, the actions of the DNC are the actions of an organization, the result of the actions of thousands of people.

Nobody produced anything before the primaries. The only production anyone cared about were primary votes and then general election votes. Kerry was seen as an early leader, but the other primary candidates appeared to threaten him. This did lead many people to question Kerry and his campaign, but in the end, Kerry and his campaign did exactly what it was predicted to do in the start. It did produce. In the meantime factions of power in the party did support Edwards, did support Clark, did support Dean, and did support Gephardt. When Kerry was clearly going to win, those factions moved on to other things, like supporting people for the VP. It is a pretty safe assumption that a large number of them and of Kerry supporters went on to support Dean as VP. That is pretty obviously how this ticket came out.

I am sure that many Kerry supporters thought edwards would make a good vp, and thought about it. But im sure alot of them had other ideas. It is very possible that a plurality of the power in the party wanted a Kerry Edwards ticket before the primary. So what? That doesnt equal your point in this thread. If things had turned out differently, they would have changed thier minds.

You are mistaking an interelated system for a system controlled completely by one segment.

[Spazito]

76. There IS a difference between the RNC and the DNC....

imo, a big one! The RNC walks lockstep with the chosen candidate from day one with only one monolith whereas the Democratic party Congresses, there are two the DNC & the DLC that compete for the message and values of the party. I think the Democratic Party is healthier for it's intra-competition. The RNC can't tolerate any difference and that will be their ultimate downfall.

[K-W]

78. Well, in some sense they are exactly the same, in another very different.

They are the same in that they are both party organizations with similar structures, they are very different because of the different entities that control them. Right now a coalition faction in the republican party has been incredibally successful in winning elections, both in the party and nationally. Right now the focal point of that coalition is the Bush administration. Because they have been so successful in winning elections, they have a major share of the control over the party organization.

The Democratic party has no such situation. The closest thing they have is the DLC which has had a great deal of election success, and that is where they got thier power over the party organization, but thier success has faded, thus the party is not as controlled by them, and many more factions have influence than in the republican party.

[JI7]

80. the DNC and DLC have different goals and they are not in competition

the dnc is mostly about organization such as raising money for candidates of the democratic party. get out the vote efforts and other similar type things aimed at building up the party overall. but it's not very much involved with issues.

the dlc is more of a think tank type organization. it's more about policy discussions.

everyone in the dlc is part of the dnc. but the dnc also includes more liberal groups and people also such as the congressional black caucus members or progressive caucus members who are some of the most liberal.

[JohnKleeb]

81. The republicans have a DLC equiv

the RLC.

[cidliz2004]

82. I agree with you totally

My saying is that the Repubs narrowly define themselves and Dems are everybody else.

The Repubs are of a single voice and mind. The trouble is in this election the Dems all have a single voice and mind in wanting Bush OUT. So, we are diverse and from that we are strong, but when necessary we can come together and we can unify and we can defeat.

[FrenchieCat]

84. I agree with you CidLiz2004

The DNC picked it's candidates long ago, and it was Kerry/Edwards.

Remember that Gore, who wanted to run again, was disuated by the DNC, who decided to go with Kerry (told Gore if he ran it would make the election about the 2000 election...and the DNC were afraid of what the results of that would be)...hence Gore endorsed Dean most likely out of spite and revenge....as Dean was not the DNC Candidate. Ditto for Bradley who was not the DNC pick in 2000, as Gore was. Dean, Gore and Bradley were all considered outside of the DNC.

Clark came in late because Kerry was not doing well, and Dean was. Clark got out early, as soon as it was assured that Kerry would win the nomination.

Clark was blacked out by the media as soon as he decided not to go compete in Iowa...because the DNC had already decided that, based on the truncated primary schedule they devised, the Iowa winner would become more than likely the nominee (as for my evidence, that's exactly what happened). Clark was not in Iowa (whether the choice was for good reasons or purposely decided by Clark's "campaign staff" (Lehane who came directly from the Kerry campaign adds to my suspicions...as even that in itself could have been a ploy) ...and therefore would not be the winner, and therefore did not get proper consideration by the pundits in analysis or with free publicity coverage. That I have evidence for.

How do you explain the "electable" tag being put on Kerry...when Clark really was just as "electable"? How do you explain Clark actually doing better than Edwards in many of the mini Tuesday primaries (2nd in Arizon, New Mexico, North Dakota and 1st in Oaklahoma) yet not getting any press for it (and I mean none)....while Edwards was on 24/7...being the rave for Charisma, etc...? Clark is just as Charismatic and Southern as Edwards (lacking the super thick accent didn't make him less southern)to more than many and was actually better suited for VP in this particular election (war on terror, war on terror, War in Iraq, War in Iraq, Vietnam vet hero that would have shored up Kerry on what seems to be Kerry's Achilles Heels in this race). The fact that Edwards was pushed for being able to garnet more votes from Moderates and Republicans than Clark (who was accused over and over again of being a republican) was ridiculous.

Edwards was built up by the press and the DNC, period....because he was the predetermined one, period.

Never underestimate the power of the media....if you do so, it is at your own peril.

That's politics, Folks! It's not a conspiracy...it's just the way that it works. Party leaders have always chosen the nominee....although they would like for you to think that this is no longer the case. The possible exceptions may have been Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

I hate what happened because my vote did not count...and the DNC needs to go as soon as the elections are over.

[K-W]

87. You contradict yourself.

"That's politics, Folks! It's not a conspiracy...it's just the way that it works. Party leaders have always chosen the nominee....although they would like for you to think that this is no longer the case. The possible exceptions may have been Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton."

You cant have it both ways. Either the party organization is under complete control over who the nominee is, or the primaries exert some amount of control.

If the primaries are simply a facade, and everything is staged, then it would be possible for one group to take over the party and lead it with thier own ideological compass, unaccountable. Then the theory presented in this thread could possibly be true.

But I dont think that fits the facts at all. The DLC has alot of control over who wins the primary, but not complete control, and the DLC is never fully unified in who it supports in these elections. And if the DLC chooses bad candidates, and they get beaten in general elections, the people in power lose thier power and are replaced, or the party dies and a new one, controlled by new people takes over thier political power.

They are held accountable to a degree by the system, which is why citizens do have some say in the system, and why the monolithic painting of the party just doesnt fly.

[cidliz2004]

91. BELIEVE IT

"That's politics, Folks! It's not a conspiracy...it's just the way that it works. Party leaders have always chosen the nominee....although they would like for you to think that this is no longer the case. The possible exceptions may have been Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton."

You cant have it both ways. Either the party organization is under complete control over who the nominee is, or the primaries exert some amount of control. IT ISN'T WRITTEN IN STONE AND STONE FOR HEAVENS SAKE WILL BREAK AND CRUMBLE IN AN EARTHQUAKE. CURRENT EVENTS AND UNFORSEEN FACTORS WILL CHANGE THE BEST LAID PLANS. IF WINNING IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT THEN THE DNC ISN'T GOING TO GET IN FRONT OF A "TRUE" WINNER UNLESS THERE IS A TRUE THREAT TO THEM, BILL CLINTON AND JIMMY CARTER WERE NOT TRUE THREATS. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THE REPUBS WENT SO BALLISTIC AGAINST CLINTON? THAT WAS A CONSPIRACY, CLINTON WASN'T SUPPOSED TO WIN...HOW COULD CLINTON, A NO NOTHING GOVERNOR, FROM A NO NOTHING STATE LIKE ARKANSAS RUN THIS COUNTRY?, THAT IS WHAT THEY WERE SAYING ABOUT CLINTON WHEN HE WON. IT MAKES EVEN FURTHER SENSE WHEN 41 GOT INTO THE WHITE HOUSE, RUMSFIELD, WOLF, CHANEY ALL BASICALLY IGNORED CLINTON'S 8 YEARS AND PICKED UP WHERE THEY LEFT OFF 8 YEARS AGO. HENCE FORTH IGNORING TERRORIST THREATS AND PUTTING IRAQ BACK ON THE FRONT BURNER. NOBODY EXPECTED CLINTON TO DO WHAT HE DID IN 92'. IT WAS SOMETHING OF A SHOCK TO BOTH SIDES.


If the primaries are simply a facade, and everything is staged, then it would be possible for one group to take over the party and lead it with thier own ideological compass, unaccountable. Then the theory presented in this thread could possibly be true HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF KKKARL ROVE?

[K-W]

93. So the entire political system is all run by a unified conspiracy?

How is this not a conspiracy theory again?

Clinton was a politician, like all politicians. He convinced enough people of his abilities to get into the primary race and then he and his backers made the right moves to win the primary, a battle on two fronts, one to get primary votes and one to secure the support of the party. They did so, and after the primary, the democratic party was unified behind him, the politician that won the selection.

Under the picture of the party I have presented, this makes perfect sense. Under your theory it doesnt make any sense at all. If the party controls everything, it isnt possible for someone they dont want to win to win, the very fact that he did, if in fact they didnt want him to win, would completely disprove your theory.

The fact is, Clinton was just fine by the democratic leadership. They dont particularly care who the politician is that runs, as long as he can win and is willing to play ball with them. Clinton was both of those things and that is why the democrats fully supported him and he won.

There is no conspiracy, you are out of touch with reality.

[cidliz2004]

95. Did you ever see the movie Seabicket?

There was a "dark" horse, not expected to do anything in a field of accepted contenders that came from nowhere and blew their socks off i.e. Clinton - Carter.

The best laid plans got sidetracked when "Seabiscket" came around.

Seabisket was a better contender than the original "chosen" so the DNC goes with it and quickly adopts the "newcomer", but in the the case of Jimmy Carter, he didn't play by "thier" rules well enough.

The key here is not leaving things to chance. There is always a plan. If something unexpected or unforeseen evolves, then if possible we go with it, if it isn't possible to go with it then maybe a little push here and there and some fast footwork puts the plans back into action.

If this were not true, what would explain all of the Repubs keeping their mouths shut and backing Bush? Not all of the Repubs are that stupid, they all have to fall in line. There is control and it is a pyramid. It comes from the top/leaders and filters down. The GOP is more obivious with this. The Dems are a little more difficult to harness. Bush and his cronies really prove this with Rove doing all of his plotting and planning.

My God, many are even questioning the terror threats legitimacy! If terror threats can be issued regularly (blown out of proportion or downright false) and more than 1/2 of our Government keeps their mouths shut while this goes on, then you really think that it is a stretch that the DNC leaders could pick out our leaders so that we could "elect" them? Just watch how the GOP marches together to the same tune in the same step.

The all important elections are not going to all of a sudden by just handed over to us to decide! This means every one of their jobs and careers, and income. They want to control it as much as they can get away with it and THAT IS THE POINT, THEY HAVE GOTTEN AWAY WITH TOO MUCH FOR TOO LONG AND THAT MUST CHANGE. IN MANY RESPECTS THE ELECTIONS ARE A FACADE AND 2000 WAS THE GROSS OUTCOME OF HOW OUT OF CONTROL THINGS REALLY HAVE BEEN. LOOK AT THE PROBLEMS WITH THE VOTING MACHINES ISSUES! WHO IS TRYING TO CONTROL THAT???? WHO IS DISENFRANCHISING VOTERS?

IF YOU DON'T SEE THE ORCHESTRATED EFFORTS BEHIND THE WHOLE POLITICAL SCENE, THEN I THINK YOU AREN'T LOOKING CLOSELY ENOUGH. THE CANDIDATES AND THE ELECTIONS ARE AS CAREFULLY ORCHESTRATED AS THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH.

[cidliz2004]

88. Thank you Thank you Frencie4Clark

I am so tired right now and I was just about ready to go to bed when I went back and read your post. I have read things from you before and I am so grateful for you coming to support me.

It all seems so obvious to me, though I cannot pull out all of the facts and figures from memory. I am just pretty goody at analysis and sometimes forecasting. I was not getting too many people agreeing with me and I didn't feel that I was off base, I just feel stupid for not seeing it all sooner!

I feel that Edwards was "chosen" before Kerry was solidly in the seat as the Nominee. I believe that this was in the works for a long time and when Kerry wasn't coming across with the numbers needed to be able to be a viable candidate Clark was encouraged, which may have actually prompted Kerry to make some bold moves to revive his campaign.

Do you agree with this? Do you agree with Edwards just waiting in the wings to see who would actually secure the Nomination?

Do you feel duped?

Or did you see it all along?

[tedzbear]

85. Who cares?

Geez, what about the issues?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

98. Edwards was invited to speak with the secert Bilderberg Group in June

and that they approved edwards for VP....edwards went and spoke to them
www.guardian.co.uk/netnotes/article/0,6729,1231830,00.html


1. At the annual meetings of the Bilderberg group, a clique of some of the world's most powerful people scheme and plot, carving up the globe for themselves, while occasionally cackling like Dr Evil in Mike Myers' Austin Powers films.
2. That, at least, is the view of the conspiracy theorists, whose opinions are widely expressed on the internet. Indeed, the web positively crackles with Bilderberg-related websites, (although of course there is no official site by the organisers).

3. Those who run Bilderberg's annual four-day meetings, and some of the people who have been to them, insist that there is nothing sinister going on. The official line is that the meetings are no more than useful forums, talking shops for prominent people from various influential spheres (politics, business, royalty ... ) to chew the fat about big issues. And the only reason they are so secretive about what exactly goes on is to facilitate vibrant, uninhibited informal discussion. So no evil cackling.

4. The more even-handed assessments usually outline qualms about how the meetings facilitate capitalism and support the current world order and all its sins. Former Observer editor Will Hutton, who has been invited in the past, called the group the "high priests of globalisation".

5. The Bilderberg group got its name from a hotel in Holland where the first meeting was held in 1954. The idea was to foster greater accord between the movers and shakers of North America and western Europe in the wake of the second world war. Every year the set-up is similar. Around 100 prominent figures are invited by a steering committee.

6. This year's Bilderberg meeting began yesterday in a luxury hotel in northern Italy and will run until Sunday. Present will be the odd press baron and media bigwig (sworn to secrecy like everyone else) but no reporters.

7. This year, apparently, BP boss John Browne, US senator John Edwards and Mrs Bill Gates are among the invitees. People who have been in the past include the likes of Henry Kissinger (a regular), Prince Charles, Bill Clinton, Donald Rumsfeld, Peter Mandelson, Kenneth Clarke, King Juan Carlos and Lord Black (although reportedly he's now off the guest list after his Telegraph travails).

more info about the Bilderberg Group

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

The original intention of the Bilderberg group was to further understanding between Western Europe and North America through informal meetings between influential individuals. Each year, a "steering committee" devises a selected invitation list with a maximum of 100 names. The location of their annual meeting is not secret, and the agenda and list of participants are openly available to the public, but the meetings themselves are shrouded in secrecy. Security is managed by military intelligence.

The Bilderberg Group is for Europeans and North Americans – Asians, Middle Easterners, Latin Americans and Africans are not invited.

Attendees pledge absolute secrecy on what has been discussed.

[bobthedrummer]

100. Yep. This endorsement secured the VP slot imo.

Thanks for saving me the hassle of bringing this up.
:loveya:

[FrenchieCat]

103. So the question becomes.....

who sent Edwards to the meeting in the first place? I'm sure it was no accident that he was invited and attended. So we are back to were we started....he was chosen before the announcement was made...which is why he was invited to beging with, as the choice of VP came AFTER the meeting.

[MisterP]

101. I have a MS Publisher document of all elections 1824-2004

and in '03 I wrote "John Kerry--John Edwards" into the Dems' line some time after Gore bowed out.
Go figure.

[Larkspur]

102. Yes, Kerry and Edwards were the pre-ordained ticket after Gore bowed out

Kerry and Edwards were the projected Prez/VP nominees, but then Dean caught fire in March and nearly waylayed their coronation. Kerry had to use underhanded means via 527 groups with the help of his friend and national fundraising chair, former Sen. Torricelli of senate ethics violation fame, to torpedo Dean's campaign.

[mgm]

104. The current candidates

...were NOT "chosen" by the people, they were chosen by the Democratic primary voters in three, repeat, three states and the media. We won't know until November whether that combination of "chosers" will work to remove Bush from office. But if Bush is reelected, we'll have a pretty good idea why: the strongest candidates were NOT chosen. I very much want ALL primaries to be held on the same day. If there's a statistical tie, then a run-off. This could help to weaken the media's grip and the absurd snowballing effect of an early primary victory by one candidate, who, again, may not be the strongest but is the beneficiary of hype.