Edwards on ticket would diminish the Nader factor.

[Eric J in MN]

Like Nader, John Edwards is also a trial lawyer, a supporter of civil justice, and a supporter of government reform.

If the ticket is Edwards/Kerry or Kerry/Edwards, I think most people who care about Nader's issues would vote for the Democratic ticket.

[lancdem]

1. I think the Nader factor is miniscule anyway

He may not even get on the ballot. BTW, I do like a Kerry/Edwards or Edwards/Kerry ticket.

[H2O Man]

2. Good point.

A democratic administration should be a coalition of the forces that have been involved thus far. There is room for Clark (Sec of State); Dean (Health & Human Services; Gephardt (Labor); etc. It would insure a democratic victory.

[carpetbagger]

4. History's shown cabinet handouts troublesome.

Lincoln had to do it to secure the 1860 nomination, and he got stuck with a cabinet he could barely deal with.

[Zinfandel]

3. I know Dennis Kuninich would be an asset to any ticket...Or are only

DLC and corporate media choice's allowed? Have all of you Kerry supporters been supporters of this corporate candidate from day one? Or is like all those people who change teams and like the teams that just won the Super Bowl or World Series?

How many have really studied Kuninich's ideas and platform? What don't you like about his liberal, progressive, FDR democrat, ideas?

At the very least his ideas need to be heard by main steam America. Kuninich is a true democrat in all sense of the word...the kind of democrat that fights for unions against corporations, the kind of democrat your father or grandfather would of been proud to know and support.

Not a corporate tool, who is ignored and can't even get any respect from many on this here democratic forum.

[mzmolly]

5. Edwards/Dean - Dean/Edwards...

:P

[Bombtrack]

6. That would never happen

ever, ever, ever

[mzmolly]

8. Why, why, why?

:shrug:

Edwards needs a Governor, and a Northerner so????

[Bombtrack]

10. Edwards doesn't need a governor, and definetly not someone from

Vermont. The 2 worst states a democrat could run from strategically are Vermont and Massachusetts, and there is no sane reason to believe it would make any sense for that 2 be an appealing state for a vp to come from, and there is no reason to believe that that isn't the last region of the country a democrat should worry about. The entire region of the northeast minus Pennsylvania has a total 9 swingvotes, composed of Maine and New Hampshire. Compared with the south with which a strong non MA or VT dem candidate could see 70 -90 swing electoral votes or the midwest with just as many as that

Edwards is going to pick someone with more foriegn policy experience than him, not less, as Dean does. Dean wouldn't make even a halfway decent choice for any democrat who's run in this race. Not even close. All he would do is lose hundreds of thousands if not millions of votes directly because of people who didn't want him a heartbeat away, and more indirectly compared to what a good vp choice could bring. Like Graham, who has gravitas, likability, and has won the most important swingstate 5 times. Like Clark, who would innoculate the foriegn policy gap for Edwards more than any other choice AND make Arkansas a solid tossup for Edwards in all probablity. Or a bunch of others (Jay Rockefeller, Carl Levin, Joe Biden, Dick Durbin)

[mzmolly]

11. Actually - I disagree, both Candidates NEED a Governor.

Many *in the know* are touting the importance of that..

Regarding Graham ... To say BG - is more popular than Dean is ridiculous, and there is plenty of evidence to support that it's ridiculous. Namely Graham dropped out in about 2 months, Dean was the front runner until very recently.

[AP]

7. There won't so much be a Nader vote factor. However, Nader is going

to use his platform to stir up a populist message. Edwards is in the best place to capitalize on it.

[cryofan]

9. That is a weak thesis. Why? Because JE is less liberal than JK

Did you watch the ABC This Week JK and JE interviews with Stephanopoulos? Did you listen the specifics of their healthcare plans? What percent of the uninsured did JK and JE cover and how much would each one want to spend on that extra healthcare coverage? Here are the specifics as I recall them:

JE would spend less and cover fewer people. That makes him LESS LIBERAL than JK.

Nader is more liberal than either; therefore Edwards would be less likely to attract Nader voters (like me).

[HFishbine]

13. JE Health Care Plan

I welcome a correction if I'm wrong about this, but if I understand it correctly, I think JE's health plan is headed for serious opposition, even from democrats. He want's to compell people to buy health insurance for their children. I think that's going to meet some resitance.

[AP]

15. He wants people to begin equating health insurance for your kids with

schooling your kids -- it's something vital, which you can get privately or publicly, and you better do it.

For employed parents, they'll already have it. For the self employed, and idle rich, you better get it. There will be gov't subsidized private plans which insurance co's will be required to provide on the grounds that they make so much money off their other plans, it's the least they could do (they'll be accused of hating kids if they don't, and we do everything for kids in America). And if you're too poor and you can't afford any, there will be a totally free government provided plan.

So basically, if you have the money, and you don't have insurance for you kids, you better go out and get some.

In the same way that nobody's ever prosecuted for not educating their kids, nobody will be prosecuted for not insuring their kids. The compulsion will be the same, however.

[HFishbine]

17. Thanks for the clarification

The thing I don't like about this is it forces people to make a private purchase. It's quite unlike your example of public or private schools because there is no public school equivelent for health insurance (tax funded, free to all).

It forces those who can afford it to pay money to private insurers. Now, this isn't a legal question, we compel people to buy car insurance. But is making a mandatory market for insurance companies realy a progressive idea when it comes to health care?

[Piperay]

12. Kerry/Edwards or Edwards/Kerry

would make a winning team irregardless of ralphie.

[robbedvoter]

14. Uh, so the key issue in 2004 is trial lawyers, civil justice?

That's why W is getting crowned at grownd Zero! Al Righty then!

[jmoss]

16. what in the heck does that mean?

Why do some DU'ers keep mentioning "crowned atground zero" tonight? If this is a forum about Democratic issues, why are we highlighting the aftermath of 9/11 and what our President did.

Beating GW goes way beyond terrorism. That debate won't work. On at least 1 occasion, Pres. Clinton passed up a deal to bring in Bin Laden. We screwed up big time, and thousands tragically paid with their lives. If the events of 9/11 become a hard topic of debate, we have all lost. We need to debate about moving foward, building back up our economy, creating jobs, and renewing confidence in our government. This,alone, will be enough to win back the White House.

By the way, I believe John Edwards is the person to take on this debate!

[corporatewhore]

18. if he said he would pull outta nafta he would get green and libertarian

votes but i dont see that happening