Kerry vs. Edwards; Edwards vs. Kerry

[question everything]

George S., on ABC This Week talked to both, trying to compare and contrast their stands on several issues.

And.... one would have to be hard pressed to find major differences. Were more of nuances.

So I think that the difference is a matter of personal taste - by us.

Kerry - the tall, patrician, veteran, a bit aloof with a "Washington insider" baggage and, perhaps, a Yankee liberal who would not be able to attract voters from the South and Southwest?

Edwards - a charming, personable without the "Washington insider" baggage, who could attract Southern voters but who may not be able to measure up to the "war president?"

(Yes, of course we know that four years ago Bush did not know much about anything outside of Texas, not to mention outside the U.S., but we are dealing with too many "Me Tarzan, you Jane" voters who like to be fed pre-digested opinions.")

So I guess we are back to "electablity." And, BTW, this was why Bush was drafted to run four years ago in the first place. Because of his "electablity" - for Pubs. A Bush who would redeem the family honor by defeating a Clinton heir.. Ugh..

[sallyseven]

1. But he didn't win.

We was robbed.

[sallyseven]

2. And another thing

most of his voters are now out of work. Not the rich guys but the marginal people.

[brainwashed_youth]

3. They have a fight, Kerry wins

Apparently Kerry must be doing something right, he did win Tennessee and Virginia

[IndianaGreen]

4. I like Edwards, I loath Kerry

On the likability meter, Edwards wins hands down!

[liberalnurse]

5. Ant that is a sentiment which is spreading

far and wide. Word is out about kerry and his antics.....it is not a good thing for kerry. Edwards has been straight-up.....he has honorable leadership characteristics and implements them effectively.

[KittyWampus]

21. Edwards LIED About Being Son of a Millworker

and he LIES about being an "outsider".

Edwards has ZERO leadership in regards our foreign policy. He is happy to tie 9/11 and Iraq together.

Further, he is now fear-mongering about JOBS... spewing Dean's failed Protectionist rhetoric.

People don't like those who use public office the way Edwards does... he's the version of the guy who runns for school board just as a stepping stone to Town Supervisor... just writ large.

Edwards only became Senator to launch his presidential bid.

[IndianaGreen]

26. Kerry voted for NAFTA

NAFTA has made more American jobs to go overseas than anything else the Bush Administration has done.

[arewethereyet]

32. simply untrue

Dad WAS a millworker who worked hard and earned a promotion. WHere's the lie ?

Where is all this Kerry foreign policy experience ?

The jobs issue is real, can't ignore it. Are more NAFTA's going to make it better or worse ?

It doesn't matter if you don't care for Edwards but these transparant lies are not helping you make your case.

[GreenArrow]

16. I can tolerate Kerry, I detest Edwards

bit of a phoney, that bloke is.

[sandnsea]

6. Edwards

The smarmy, oily, trial lawyer funded by trial lawyers who has no experience and wouldn't even win his own state if he were the nominee.

Kerry - The fighter with a core of steel who has retained the loyalty of his entire crew for 35 years and has fought for every single Democratic issue every single day in his 20 years in office.

I can play too.

[cavebat2000]

8. im sorry but you painted pictures are more like caracatures

of the extremes of each candidate. Doesn't fly with me.

[sandnsea]

14. And this is??

"the tall, patrician, veteran, a bit aloof with a "Washington insider" baggage and, perhaps, a Yankee liberal who would not be able to attract voters from the South and Southwest"

Kerry does have the loyalty of his crew after 35 years. He just had another crewmember that he hadn't seen in 35 years show up to campaign. It's not a charicature, it's true. And he has been fighting for every single solitary Democratic issue since the day he stepped into the Senate. Why people are denying it is beyond me. It's perverse and dimented.

It's hysterical because the reason we're supposed to support Edwards is because of this LONG liberal record of Kerry's; but the same people DENY he's been a champion of liberal values for 20 years.

People are OUT of their minds.

[citizen snips]

9. The lawyer argument does not work.

There have been a lot of great presidents who have been lawyers like Clinton. Lawyers are very electable and a Vietnam Viet has never been elected president.

[sandnsea]

15. It's not an argument

It's to show how idiotic some of these slams against Kerry are. I can make just as idiotic slams against Edwards.

And it's about goddamn time a Vietnam Vet was elected President. It's about goddamn time those who actually served were treated at least with the same amount of respect as those who dodged.

[spooky3]

7. I guess it's a matter of what "electability" means to you

if you believe their positions on issues are so similar (and I think to most voters, they are).

It seems to me that if * was "electable" (with the obvious caveat that Gore won) because he was "likable", then we need to see his "likability" and raise him one. And that is John Edwards.

[KittyWampus]

22. So Edwards Can Be A Likeable Puppet Like Bush?

[Nicholas_J]

10. Edwards only political experience

Is as a Washington Insider.

And his experience there is nominal. He has a record of voting in the Senate. It is not significantly different than Kerry's. ANd Edwards is ignoring most of the Super Tusday states, leaving seven out of ten of these states firmly in Kerry's pockets, most important, California, where he is beginning to be endorsed by Sacrtamento papers.

Even strong Super Tuesday showing may not save Edwards
By JASON LEFFERTS
, Sun Staff

The one-on-one battle between senators John Edwards and John Kerry for the Democratic presidential nomination may change the dynamic of the race, but it may not change the standings.

The 10-state delegate feast of the March 2 Super Tuesday is the focus of both Edwards of North Carolina and Kerry of Massachusetts, and they are looking at the 1,500-plus delegates with different strategies and different goals.

For Kerry, a dominating performance across the map could essentially end the primary season and allow him to focus on the general election against President George W. Bush. As he has in other multi-state primary dates, Kerry will likely throw resources and advertising into every state.


http://www.lowellsun.com/Stories/0,1413,105~4746~1972783,00.html

Today, the Sacramento Bee endorsed Kerry noting the differnces between Edwards and Kerry come down to experence and not much else:

Kerry is the choice
His record distinguishes him for Democrats

February 22, 2004

Sacramento Bee
Editorial



Primary voters choosing a Democratic candidate for president on the March 2 ballot face the sort of decision that has become commonplace in American politics. Ten names appear on the ballot, but the actual choice is between John Kerry and John Edwards - which is to say between a candidate whose long experience in public life has exposed his strengths and flaws and one who brings a compellingly fresh face to politics.

In this instance, it is not easy to decide.

Edwards, a first-term senator from North Carolina, is the surprise of the primary season. He has proved to be a formidable campaigner. He has displayed all the skills that made him a successful trial lawyer. He is quick on his feet and able to communicate with and empathize with ordinary people. He has been remarkably disciplined in his campaign, sticking with his strategy and his message. If he remains untested in the crucible of national politics, he also remains unscathed by months of exposure to voters across the country.

Kerry, by contrast, is a known quantity thanks to 20 years as a senator from Massachusetts, and in his campaign he has exhibited much that long has been known about him. He is more apt to be ponderous than spontaneous, more likely to dwell on the nuances of a subject than to utter the sort of glib answers that grab headlines and the attention of voters. Like anyone in the Senate for two decades, he is no stranger to interest-group politics and the art of compromise.

Beyond these issues of style and experience, not a great deal separates the candidates. (A recent exception might be Edwards' seeming conversion to a more protectionist trade policy. A close reading of the two candidates' positions, though, reveals this to be more of a difference in emphasis and communication style than of substance.) How, then, are Democratic voters to choose?

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2004_0222c.html

[spooky3]

17. Fresno Bee endorses Edwards

This just came from the Edwards campaign via email:

Edwards for president

Democrat offers clear vision of a more hopeful future for nation.

(Updated Sunday, February 22, 2004, 7:00 AM)

"It's time for a new vision for America, one that offers opportunity for all citizens, not just a coddling of the narrow interests that have been protected for too long in Washington, D.C. John Edwards represents that hope for change, and we urge Democratic and independent voters in California's March 2 primary election to support the North Carolina senator.

Edwards, the former trial lawyer, is the underdog in a Democratic primary season that has mostly belonged to Sen. John Kerry. But in California, and in the other Super Tuesday states, voters have the opportunity to see both of these candidates head to head, and that plays to Edwards' strength as a campaigner.

Residents of the San Joaquin Valley understand Edwards' message of the need to bridge the "two Americas" that have divided the nation along class lines. The Valley's long-standing poverty and lack of access to quality health care, fair-paying jobs and educational opportunity have been enabled by leaders who continue to reinforce the status quo.

Edwards understands the changing nature of America and speaks to the future, and the need to extend opportunity to everyone. Finally, we have a fighter for the underclass and middle class. The skill that Edwards displayed as a trial lawyer will help him break the logjam of stale ideas that has become a Washington mainstay.

Edwards, who has stayed on message even while Kerry has been collecting delegates at an extraordinary pace, must win big from here on out to have any chance at the Democratic nomination. An Edwards victory in California would send a powerful message to the rest of the nation that voters are ready to set a new course for America -- one that includes opportunities for all.

There's a real choice in the 2004 presidential campaign between the tired old politics of special-interests controlling the fate of most Americans and the opportunity for all of us to have a hand in the decisions that send our children off to war, or determine whether our grandparents will be able to afford adequate health care.

California voters can help bring everyday Americans back into the discussion of the nation's future by supporting Edwards on March 2."

[sandnsea]

19. Freeperland?

I'm glad for Edwards, but I'm not sure I would have posted that endorsement here!!

[AP]

25. Edwards is a veteran of how most Americans experience life: the only thing

you get in life is what you make for yourself in a society which provides an infranstructure which allows it. How many Americans only ever go to a public school? Most? How many never went to a public school? How many never marry rich or inherit nothing? How many have never taken out a loan on anything (other than their 20 million dollar townhouse so that they can run an Iowa presidential primary campaign)?

Edwards has experience. It's a different kind of experience compared to Kerry's, but it isn't less valuable or less important. Lincoln had the same experience and it proved to be very valuable.

[katieforeman]

11. Electablity=Edwards

War hero status and/or experience don't win elections even after 9-11.

Bob Dole was an experienced war hero. Max Cleland was a war hero. George Bush Senior was an experienced in foreign policy and a veteran.
They all lost.

Reagan and Clinton had no military experience. They won twice.

[cryofan]

12. One clear difference: HEALTHCARE

They both admit that Kerry's plan will cover a lot more people than Edwards' plan. And it will cost more. And the cost is what Edwards is leery of.

But that is what most Americans want: the govt to get more involved in healthcare.

I would say that Kerry looks more progressive to me.

[DjTj]

13. but they're going up against Bush...

Electability is a question about the GE and how much coverage their health plans give will not matter at all when Bush has no plan at all.

[katieforeman]

18. I think Edwards is a better spokesman for the Progressive agenda.

It's true that Kerry has a good health care plan. However, I think it's very important that Edwards' plan covers all children and Kerry's doesn't.

Politically, universal coverage for children is difficult to oppose and even more difficult to undo once enacted. Edwards argument that health care for children should be a universal right like public education is difficult for anyone to disagree with. Can Republicans aregue that children should take more personal responsibility or that childrens should have access to medical savings accounts instead of insurance?

I consider myself a progressive also, and what I find so attractive about John Edwards is his ability to articulate a progressive vision. Kerry has some good policies, but they are no more than a collection of proposals. Edwards' policies are part of a larger progressive vision for One America. I think Edwards can do for Progressive causes what Ronald Reagan did for the conservative movement. Edwards can inspire a generation with a positive, optimistic message.

In the long run, Edwards ability to speak of poverty and race as moral issues will do more to further progressive causes than Kerry's list of policy ideas.

I'd be very interested in your opinion.

[sandnsea]

20. Kerry's covers every child

A New Deal to Provide Health Coverage to Every Child. Kerry's plan would assure that the Federal government picks up the cost of the nearly 20 million kids enrolled in Medicaid in exchange for states covering kids in the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

· Making Sure All Children Are Eligible. Kerry’s swap plan would require states to cover children in families making up to $60,000; eliminate the current 5-year waiting period for eligibility for legal immigrant pregnant women and children; and enable children with disabilities to keep their health care coverage when their parents return to work.

· Assuring Automatic Enrollment. The Kerry plan would assure every child gets health care coverage by automatic enrolling kids when they come to school with a simple form. Since the Federal government would be picking up the costs for these kids, this would not undermine states' fiscal situation.

Edwards wants to make it a law that children are required to have health insurance which is government sticking its nose into the business of families and would be the FIRST thing to go if it were proposed to Congress.

[katieforeman]

23. Has governement requiring kids to be educated been eliminated?

Edwards plan is the only way to gaurentee that every child is actually covered.

[sandnsea]

28. Yes

Government does require every child to be educated. Even homeschooled kids have to register in most states. Kerry's plan would work completely and would actually be more appealing to right wingers because there's no government regulation to it. They just go to school, day care, or wherever, and fill out a form. Just like they do with free lunches. That's why Kerry's health care plan is better on every front, it gets the job done and gives the right NO ammunition.

And this is only one small portion of it, there's plans to reduce costs for small business, help the unemployed, help low-income workers, and buy into the federal program if no other insurance is available. It's the best plan out there and there is coverage for EVERYBODY.

[katieforeman]

30. That's my point.

Government requires kids to be educated. Government can require kids to be covered by health insurance. When health insurance isn't mandatory you run into adverse selection problems. Some parents will choose not to insure their kids either because they are irresponsible or because it is too expensive. They will wait until there is an illness and then go to the emergency room. When parents of healthy kids opt out it shrinks the risk pool. By mandating universal coverage for kids you don't have this problem.

What about my central point? I said both candidates have some good policy ideas, but that Edwards articulates a coherent progressive theory of government. Kerry has a laudry list of proposals, some of them very good, but he does not articulate a unifying vision.

[KittyWampus]

24. The PNAC Agenda Trumps All Attempts At Progressive Domestic Agenda

And Edwards is comfortable with the PNAC.

[katieforeman]

27. What does PNAC stand for?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

31. Project for a New American Century

the 21st century of American world domination. A little scary on its face.

[Paulie]

29. We'll see what happens if either of them are standing next to bush...

in a debate.

bush is going to congratulate them on voting with him on several "important" matters. They will then "agree" with him on several other topics. Then I will immediately :puke:

Ah well, the meme is they are electable.

Vote Ham Sandwich (D) - 2004