Could a team of Obama and Edwards be unbeatable? They balance each other well

[Armstead]

I realize neither candidate would probably be willing to be the other's VP.

But if somehow they could team up as equal partners, they'd be amazing, because they balance each other so well....It's too bad tickets tend to be composed of a winner (the presidential nominee) and an also-ran (the veep). If somehow these two could overcome that, I believe they could be a match made in heaven.

They both share an inspirational ability to rouse the crowd with Big Ideas and a basic sense of hope. Both of them also have the potential to cross party lines, in terms of hitting core issues rather than less-important partisan divisions.

Beyond that, Edwards has the fire and the anger that is necessary to actually challenge the status quo. Obama has rational and cerebral qualities that could translate that into pragmatism (in a good way).

They'd also keep each other on target. Obama could soften the edges of Edwards, while Edwards could give Obama some more needed edge.

I think they'd also keep each other honest in dealing with Corporate America in a good cop bad cop way. Edwards could provide Obama with a needed populist balance, while Obama could be more of a negotiator.

Demographically, they are also a good balance in terms of realpolitik. Edwards is a white southern good ol' boy while Obama is a cosmopolitan northern racially-mixed African American. That could create a surprising coalition.

Also, although it is seen as a detrement now, Edwards original support for the Iraq War could also balance Obama's original opposition to the war. It would undercut any claims by the GOP that the Democratics are "soft" on national security when it matters.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

1. I think it would be a great team! They are like thinkers, IMHO - I think

either would serve as the other's VP - but it's too soon to give in to the other. Hopefully, closer to the convention one of the two will emerge as the stronger - then they can throw their delegates to the leader and hopefully, hopefully, hopefully have enough to stop Hillary - who will surely lose if elected (IMHO)

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. I swear I don't know how Edwards could EVER be VP for someone who even mentioned Reagan's name....

... it's not a matter of rehashing this crap again. It's a matter that no one I speak to understands how he could admire *anything* in someone who started a trend of impoverishing the middle class and further destroying the disenfranchised. And Edwards' message is almost (not quite but almost) exclusively that the Two Americas must end. And who was the #1 hero for the Repukes in creating the Two Americas, if not Reagan? It's almost nauseating.

So how would these two EVER mesh?

As for Edwards being VP for Hillary C., how the hell is she doing to extricate her lips from the butts of the rich and corporate? Is she saying she will? No. Will she do it? Of course not! She'll want more money to run a second term! She owes the the rich and corporate BIG TIME. She took their money and ran for office on it. How will she get out of giving them what they asked her to do in exchange for supporting her campaign? She won't.

How will Edwards deal with her kissing ass for corporate money?

I frankly don't know how the hell he would go with either. Both are so tainted it's not even funny.

[SammyWinstonJack]

4. Agree.

:thumbsup:

[Armstead]

5. I disagree with your interpretation of Obama's Reagan comments

IMO Obama spoke the truth about Reagan. I've felt the same way for a long time, and I'm pretty far on the leftern end of the spectrum.

Reagan represented and sold a horrible agenda for America. The GOP has carried on in the same vein.

However, in a totally objective and tactical sense, Reagan was a brilliant president and the GOP has been the party of ideas. Bad ideas, but real ideas in contrast to the Democrats whose only ideas have been to co-opt the GOP.

As rotten as it is, the truth is that Reagan and the GOP did transform America.

What we have long needed is a Ronald Reagan of the left. Someone with the same mass appeal and politcal appeal who would do the same for GOOD ideas that REagan did for bad ones. We have also needed a Democratic Party that is as committed to GOOD ideas as the GOP has been to BAD ideas.

As for Edwards being Hillary's VP, I never suggested that.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

7. No you really don't. You do, I believe, wish he hadn't invoked Reagan's name.....

.... he should not have. Even to compliment Reagan's shoes would've been a mistake. This man did so much damage to this country, and we're still living in the damage he caused.

[Armstead]

12. But we have to confront the problem to deal with it

I believe the biggest mistake the Democrats have made over the last 30 years has been to avoid the reality of what has happened. The political strength was so one sided that the entire spectrum got pulled in the wrong direction. That includes the Democrats, who basically gave up and allowed the current of Reaganism to swamp the country.

So, other than laying himself open to the lies of the Clintons, I do not regret what Obama said at all.

It is an analysis that democrats have to make in order to correct the larger situation.

If Bill Clinton, for example, had been as forceful for liberal/progressive ideals and policies as Reagan was for conservative/reactionary ones, this would be a much better country today, and the GOP would have been on the ropes long before this.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

14. He should not have mentioned that pig at all. Too many people have suffered at the hands of what

Reagan lent himself to do to the most helpless and to the middle class.

I agree that Dems allowed themselves to be swept up in it, but part of that is because the message about the truth of right wingerism was not spread far and wide.

We have to rid ourselves of this message now and OUR candidates need to stop admiring ANYTHING in pigs that hurt the nation.

[Armstead]

16. We'll have to agree to disagree on that

Denial is not a river in Egypt

I would prefer the Democrats to directly confront the Reagan legacy, rather than pretend it doesn't exist. That includes the fact that by supporting the GOP all these years many voters have been voting against their own self-interests.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

17. No Dem candidate should admire anything in a damaging pig. nt

[cali]

21. LOL!

the ignorance around here is often quite funny. Edwards himself has more than mentioned Reagan's name, and gone further than Obama by actually praising him. And this was recently in Foreign Relations magazine.

Silly as silly can be. You clearly know little about politics or politicians.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

23. Look, no one is immune, but to mention Reagan's name during a campaign to be the nominee for Dems...

... shows either that the man loves Reagan too much to be able to stay away from the topic, or that he's out of touch with the people that would vote for him, the Dems, who stood against everything Reagan stood for. It's really not that complicated. But now it's done.

Believe me, I don't think Obama is any worse than Hillary C. I could write volumes about how much I despise some things done by Bill Clinton, such as giving the seal of approval to NAFTA, moving forward the "Don't ask don't tell" bs, and lots of other incredibly stupid things, or even that his wife (who now kisses corporate ass quite nicely) was a REPUBLICAN when Bill met her, something no one is mentioning and ought to.

I sit here waiting for either Bill C., Hillary C. or Obama to talk about how to turn the clock back to a time when the rich and their corporations did not rule every F thing in this country, or even say that they WANT TO turn the clock back. Fact is, they don't want to. They like it just like it is, ugly for everyone in the middle class on down.

However, Edwards is doing nothing but talking about that exact issue and that's what needs to be done NOW.

[MonkeyFunk]

3. No

a one-term senator and a half-term senator?

[Armstead]

6. Rather than a One-and-A-Half term senator?

Hardly a huge advantage in terms of actual experience in office.

[MonkeyFunk]

9. Yes

a one and a half-term senator who won't pick another junior senator as her running mate.

[Armstead]

15. We'll see

[protect our future]

8. Supposedly the Obama campaign is quietly saying Edwards will be

Attorney General in an Obama administration.

It was reported on Washington Journal (CSPAN) this morning, but I didn't catch the source.

He's my choice for AG. I cannot imagine anyone better. Since the Obama campaign is pretty smart, I tend to believe they realize this and that the report is true.

[Triana]

10. Edwards has said he didn't want the VP spot...

...on the Tyra show. I'm not crazy about Tyra but he did say that when an audience member asked him that very question.

[Armstead]

13. I acknowledged that in my post

Maybe my speculations are fantasy. It's just that somehow I'd like to see them as a team.

[JBoy]

20. Well, no candidate is going to say they'd accept the VP role. n/t

[Colobo]

11. A great team... A great ticket!

[Joe Chi Minh]

18. "Obama has rational and cerebral qualities that could translate that into pragmatism (in a good

way)".

Obama has no rational and cerebral qualities that Edwards doesn't have at.all. Rather, it is the other way round. Assuming that Obama really believes Democrats can "reach across the aisle" and not be eaten up in one swift mouthful, then both he and you are the ones who are lacking in pragmatism.

"Making nice" to uncompromisingly dismissive opponents when you have the whip-hand is only perceived by them as weakness. And rightly so. It's no good being able to read the lessons of the past, if you can't even take on-board the simple lessons of the present. You don't need to look in the crystal ball, when you can read the book. It's all on record. What accommodation of any significance do you think the Republicans have made with the majority Democrats since 2004?

[Armstead]

22. I think you missed my point

I personally identify much more with Edwards' fire and anger the towards the Corporate Special Intereets than with Obama's accomodating stance....Ad by extension the GOP's relattionship to it.

But frankly, that is also why a moderating factor is necessary. They are not going to go away, and they are going to have to be dealt with to get anything done.

It also depends on the circumstances. Sometimes a no-compromise approach is necessary. But there are timeds when negotiation and common ground also are necessary.

[Joe Chi Minh]

24. Well, to that I would reply that that is a just matter of common-sense "getting along",

and frankly, I would attribute that kind of "horse sense" far more readily to Edwards than to Obama.

However, in a half honest election, Edwards would win in such a landslide that, frankly the Republicans on Capitol Hill would be effectively (or ineffectively...) redundant. Indeed, I think they are finished as a party. So, it would be a matter of civility rather than of compromise, at least until they learnt the meaning of the word. Which however, seems to be even beyond their powers of imagination.

It still wouldn't be all good news for the American people, because without a viable opposition, Democratic administrations would become increasingly complacent, arrogant and self-serving. You would always need a viable opposition. Something we don't have in the UK, which is wall-to-wall corporatist.

[Honeycombe8]

19. I don't like that idea. I'm turned off by the hateful Edwards supporters.

Some of them, in their last minute desperation, have gone too far in vitriolic, untruthful posts about the likely winners.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I'd think twice before voting for any ticket with Edwards on it.