How $200 millions dollars will destroy Kerry

[katieforeman]

If John Kerry is the nominee watch for over $200 million dollars worth of ads like these:

John Kerry, "he's been wrong for 32 years. He's wrong now."
(from Washington Post today on plans by Bush's advertising team.)

-1970 Kerry said that US troops should be deployed, "only at the directive of the United Nations." (Washington Post 2-20-04)

-1997 on the Senate floor, Kerry asked why the nation's "vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow even as government resources for essential priorities fall short."(NYTimes 1-28-04)

-After Sept. 11th on Face the Nation, "The tragedy is, at the moment, that the single most important weapon for the United States of America is intelligence, and we are weakest, frankly, in that particular area." (NYTimes 1-28-04)

-1980's Kerry was against death penalty for terrorists. Now he's for it.

-1991 Kerry voted against first Gulf War
-2003 Kerry voted for second Iraq war

"John Kerry is a hypocrite"
This line will be followed by examples of Kerry's 19 years in the Senate taking special interest money. Republicans will use this to nuetralize one of Bush's main liabilities. Voters will think both Kerry and Bush are the same when it comes to special interests, only Kerry is a hypocrit about it.

Everything they did to Dukakis, they will do to Kerry. Remember Kerry was Lt. Governor during Dukakis infamous parole program.

Zell Miller, "Kerry's voting record is terrible on defense."

Watch also for commercials highlighting all of the tax increases and defense spending cuts Kerry voted for.

Bottom line: Kerry's experience is a huge liability. Republicans will paint him as a career politician who changes positions to go with the political tide.


What do they have on Edwards?

-He was a trial lawyer? But that didn't work in NC and it is impossible to attack him on that without attacking his very sympathetic clients.

-He is inexperienced? He has more foreign policy experience than Bush when he was elected. Edwards has travelled to Pakistan and met Musharif. Bush couldn't name the leader of Pakistan in the 2000 campaign. It's very difficult to write adds attacking the lack of something.

Bush 1 found that the "Clinton is too inexperienced argument was a looser."

Please, please vote for and contribute to Edwards. The stakes for this elections are high. This country can't take 4 more years of Bush.

[sallyseven]

1. Kerry is a big

person. He will not allow the right wing bastards to define him. He is ready for them. Edwards is VP material. Needs some growing up.

[katieforeman]

4. Kerry is already letting Bush define the debate.

Kerry's passive attitude of "bring it on" is letting Bush take control. Democrats, by choosing a nominee to fight on national security, are letting Republicans set the agenda with the issue they have the advantage on.

I can tell you that Kerry will not play well in the Midwest. If people don't trust you, they won't want to turn over their security to you. Credibility is everything and Kerry doesn't have it.

[lancdem]

14. Bush wants to make security an issue

that's why we need a nominee who can go toe-to-toe with him on it. Kerry has a major advantage over Edwards in that regard. As for Kerry not playing well in the Midwest, he beats Bush there in polls and has not lost a primary in that region. I don't know what you're talking about.

[katieforeman]

22. Sure he beats him now. But he will drop like a rock once the ads start.

Thats why we shouldn't let the Republicans frame the debate. Bush can't win the two Americas argument, but he is really good at scaring people about national security.

Bush 1 couldn't win with the Clinton is too inexperienced argument.

[anti-NAFTA]

37. Wrong.

Kerry cannot stand toe-to-toe on "security" which is a code word for huge welfare checks for Lockheed Martin and Boeing executives. No Democrat can. We have to accept that Bush will have the upper hand with his fear tactics and exploitation of 9/11 and terror warnings in this issue. Kerry is no stronger on "security" than Edwards; in fact, his voting record has more fodder for negative ads than Edwards. Fighting in Vietnam =/= strength on the issue of security.

"As for Kerry not playing well in the Midwest, he beats Bush there in polls and has not lost a primary in that region. I don't know what you're talking about."

You wait till the non-issue of Bush's and Kerry's service in the military disappears because no doubt it will within a month or two. Then we'll see whether he can still beat Bush in the Midwest which is being destroyed by NAFTA and free trade. He never lost a primary in that region because the media is hyping him up like crazy at the moment. You wait till October and all you'll have left is a seriously bland candidate with no solid platform other than "I'm not Bush" which, as katie has said, lets Bush get the upper hand in the debate.

[katieforeman]

43. Thank you.

[anti-NAFTA]

20. A-effing-men.

Kerry is somewhere between Gore (the old Gore; not the new and improved version) and Dukakis in terms of appeal. Edwards has a better chance. Experience is a liability. And don't forget the gas tax, which will scare the hell out of voters since this country has a gasoline fetish and gas prices are already rising and OPEC has increased the price of crude oil just now.

[mot78]

2. Oh and they won't destroy Edwards?

The RNC is doing just as much research on him as they are on Kerry. BTW, a lot of the negative ads will come from Repug 527s, because * doesn't want to attack Kerry and have "I'm George Bush and I approve this message" at the end of every commercial.

[katieforeman]

8. How do they destroy Edwards?

He's only been in the Senate 5 years. How do you write an ad attacking lack of experience?

If experience mattered Gore would have won in a landslide and Arnold would not be gov.

[lancdem]

24. We're in a post-9/11 world

As for Edwards' lack of experience, the Bush people will be happy to point that out and try to raise doubts in voters' minds about whether Edwards can handle the threat of terrorism. I like Edwards, but to pretend he has no potential weaknesses is ridiculous. All candidates do.

[katieforeman]

58. I like all of the candidates also and they all have weaknesess.

The question is whose weaknesses could cost us the election. For me I think it is Kerry. I can think of plenty of arguments to defend Edwards weakness's. It's hard to defend some of the things in Kerry's record to general election voters.

[katieforeman]

85. The post 911 world argument does not bode well for Kerry because..

he advocated cutting intelligence, opposed the death penalty for terrorists, and has a weak voting record on defense.

I like him, but just because someone faought in a war doesn't mean people will trust him with their security. Think about it. There are many honorable, brave, and patriotic veterans in this country but very few of them are qualified to be President.

[maddezmom]

28. Trial Lawyer n/t

[KittyWampus]

34. Correction! Personal Injury Lawyer

[mlawson]

31. 100% correct!

Have we not learned yet, RESUMES do not matter? Gore had the best one of all, but so what? Ronnie had little to no resume, but so what?

Experience?? The only hits on Edwards about experience have been here on DU. Experience is subjective; I can make a case that anyone has too little experience, or that anyone has enough. There is no objective standard on experience, period.

[KittyWampus]

32. OMG! You Aren't Even Joking

How do you write an ad attacking lack of experience?

:D :D :D

[anti-NAFTA]

53. Lack of experience is the weakest argument in the book.

It's a sign that the attacker can't think of anything. Lack of experience didn't hurt Reagan in 80, Clinton in 92, or Bush in 00. And Edwards has more experience than Bush, come to think of it.

[mlawson]

59. Well, if you notice, it's the same posters, repeating the same

stuff. Apparently it's all they have. But arguing is pointless, these attack posts come back every day. Notice they never have anything positive to say about any candidate, it's just attack, attack.

[anti-NAFTA]

64. That pretty much defines Kerry's campaign.

He doesn't want to even pick a handful of issues and take a stand on them. All he does is speak platitudes and does nothing but preach to the choir (the ABB vote). Edwards has NAFTA as his big issue (and I guarantee you that it will be a huge one in November). What does Kerry have other than Arnold Schwarzenegger style sound bytes and his military experience about which he brags ad nauseum? Who's the weaker candidate again?

[mlawson]

78. Um, I don't think the current attackers are Kerry people.

I don't mean to contradict you, but I really think do not think they are. I don't think they support anyone.

[anti-NAFTA]

86. Yeah, those people too.

Who just whine and whine about how they hate both candidates. It also gets annoying.

[KC21304]

65. Who started this attack ad ?

[mlawson]

74. You have a point here.

I didn't like the sound of it, myself. I am only defending here, myself, not attacking other candidates. I'm referring to old, extremely mean spirited attacks against Edwards, which should never have been allowed to remain on the board. They were infinitely worse than this one, posted by people who no longer show up.

[katieforeman]

87. I'm sorry I didn't make it more clear.

Usually, I'm careful to point out that I like all of these candidates. If Kerry wins, I will volunteer for nim and I will vote for him.

I just wanted to challenge the premise that Kerry is the most electable. I think that is fair. Rove will not be shy about bringing up these aspects of Kerry's record. I just want to make sure people are aware of this before they vote for Kerry because they perceive him as the most electable.

[Carolina]

94. not to mention

Edwards can point to Bush's on the job experience of the last 3 years and ask are we better off because of it as he then goes on to tick off job losses, Iraqmire, war profiteering, etc.

Kerry's Senate history/experience is more a liability than Edwards inexperience. Slime ball Ralph Reed was itemizing GOP talking points too on some show (why did I torture myself listening?!)and Katie, you are right on target. By the time these bastards finish with Kerry, ABB won't be enough.

[GreenArrow]

102. it'll be enough. when asked to choose who is best to manage

a global War on Terror (TM) the most experienced candidate will get the nod.

[katieforeman]

105. A bad record is worse than no record.

[GreenArrow]

106. "bad" is in the eye of the beholder

and when those nasty Arab terrorists are threatening our freedom, I suspect most people will vote for the candidate who has the most foreign policy experience, even if his record is not perfect. People are terrified, and they are going to look for a known quantity to assuage those fears...and Bush will claim a lot of those voters who don't want to change horses in midstream, but Kerry will claim the majority.

[katieforeman]

108. Kerry advocated cutting intelligence in 1997!

He was against the death penalty for terrorists! Please reread my post about Kerry's record. These are not minor points. People will not trust Kerry to protect him based on his 32 years of being wrong.

[GreenArrow]

119. in the pre-911 world

cutting intelligence wasn't a bad idea. It still isn't. There are whole bunch of things that fall under the umbrella of intelligence, some of which are no doubt outdated, useless, or otherwise wasteful. He'll say he believes in smart intelligence. And he can remind everyone that the Clinton administration passed along ample warnings and intelligence that the Bush team choose to ignore. Edwards can use that too, but it'll sound more impressive coming from an in -the know 20 year Senate veteran and former military man.

As for death penalty for terrorists, it's an issue that will drive me away from both Edwards and Kerry. I don't believe in the death penalty, even for "terrorists", a word which has yet to be satisfactorily defined; it seems that under the current usage, it can mean or be whatever the person making the accusation wants it to be.

I realize most Americans want blood though, and it won't cost these guys with the average voter of either major party.

[Dookus]

110. Reagan, Clinton and Bush were all

two-term governors. More for Clinton, in fact.

Edwards is a less-than-one-term Senator.

[katieforeman]

112. Right and Al Gore had two terms as VP. Bush was only gov of Texas.

Grey Davis was gov for a long time but that didn't help him against an actor.

What did Kerry learn in hs 19th year as a Senator that he didn't know after 5 years in the Senate?

[Dookus]

113. And what does that have to do with the false

assertion that I rebutted?

[katieforeman]

114. Because you're comparing apples and oranges.

whats your formula five years in the Senate= 2 years as governor?

How much foreign policy experience does being governor of Arkansas or california give someone?

[Dookus]

116. You're applying things to me I've never said...

I simply corrected a factual error.

[katieforeman]

117. What was my factual error?

[Dookus]

118. I wasn't responding to you.

Follow the thread and see.

[citizen snips]

3. The repubs will have a field day with this.

Especially with the
1980's Kerry was against death penalty for terrorists.

[lancdem]

5. Bush doesn't have $200 million

He has $100 million.

[katieforeman]

13. But he's expected to have about $200 million total.

He'll receive $75 million in federal funds for the general election. The RNC has about $30 million I believe. These numbers total to about $200 million.

[Dookus]

6. oh dear

they're gonna say bad things. We'd best fold up the tent and go home.

I'm so sick of this argument - they'd use that money against ANY candidate. Kerry is the one best situated to fight back (after Clark, imo).

You don't think 200 million worth of "trial lawyer" ads wouldn't have any effect on Edwards? That's naive.

[mlawson]

16. All we have to do, is show a list of US presidents who were

trial lawyers. I calculated it once, and came up with 28! And it includes many of the greats, including Lincoln.

I think this 'trial lawyer' nonsense was initiated in DU about a year ago by posters who openly dispised Edwards. And what a surprise, the line stuck.... But it means nothing.

[Dookus]

27. That's all we have to do?

I disagree.

[mlawson]

40. It shouldn't even require that.

How many people do you know, who hate lawyers?? I don't know any. This is a no brainer issue; *most* politicians are attorneys!! Who cares??? This nonsense was begun right here, about a year ago, by posters who really, really had it in for Edwards (for reasons they would not divulge). Most of them have since left DU.

The phrase, trial lawyer, is just something people can spit out, without thinking at all. But when they get into trouble, who are they gonna call?? An ex-Texas governor???

[Dookus]

50. Actually

I know a lot of people who reflexively hate lawyers. Polls show trial lawyers among the least-respected people in America.

I'm not saying the complaints are valid - I'm saying that attacking Edwards on those grounds will resonate with a lot of people.

[mlawson]

66. But, they already know that was his profession.

He makes no bones about it. It didn't hurt him in 1998. I am certain that he has copies of all records of all his cases, so if the Rove machine tries to twist the facts of some case, he can come right back at them. This guy is no fool.

[scheming daemons]

91. So....

...people will have a problem with a guy who made millions by EARNING it, but not have a problem with a guy who made millions by MARRYING it?

If Kerry were a woman, people would call him a gold-digger.

[Skwmom]

38. How many were personal injury attorneys? e/o/m

[citizen snips]

52. The whole lawyer argument does not work.

There are tons of great US presidents who were lawyers. Lawyers can win elections.

[KC21304]

79. I like lawyers, both trial lawyers and former prosecutors.

[AP]

7. Deploying troops at the directive of {non US-body} was the issue...

...that destroyed Wilson's presidency and his life.

FDR knew that the UN was vitally important to global security and to the happiness and welfar of all citizens of the world (had Wilson's League of Nations come to pass, we would not have had WWII and the devestation to the millions of lives caused by it).

FDR learned from Wilson's mistakes and worked around this issue. Any Democrat who knew the history of politics in the 20th century wouldn't say that they US should do as its told by the UN.

Tweety and Russert have tried to walk Edwards into this trap -- they think he's a hick who doesn't know history. Edwards has avoided it.

No Democrat is going to win an election in which he argues that decisions about America's safety and security should be left to a non-US body.

In fact, Bush has gotten the world to hate us. The last thing we want to do is let them make decisions about America's future. They all want to castrate us now.

[poskonig]

15. Wilson's presidency was destroyed??

Wilson was a two termer. Please explain.

[AP]

18. It became the obsession of his second term. He stroked out over it.

The Republicans really hurt him and the Democrats politically. I don't know, but I suspect a Republican won the next election.

[David Dunham]

Kerry will get $75 million for the general election, same as Bush

Assuming Kerry is the nominee, under federal law he gets $75 million for the nomination, just as Bush does. Kerry's opting out of federal matching funds is ONLY FOR THE PRIMARY SEASON!! Some people need to read up on their election law.

[katieforeman]

90. True.

I was just explaining where my $200 million number came from.

[Skwmom]

9. It wouldn't take 200 million to destroy Edwards

"In 1985, a 31-year-old North Carolina lawyer named John Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl."


"She speaks to you through me," the lawyer went on in his closing argument. "And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?ex=1390885200&en=4fb97ac07a96f186&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

They are going to paint the Democrats as a bunch of nuts. Does this guy sound presidential to you?

Plus let's not forget.

Sweetheart Real Estate Deal with Saudi Lobbyisthttp://www.realchange.org/edwards.htm

Donations to Sen. Edwards questioned

http://www.hillnews.com/news/050703/edwards.aspx

A Populist Make-Over
Meet John Edwards, the Corporate Man
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan04/Ireland0129.htm

There's more but all they really need is the "channeling" of the unborn child and Edwards would be DON (Dead on Nomination).

[mlawson]

19. Perhaps you should send these to Rove.

If Edwards is the nominee, will you do that?? Save them a lot of time and trouble, after all.

[AP]

23. I hope Rove uses those three arguments. They're incredibly lame.

[Skwmom]

41. If you think

channeling an unborn child is going to sell in the general election I don't know what to say.

[AP]

121. If you want to use a Scalia-style argument that a RW judge used to throw

out a legitimate award, with which no liberal in their right mind would every agree (but for the fact that you prefer another candidate) so be it.

Is it appropriate for one to compromise his or her principles for the sake of candidate advocacy?

I don't think so.

[Skwmom]

33. You think Rove needs me to give him this information?

The Republicans pay people to scour online publications and gather this info. I guess you think Rove and his team are too stupid to read the New York Times? This is a VERY small fraction what they have on Edwards.

Edwards channeling the unborn child is something they will turn into common knowledge and it WILL NOT sell in the general election (no one will want his hand on that button). I'd rather have people know now than in the GE when it's too late.

[citizen snips]

83. You want to bet.

A lawyer is very electable and history will prove me correct.

[AP]

21. It would take 200 BILLION.

Why do you keep quoting a bullshit Scalia-style argument for reducing damages which courts never ever make (except when millions are at stake) because it's so outrageous?

[katieforeman]

35. Read 4 trials.

There was nothing nuts about that closing argument. All of those things you mentioned seem really desparate and none of them make me worry about Edwards' ability to be commander and cheif. Arguing for intelligence cuts before 911 would give me pause if I were a middle of the road voter.

[Skwmom]

44. There was nothing "nuts" about Dean's concession speech

and we all know how that played out in the public arena.

[katieforeman]

55. True. But Dean already had a reputation fairly or not for his temper.

Edwards does not have a reputation for being flaky.

[KC21304]

72. Come on, no fair. You can't answer back.

Only they can start attack posts and then complain that all the Kerry people know how to do is attack. LOL

[katieforeman]

84. I personally like Kerry but...

my point was to point out his weaknesses in the general election. So many people are voting for him because they think he is the most electable. I'm just questioning that premise.

[scheming daemons]

93. That's pathetic...

....I have more faith in the American people than you do.

They will laugh that line of attack right off the headlines.


Jesus.... Did Rove hire you?

[mlawson]

10. The repukes will make up crap on either guy. The test is,

whether either or both have TEFLON. Without teflon, there is no hope of standing up to the Rove machine. Edwards stood up to the Helms machine just fine in 1998. I see no reason why he can't do it again, this time with Rove.

One might say, "Well, this time, Edwards will have to stand up to the national attack machine." I have no doubt that Helms/Faircloth was getting all the help they needed from the national repuke party in 1998. But they couldn't lay a glove on him. Nothing, nada.

I won't comment on Kerry; I do not know what type of teflon he has.

[KittyWampus]

42. Teflon Is A Media Creation. People Are NOT BORN WITH IT

Jeez, sometimes you have to wonder at the crap posted here on DU.

The only people who have "Teflon" are people the mediawhores have been directed to give it to.

[mlawson]

46. Baloney. Clinton has the thickest suit of teflon of any living

human being. Did the MEDIA just GIVE it to him???? And Nixon had it until the last few days of Watergate. Don't tell me the media gave him any.

[Carolina]

95. excellent point

Edwards was time enough for the Helms-Faircloth-RNC cabal in 1998.

He fought them off and did so in a disarmingly charming way. Something I can't see Kerry doing at all.

Edwards is also more likeable, more appealing and more convincing especially when it comes to populist themes. Campaigns are won on such things as style. Record be damned (and Kerry's is), people won't listen to you nor will they vote for you if they feel you're talking down to them, if they feel you can't be trusted (back to that waffling Senate record), if they can't stand you ...

Kerry's negatives are higher than Edwards' and democratice primary voters are being suckered.

[unblock]

11. wrt the $200mm, the actual candidate background is IRRELEVANT!

$200mm buys you whatever fictional image you want to project onto your opponent.

gore had 24 years of experience and voites to dig through, did that work against him?

no, they manufactured lies out by simply contorting his speeches and trivial facts, and presto, a boy scout becomes a pathological liar.

kerry or edwards or whoever it is, the negative venom that they face will not likely have much to do with reality.

[katieforeman]

103. Edwards is not Kerry or Gore

They can't turn Edwards into something he's not because Edwards knows exactly who he is and what he stands for. Edwards also knows how to win people's trust by being sincere.

Gore and Kerry are too prone to trying to meld into what they think people like. Notice how Edwards never backs away from his career as a trial lawyer. He has kept the same positive message the whole time despite enormous pressure to go negative. He hasn't tried to change his message in response to polls. Furthermore, Edwards has a coherent vision that defines the debate. Gore had and Kerry has a collection of policies without a unifying vision.

Edwards' positive style also makes him difficult for Republicans to attack without looking bad themselves. Kerry's "Bring em on" attitude puts him on defense and turns the whole thing negative.

[poskonig]

12. Kerry is playing offense against Bush.

They'll paint Kerry as a waffling northeastern elitist, but Edwards will get the clueless newbie ambulance chaser treatment. And Edwards will have a lot less money to fight back with.

Politics ain't beanbag. Fortunately, our biggest advantage is George W. Bush.

[katieforeman]

17. Because Bush is their nominee, it will be hard for them to paint Edwards

as clueless. Edwards is far more knowledgeable than Bush. The clueless thing is easy to dispel. The you can't trust Kerry thing- is much more problematic.

[Skwmom]

26. I think they can nail Edwards on the "trust issue"

Try phony personal injury attorney.

[citizen snips]

45. Yeah right.

How the hell is Edwards a phony trial lawyer? The lawyer argument is not going to work. There has been lawyers who have been great presidents like Bill Clinton.

[mlawson]

54. The 'lawyer argument' began right here on DU.

About a year ago, begun by Edwards' extreme detractors (though they rarely said why). And of course, it stuck, just like all frivolous slurs. But only here. The public at large won't fall for such nonsense.

BTW, if he were 'phony' (that is a new one!), he could not have beaten all the "REAL" attorneys who were lined up against him. They were hardly incompetent enough to get suckered by a 'phony'... Laughable...

[citizen snips]

57. It is the cheapest argument I have ever seen.

Lawyers are very electable that is the truth.

[katieforeman]

61. In fact lawyer is the most common profession of Presidents.

[mlawson]

62. Remeber the snide one used against Carter??

PEANUT FARMER!!!!! :o

Yeah, how could someone who RAISES FOOD be President?? OMG!!! He just made jokes about it (in 1976), and it worked.

Now, MOVIE ACTOR, that I can see. :D

[poskonig]

30. Dispel with what -- 45 mill?

Kerry can fundraise toe-to-toe with Bush. Kerry made two tours of duty in Vietnam, so trust is not a problem.

"Waffling" has problem potential, but that is more of a wedge Republicans want to drive in our base. Most moderates feel like taking out Hussein was the right thing, but was executed improperly. Waffling on the IWR and the Patriot Act will *help* Kerry with moderates. Republicans understand how pissed off Democrats are about these issues, and see benefit in peeling off a few percentage points to Nader in a very close election.

[katieforeman]

48. Kerry had to take out a $6 million loan on his house.

Edwards will get $75 million in gov funds in the general election if he is the nominee and all of the donors now giving to Kerry.

A lot of people served this country bravely in Vietnam, but most of them are not qualified to be President.

Also in the latest CNN/USA today poll- %80 of voters said Bush's national gaurd service or lack there of wouldn't affect their vote. The 15% who thought Bush National Gaurd duty mattered were primarily Democrats.

I voted for Clinton because I thought he would be the best President. I didn't care about Vietnam- that was a long time ago.

[poskonig]

92. I'm talking before August.

Edwards will be capped to 45 million in spending. I'm worried we'll get crushed.

[katieforeman]

100. Edwards will have $75 million for general election in gov funds if he is

the nominee. Soros and his millions will be available to help the Democratic nominee through move-one in the general.

[Carolina]

96. you are right on point, Katie

[bushwakker]

25. Then we must spend our own $200 million

Whomever the nominee is needs our $$.

[alcuno]

29. Actually, * has around 104 million and Al Gore was outspent 2 to 1

in 2000 and STILL got 500,000 more votes. Sorry, but Edwards does less for me than Dean, Clark, OR Kerry.

[katieforeman]

39. Bush will get $75 million in federal funds for the general election and

I believe the RNC has about $30 million.

[Merlin]

60. Bush has opted out of matching funds.

He'll raise another $75 million I'm sure, but not from fed funds.

[alcuno]

109. They both get federal funds for the general election.

The money he has now and continues to raise needs to be spent before the general election.

[jpgpenn]

36. just think what they will do with a guy like Edwards!

$1.00 on , "John Edwards, has zero domestic or world affairs experience", ....$199,999,999 on pumping up *Bush!

[anti-NAFTA]

47. The experience argument has never worked.

No one really buys into it. It's also a lot weaker than CONCRETE votes made by Kerry which cannot be disproven.

[mmonk]

49. They've already prepared ads to attack Edwards

should he gain any traction. They also have prepared some for Kucinich from what I understand. If you don't think Edwards is vulnerable, you're a little too naive and possibly star struck (no offense).

[anti-NAFTA]

56. Goddammit, no one is saying Edwards is perfect.

Edwards is attack-able and hasn't had a squeaky clean record on free trade, but for God's sake he's leagues ahead of Kerry.

[mmonk]

67. the post would imply

Kerry has no strengths (because he has a record).

[anti-NAFTA]

70. He doesn't.

Aside from pictures of him in Vietnam.

[katieforeman]

75. Let be more clear.

I like Kerry personally and have tremendous respect for his service. But we need to win this election and I'm afraid Kerry's strengths might not be enough to overcome his weaknesses.

Edwards is Kennedy and Clinton all rolled up into one and minus the sex scandels. How can we lose with that?

[mmonk]

88. I stand by my post #49

[katieforeman]

89. It's not that I think Edwards isn't vulnerable. It's that he's less

vulnerable than Kerry.

[Democat]

51. Your post could have been copied and pasted from Free Republic

:(

[captain_change]

63. Kerry passed the mother-in-law test

My republican mother-in-law says she likes Edwards, that enough for me to support Kerry. Both of them are going to get smeared, Kerry I think takes away the patriotic war president card from the chimp. Also Theresa has said more than once, attack her or her family and she will use her 1/2 Billion dollars to fight back.

[katieforeman]

69. We need independents and Republicans like your mother-in law if we

are going to win.

[captain_change]

76. Just reacting to the 24X7 echo chamber

She is just reacting the the continuous bashing of Kerry by Rush, Hannity, Fox News, NY Post and the rest of the "liberal media". She will probably vote for Bush at the end

[NV1962]

68. If the RNC uses that against Kerry, we can count on his election!

Bring it on!

[David Dunham]

71. Kerry will get $75 million for the general election, same as Bush

Kerry's opting out of federal matching funds applies only to the PRIMARY period (up to the July convention).

[bigtree]

73. This is an argument to vote for Edwards?

He has no record to attack so that makes him a better match for Bush? No extensive paper trail?

That is the description of an empty suit, a blank slate, an unknown coin. Edwards talks a good game about bills on which he had no imput or responsibility.

I respect experience in government. I respect service to our country.

What's so bad about career politicians?

Tip O'Neil?

Ted Kennedy?

Harry S. Truman?

John F. Kennedy?

Franklin D. Roosevelt?

William J. Clinton?

[katieforeman]

80. This is one of many reasons to vote for Edwards.

But you're right, it's not sufficient. I'll post my top 10 reasons Edwards is the most electable as another more positive line of argument.

I do agree with you that politics is an honerable profession, but the general electorate doesn't usually see it that way.

[littlejoe]

77. Don't worry about Kerry. He's no Dukakis. It is Bush who needs

to do the worrying.

[HowdyDUit]

81. Kerry is a war hero...nothing else matters except

that he MUST support gay marriage to get my vote.

[katieforeman]

82. Max Cleland was a war hero. Bob Dole was a war hero.

Clinton was not a war hero. reagan was not a war hero.

I respect war heroes, but that is not enough to win elections.

Max Cleland lost three limbs in Vietnam. His Republican opponent avoided the draft. Republicans beat Max Cleland in 2002 by picturing him with Osama Bin Laden and attacking him on National Security.

[Carolina]

97. keep pounding away Katie

because you're right, point for point.

[katieforeman]

98. Thanks Carolina.

[GreenArrow]

99. If the $$$ can destroy Kerry, it can destroy Edwards

But it won't. Kerry will be your president in January 2005. Kerry will fight dirty, do you think Edwards will? If he does, then he isn't the goody-goody he portrays himself as. Kerry is going to take Bush out.

[katieforeman]

101. Do you think Edwards was the most feared attorney in NC because

he was a nice guy. Edwards will fight as hard as anybody. He just won't look mean while he's doing it.

[GreenArrow]

104. so he's not a nice guy?

He will fight dirty? How will that play with all the people who vote for him because he looks like their grandson?

[Old and In the Way]

107. You can bet the RNC will have a customized smear campaign for

whichever guy gets the nomination. Personally, I like them both...either would be lightyears better than Bush and either is capable of winning.

That said, I'm hanging with the heavyweight champ.

(1) He has captured the hearts and minds of a vast majority of mainstream Democrats in this primary...he is the man that reflects the values and attributes that want in a President.

(2) National Security and "war" is what Bush plans to run on. Kerry kicks his ass on both....Edwards is exposed. After 9/11, leadership under fire is important (I can't wait to see the Bush on 9/11 vs. Kerry card played).

(3) Kerry will have more appeal from the indies and moderate Republicans who put stock in things like service and heroic leadership.

(4) Kerry has run many, many campaigns in the crucible of hardball politics: Massachusetts....he's won his last election against a very popular incumbant Republican governor....what election experience does Kerry really have?

I like Edwards, but he's the middleweight champ. I want the heavyweight champ in this fight.

[katieforeman]

111. I like them both too but...

Republicans will have a much more effective smear campaign against Kerry.

As to some of your points:
1.) I don't think Kerry has really captured that many hearts and a lot of heads are starting to think twice about him. "electablity" seems to be the motivation behind most votes for Kerry. I've been talking to a lot of people and most Kerry voters tell me they like Edwards but think Kerry is the most electable.

2.) Why should we let George Bush decide what this election is about? Edwards defines the debate with his two Americas speech. Kerry's "bring em on" attitude is letting Republicans set the agenda.

3.)Service and heroic leadership didn't help Max Cleland or Bob Dole. Clinton and Reagan didn't have these qualities yet they were elected twice. I'm from Ohio and I don't think Kerry will play well at all in the Midwest. Edwards beat Kerry in the Independents and republicans in Wisconsin. I know independents in OH who have told me they like Edwards.

4.)Kerry almost lost to a Republican in MA in his last election. If it weren't for his wife's money he would no longer be the Senator from MA.

Please see my post: top 10 reasons John Edwards is the most electable. I'd be interested in your opinion.

[Carolina]

123. kick

:kick:

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

115. "X is unelectable"

is just as lame when X = Kerry as when Kerry was saying it about Dean. Though I do find it amusing to see it used against Kerry now.

[opihimoimoi]

120. Lets face it. No One is perfect. They all have failings with Bush having

the MOST.

If America sucks for the cool aid one for time, what can anyone say except, DUHHHH ? we fucking sadistic/masochistic or what?

Come, we cool off, we go surfing

[Nicholas_J]

122. Edwards voting record

Is not that significantly different than Kerry's, so the idea that Edwards will somehow be immune from the smear campaign's that the Bush campaign will raise against any candidate is a totally false premise. Dean very easily un-nerved Edwards at the very beginning of the campaign, in San Francisco. These accusations were not made against Edwards alone, but Kerry was accused at the same time. Differnce is that Kerry did not bat an eyelash about Dean directly lying about Edwards and Kerry's records, but Edwards was visibly shaken.

Experience is never a liability. One liability that Edwards has revolves partially around his reason to not run for the Senate again, and that was that his re-election was somewhat in question. This is something that dogged Dean in the background, but was part of the reason that his campaign finally failed. Though Dean was elected five times, polls in Vermont indicated that if he ran for governor again, he would not win again. North Carolina polls about Edwards possibility of winning agains in North Carolina had a similar profile.

Republicans are not going to paint someones experience as a liability when they are going to paint Bush's experience as a war time president as a plus.

Kerry's record on defense spending is only bad from a Republican point of view. When you look at the vast amount of pork in those systems and the special interests who were going to make fortunes on systems that would be outdated by the time they were built, Kerry comes out smelling rather fiscally responsible.

Kerry is still against te death penalty in criminal cases, and only for it in cases of terrorism. Which will play well with people who think that people who decide to kill Americans in mass quantities should be given some sort of special treatment.

Kerry voted against the first Gulf War for reasons quite similar for his wanting to load the Resolution regarding the second War with Iraq with far more requirements for international involvement. Congress was asked to support the legislation for the first Gulf War before the U.N. comitted to doing anything but making a statement of disapproval for the invasion of Kuwait. As in 2002, in 1991 Kerry stated that he wanted peaceful, diplomatic sanctions to be given at least a few months, and to actually coincide with U.N. and international criteria regarding establishment of time periods for such sanctions. During the current situation he wanted exactly the same thing. For the U.N. inspectors to be allowed to finish their inspection regime under the conditions that UNMOVIC was established to persorm them in, which was six months for the initial stages of inspection. According to the Iraq Resolution in October, the president was required to exhaust peaceful, diplomatic methods before going to war. Not allowing UNMOVIV and IAEA the persiod of time that U.N. regulations have set up for them to do their work is a violation of that portion of the Iraq Reslution.

As with Kerry's votes against the intelligence budget, they were based on differnces in philsophies on intelligence. Kerry beleived in having intelligence on the ground, in the form of people, the budgets that Kerry did not support were for new gizmos to be built by companies in the various districts of the people pushing those budgets.

In the Senate, Kerry is among the Senators who are currently in the senate who have taken the leaset money from special interests. He is in the bottom 10 people in this arena. Edwards is not.


Kerry also has not taken special interst, pac, or lobbyist money for his campaigns.

Both Edwards and Dean glossed over they have received from lobbyists during this 2004 campaign. A good deal of Edwards campaign finncing at the beginning of his campaign came directly from other trial lawyers.

Though Edwards attacks NAFTA for its effects on job loss in the United States, far more jobs have been lost to China and Asia that were ever lost to Mexico and Canada under NAFTA, which also effectively created many of the new jobs created during Clinton's presidency. Edwards did vote for the trade liberalization bill with China which has been the primary source of job loss since 2000. Very few jobs have been moved to Mexico or Canada during the last 3.5 years in which 3.5 million jobs were lost. America began to lose those jobs after the China trade legislation was signed, and America gained jobs duiring the years between the time that NAFTA was signed, and The Chinese Trade Liberlaization bill was signed.


Although Edwards criticized Kerry for taking money from lobbyists, the North Carolina senator accepted one donation in 2002 directly from a lobbying firm and collected more than $80,000 from people who aren't formally registered as lobbyists yet work for lobbying firms in Washington. Edwards also has accepted more than $150,000 worth of flights aboard the corporate jets of special interests.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/020304_ap_2004election_SCsweep.html

Already, Republicans are attacking Edwards for getting 40 percent of his cmapaign contributions from trial lawyers, while at the same time blcoking tort reform. While this isnt as much of an issue among registered Democratic voters, it is a powerful argument for Republicans to use against Edwards among one of the groups that helped Edwardsto do as well in Wisconsin as he did. That was Republicans. The discontinuity between Edwards statements about tort reform as candidate, statements that indicate that he takes large sums of campaign contributions from trial lawyers, and the fact that he has voted against tort reform frequently is just one of the elements that couls easily be turned against Edwards. In the latest states, it has been Kerry, not Edwards, who has drawn the largest portion of the poor and minorities, not Edwards. Edwards is most vulnerable to Republican attack among the very people who are swinging from Bush to Edwards. Kerry has greatly out distanced Edwards among the core Democratic constituency, while still having almost as godd an appeal to some of the people who support Edwards.

Edwards has only won one states so far, South Carolina. ANd came a close second in another state. Wisconsin.Both these statesahad marked similarities. WHen South Carolina dropped its official requirement for Democratic Voters to sign the oath binding them to the Democratic Party, it gave independets an impetus to vote. Same thing happened in Wisconsin. While swing votes are important to win elections, the first rule is to secure the core constituency, and then move on to court the swing voters. When we look at the breakdown in support for candidates in some of the upcoming states, the profile of voters who are supporting Kerry, in places like New York are the same profle as the independent voters in Wisconsin who supported Edwards. In New York, polls show Kerry doing far better in both the suburbs of New York City, and in all of rural upstate New York.

While Edwards has a far shorter record of voting than Kerry, that short record is just as subject to attakc by the Bush campaign as Kerry's if not more. This combined with his far shorter experience in Foreign Affairs and National Security are another liablity to Edwards. He has some experience, but not more than George Bush can claim. Kerry on the other hand, can claim significantly more foreign relations and national security experience than Edwards. It was Kerry who started the move towards dealing with Saddam Hussein in 1998, with letters to CLinton which resulted in the Iraq Liberation ACt of 1998" The fact that Kerry was reuctant to go to war after less than sis months of sanctions in 1991, but gave Saddam Hussein a good number of years of going to the U.N. getting resolutions, placing economic sanctions, and then and only then after giving a considerable period of time for compliance deciding that diplomatic measures had been exhausted, indicates considerable forebearance, aswell as diplmatic experience that will play in favor of Kerry, and against Bush, whi had decided to go to War regardless of the diplomatic measures ordered in the fall of 2002.

Kerry's record is a record of someone who will wait and utilize the international community before acting, and this differnce between him and George Bush can be clearly made by comparing the Gulf War of 1991, and the Iraq War of 2003.

Kerry was one of the co-sponsors of the 1998 legislation. But he also agreed it was to be held in abeyance after Kof Annan got Sadam Hussein to agree to allow imspectors back into Iraq. And later turned around and prevented them from doing inspections.

Edwards has met with Musharaf. So has Kerry. Kerry has also privately met with the security council to discuss their concerns about Iraq prior to the war, as well as having personal relationships with members of Tony Blair's Cabinet, who have recently met with Kerry.

Kerry has already had meetings with Gordon Brown, a member of Blair's cabinet. A Kerry win will spell massive problems for Tony Blair, but Kerry's relations with the British Labour Party is giving the Labor Party a sigh of relief. In order to stay in power, they can ditch Blair, and replace him with Labour candidate who is not tainted by Bush, as well as one who has the support of a Democratic President.

Edwards has shown that he has very little knowledge of the most important problems in the Middle East, the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

Edwards lack of experience in foreign affairs will be another strong point that the Bush Adminstration will use against him, as well as his total lack of executive experience. Kerry has served both as Lt Governor and Attorney General, both jobs falling in the executive arena of Government power.

Dont get me wrong. I like Edwards, but the fact that his flaws are not apparent, as not being in the spotlight, his record is not being dug into as deeply as Kerry's. Kerry has had many years of handleing these types of attacks, and they have never stuck. It was relatively easy for the media and Republicans to take down the Dean campaign, though Dean and his campign seem to beleive that somehow they were subject to the most severe attacks against a candidate for the nominatation in American History. His scream repeated a number of times on the evening news. For the better part of several years, everytime Gerald Ford tripped, it made the evening news, and they guy was pretty much made fun of almost continually on national TV, and "can you chew gum and walk at the same time?" developed for Gerald Ford, it has become a part of standard English, as well as the stupidity of Dan Quayle, and Potatoe or Potatoe.

In the end, it is better for a candidate for president to have a record that can be attacked, than a candidate who barely has a record at all. You cannot claim that he has just enough experience with less than one full term as senator. They do not even take the training wheels off during the first term

[katieforeman]

124. Nothing in my post is in Edwards voting record

1.) Yes Kerry and Edwards have similar records in the last 5 years. However, Edwards did not vote to cut intelligence. Edwards did not vote against the first gulf war etc. Everything in my post is in Kerry's voting record but not Edwards. That is my point. Republicans cannot say Edwards has been wrong for 30 years.

2.)They won't say Kerry's experience is a liability. They will use his long record to attack his judgement and integrity. His record is a liability. Technically, Bush has 3 years of experience as commander and cheif. Edwards and Kerry have no experience in this role. Should we elect Bush because he has more experience? I would say no because Bush has a terrible record because he lacks judgement and integrity.

3.)Independents and Republicans voting out of fear of terrorism will see these defense cuts as a negative. Thes are the voters Kerry is claiming he will be ablle too win over.

4.)The point is Kerry flip-flopped on the death penalty for terrorists. He opposed it and now that it's politically popular he's for it. This will be the Republican line of attack. People won't trust their security to someone who panders.

5.)I saw David Brooks on the Newshour last night listing lots of specific instances of Kerry writing letters and inserting amendments to protect contributors. Because Kerry has been in the Senate for nearly 20 years, Republicans will be able to find more instances of this in Kerry's record than in Edwards.

6.)The very people who are swinging to Edwards know he's a trial lawyer. Most of the people voting for Kerry probably don't know all of these specifics in his voting record.

7.)Edwards has more experience than Bush when he was elected. Bush can't argue that he is a good commander and cheif despite his inexperience when he was elected and argue that Edwards is too inexperienced to be a good commander and cheif. This is a self-contradictory argument. Like I said before, Edwards has more than enough experience to be knowledgeable and credible on national security. Edwards will seem much more in command of the facts than Bush in a debate.

I like Kerry too, but I think his record hurts him at least as much as it helps him and Kerry does not have the strengths that Edwards has as a candidate. These too young and inexperienced arguments were used against Clinton, Reagan, and Kennedy and they didn't work.

Please see my post- "top 10 reasons Edwards is the most electable" to see why I think Edwards is the better candidate. I'd be interested in your opinion.