JOHN EDWARDS wins CNN Veepstakes! (62% Edwards -38% Clark)

[chimpymustgo]

WHO WILL JOHN KERRY PICK AS HIS RUNNING MATE?

Veepstakes: Edwards the most likely VP nominee
CNN.com users predict Kerry will pick N.C. senator

(CNN) -- More than two months after he halted his own presidential bid, Sen. John Edwards has been chosen by CNN.com users as the Democrats’ most likely vice presidential nominee.

A 15-day survey of 54,385 users indicated that Edwards -- besting 31 contenders -- is the person whom presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry will most likely select to round out his presidential ticket.

Edwards defeated Wesley Clark, a retired four-star general and another 2004 Democratic presidential primary contender, 62 percent to 38 percent in the contest's fifth and final round. (View full game card)

The senator from North Carolina surged in early 2004 to become Kerry's chief Democratic rival late in the primary season. Kerry cinched the party's presidential nomination only after Edwards ended his campaign after the March 2 "Super Tuesday" primaries.

-snip-

CNN.com's Veepstakes contest holds special significance with Kerry, who topped all other competitors in the 2000 survey of then-Democratic nominee Al Gore's most likely running mates. But, while Kerry made the short list of vice presidential picks, Gore chose Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.

-snip-


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/veepstakes/misc/final.html

Full results, recap, brackets and analysis.

Kerry/Edwards '04. And beyond...

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. So it was freeped

Damn. These people are everywhere.

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[chimpymustgo]

2. LOL! Edwards wins every poll except here at DU...

I'm sure Kerry will make the right call. But Edwards is definitely "the people's choice"!

[Doosh]

14. lol!

yea, just like the primaries were "freeped" I'm sure!

any more excuses?

[Dookus]

3. Congratulations to Edwards and his supporters...

I'll always be a Clark guy, but I'm quite fond of Edwards. If he does end up with the nomination, I won't be disappointed.

But Clark's a better choice. ;)

[Awsi Dooger]

4. Is that worth 2000 presidential delegates?

Just checking, and a wee bit sloshed.

[spooky3]

5. Thanks, CMG. Congratulations to JRE. I hope Kerry listens to the

drumbeat.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. And I hope that...

The media finally gets that Wes Clark is a viable and popular potential VP choice. They have long known that about John Edwards. It is Clark who they attempt to dismiss as a failed campaigner, yet he still came out on top of a diverse and well known group of seasoned Democrats, with the meaningful exception of John Edwards.

[Darkamber]

11. I should point out...

that it was the voters and not the media who saw Edwards as the best bet for VP and it started way back in NH. Just check the write in ballots for VP and see how many people then voted for Edwards for VP.
Or even back in Iowa when voters said, my head says Kerry but my heart says Edwards. Why in the world wouldn't those voters want to put their head and heart together in a Kerry/Edwards ticket?

And the Draft Kerry/Edwards movement started about the time of NH as well. I remember how made we were as Edwards supporters because everyone kept saying that Edwards would be a great VP. Even in my own Caucus in WA, they were taking Kerry/Edwards ticket. That was done by voters and people like you and me and had nothing to do with the media.

Wes Clark would be a great Sec. of State. His background and his skills scream Sec. of State. I think he would be much happier working with Foreign Leaders trying to solve the problems of US relations then going and doing fundraisers for Sen and House Democrats around the Country.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. I don't disagree my friend, however

So much of what goes into what leads the public to chose a VP candidate in a poll, or whatever, has to do with public positive exposure received by that person. That is the reason why both Bush and Kerry now do major media buys, to the tune of tens of millions. It influences voter opinions. During the primaries media buys more often were in the hundreds of thousands, or a million or two at the very most. Not enough to effect a broad public. Free media was the primary driving force for voter recognition. That was one reason why Dean did so well in polls at first. Edwards had virtually 3 weeks of heavy free media after Clark withdrew, and a few weeks before that after Iowa where he was the hot new story just when people started tuning into the elections.

My only point is the point I tried to make. That Clark came in second nationwide, above all of the big name democrats other than Edwards. I do not mean to minimize Edwards undeniable appeal. Just stating that the media previously resisted granting that Wes Clark also has strong appeal, and I hope they will now fess up and include his name everytime they throw out Richardson or Warner or whoever, other than Edwards, as strong contenders.

[BootinUp]

22. You still have the touch

a very respectful and intelligent reponse.

:toast:

[PeaceProgProsp]

25. It would have been interesting had Dean been included.

One might conclude that the candidates are just finishing according to their performance in the primaries, but you'd really need Dean in there too.

[surfermaw]

27. You got that right, we need Dean, Clark and Edwards and all the rest/

[DemonFighterLives]

7. Edwards would be good

A few Bush apologists that I know were pulling for Edwards. With Edwards out of the running, they have drifted back into the *Regime's camp. Also seems that a bunch of righties really hate Clark. Edwards may have some crossover appeal.

[Padraig18]

8. "Edwards may have some crossover appeal"

No doubt about it--- none whatsoever. Everry open primary proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[citizen snips]

20. Edwards is having crossover appeal here at NC.

A Kerry/Edwards ticket is at a dead heat against Bush in North Carolina. Not only would Edwards bring independents but also angry conservatives to finally vote democratic. If Edwards can bring NC into play he can also bring SC into play.

[surfermaw]

28. North Carolina is going Democratic, come November

I think...Republicans are angry with Bush, not saying much , but not taking up for him, I think many of them will just stay home and just not have their votes counted. Younger kid out of college are going mostly or at least over half for Kerry/Edwards

[napi21]

9. Why do you think this vote was freeped?

Clark is a good and very capable man, but think about what a Preesidential candidate should be looking for in a VP....

Strength in areas where the candidate is weak.

One of Kerry's weaknesses is his serious, somber appearance. Some people say he's aloof. True or not, that's the perception. Clark is also quiet spoken and relatively serious. Edwards is energetic, revs the crowd and is pretty good with the glib comebacks.

Another percieved weakness is that Kerry is from the NE elite crowd. I don't see aproblem with that, but I'm a Yankee. Edwards has made a lot of coming from a working class background, and lots of people can relate to that.

I still believe Kerry will chose someone who will be a surprise to everyone. Thinking back to prior years, that's almost always been true. (Johnson, Agnew, Quail, Gore, Cheney, Liberman). I just hope his choice can help get the Country excited again!

[Thrill]

10. I bet he suprises everyone

and names Gov Mark Warner. I just have a feeling

[progdonkey]

12. Warner

I'll be really upset if Kerry chooses Warner. Virginia always goes Republican, so it's risky to choose a Virginian, (no guarantee of carrying the state) and Warner's our first Democratic governor in a while in VA. He's doing a good job, and we need him in the governor's mansion for the full term.

[chimpymustgo]

15. Definitely keep Mark Warner in VA.

He's got his work cut out for him there. And he's doing a good job. But not enough experience and no national name recognition.

[spooky3]

19. and none of the other strengths JRE would bring to the ticket.

[robbedvoter]

16. I hope it comes with a trophy - congratulations!

[WI_DEM]

17. like John Kerry is going to go by the results of this survey

Al Gore certainly didn't. I do favor Edwards over Clark but I don't think either is going to be chosen by Kerry. I think he will choose Dick Gephardt.

[robbedvoter]

18. Sure he will! remember the CNN signs at his rally? What were they?

Long live CNN? "We love CNN"? help me here. What were the signs saying?

[PeaceProgProsp]

21. Nobody claimed CNN was lying when CNN tallied the votes for

Clark in all the brackets up to this one.

Clark did a lot better in this poll then he does relative to Edwards in all the primaries in the last 7 weeks where they're both on the ballot, and he did a lot better than he did in the exit polls on Super Tuesday when voters were asked who they want on the ticket.

So, hopefully CNN isn't lying. Maybe this is a sign of Clark gaining popularity.

[MoonRiver]

23. I just want us to win!

If its Edwards and we win, :bounce:!!! Edwards is young and will be ready to take office in 2012, so that's a plus. I adore Clark and think he should be our nominee, or at least the VP, but I won't begrudge Edwards or anybody else if they help us WIN! Let's get this campaign going and TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY!!!

:kick:

[mzmolly]

24. I have yet to see a VP poll that Edwards didn't win?

:shrug:

[PeaceProgProsp]

26. I think part of the reason is because one of the strategies

used to beat Edwards in the primaries was to create the sense in voters that he'd be a great VP. Everyone was selling him as the VP early on. It probably worked to get a lot of votes for Kerry, and might have brought a quicker end to the primaries (even if it didn't make the difference in the nomination). However, the other side of that sword is that it has created an expectation that Edwards will be the VP nominee. If he's not nominated, there might be a palpable disappointment among voters who felt that was what they were voting for.

[Darkamber]

32. This is exactly right...

And it had nothing to do with bias media towards Edwards. There was a feeling from NH onward that Edwards would be a great VP. Democrats responded to his message and liked his stands on jobs, economy, health care, but they wanted someone with more experience. The vote went to Kerry, but Kerry and Edwards were very close on the issues.

There has been expectations from nearly the beginning that it would be a Kerry/Edwards ticket. The problem is if Kerry doesn't pick Edwards as VP, what position will Edwards hold to keep him active in politics for a future with the Democratic party? He gave up his Senate Seat. What held him back was lack of experience. I hope that Kerry finds a place for Edwards because I think it would be a great loss for the Democratic party if we lost him for the future.

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. Try this one

He used to be winning. Not anymore:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4565073

[grannyfran]

29. Gee, I wonder

how many of those approximately 55,000 votes were from Repukes who voted for Edwards in the primaries?

[Auntie Bush]

30. Welcome Granny!

Actually I think I already welcomed you...but I can't welcome a fellow CLARK supporter enough.

I agree with you...Republicans are freeping that poll. They really, really want Edwards on the ticket. I sure hope Kerry doesn't fall for Carl Roves plan. I frankly can't believe that Rove would fear Edwards more than Clark. Clark is all Republicans greatest nightmare.
Kerry/Edwards is their dream ticket.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ngGale]

33. Well, if it isn't Edwards or Clark we are in deep...

trouble.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Al Gore Is My Hero]

34. Edwards is a fine choice

I think Edwards on the ticket greater insures a Democratic victory.

Sometimes the obvious choice is the right one.

[chimpymustgo]

35. Excellent point. The obvious choice is the right one.

Kerry/Edwards '04. And beyond...

[Scoopie]

38. But it's not obvious to me!

With the Iraq war falling apart, world leaders and their citizens pissing on our name and confidence in our world standing (which effects our ECONOMY, btw) - Edwards isn't the obvious choice to me and others who want the Dems to take the national security/foreign policy bull by the horns.

Clark, Graham, Cleland, or Biden - please!

[PATRICK]

39. As an Edwards supporter

I can be gracious enough to mention that CNN has spent a LOT more time unfairly trashing Clark than any other contender.

[AP]

40. I think CNN has done what they've had to do to minimize the strenght of...

...each candidate.

The strength of Clark was that he was a miliatry person and smart and he criticized Bush's miliary policy. Also, Clark is very appealing in the abstract. Remember all the atention he got before you ever heard him say anything at all? CNN couldn't just ignore him. Ignoring him played into his stength -- the abstract notion that it's possible to be liberal and strong on national defense. So they had to actively deconstruct the guy and put him back together in a way that was very unflattering. I was one of the first people at DU to point out this was happening just days after he announced.

Now, Edwards on the other hand, had a different set of problems. The more you know about Edwards and his policies, the more you like him. Edwards consistently closed a great deal of ground in the last three days of every primary because that's when people learned about his policies. So how does the media deal with that scenario? By not talking about him (and when you do, don't talk about his policies or his biography). Faircloth made that mistake in 98. Edwards was losing by 10 points so Faircloth thought he'd put the final nail in Edwards's coffin by running ads about Edwards's work as a trial lawyer. Edwards swung up 12 pts and won because people were learning about him (and to learn about Edwards is to vote for him).

Edwards got shafted on time in the early debates (often less than 5 minutes, compared to over 10 minutes for Lieberman, Gep, Kerry and Dean). There was a study on the media coverage over a one monht perior in late 2003 that showed that Edwards got that third least coverage.

I think it's beyond a doubt that, had Edwards gotten the coverage Dean got early, Edwards would be the nominee today.

The bottom line here is that the media treated none of the candidates fairly. Just because they didn't use the same tactics for each candidate doesn't mean they weren't trying to hurt them all.

[PATRICK]

42. Accurately stated

but they nailed Clark on red meat issues and "flip-flops"(one reason they think it effective to use this on Kerry today) while Edwards was mostly treated with omission and understatement. Poll responders are generally red meat people.

CNN viewers, more mature and educated don't respond as readily to the red meat "trail lawyer" as evil meme?

In any event, media polls, even when unusually fair and participated in broadly are nothing in the real world. In opinion making sparring they are fatuous and imbalanced.

Again, the focus should be on our set of raw nerves when any particular word (Nader!) or contest can set off camp wars and the usual threads no matter what the subject header intended. It would be sad if the last influence the corporate media had was making us waste time and goodwill taking them seriously for use in old battles.

[AP]

43. They tried to turn all Clark's strengths into weaknesses.

His intelligence was turned into haughtiness and arrogance (thus making Bush seem better -- rather have a dumb nice guy than a smart arrogant guy at your barbecue).

His leadership was turned into a lack of leadership (which is why they trotted out the neocon generals to criticize him).

CNN (and NPR) did exactly what they needed to do to destroy Clark.

A couple days before Iowa, NPR did four segments on ATC about the upcoming caucus. The first one was about using the internet to reach voters. The piece heavily featured Dean. I think it mentioned Gephardt. No mention of anyone else. Then they did a story about Dean taking a beating. The commentators summary, "Dean is a little weary and he's looking forward to moving on to the next step" -- there was no mention of the issues he was being hit on (at the time, I think it was the flag issue) and the tone was that he was still going to win Iowa anyway. Then they did a piece that was the next in their series of following two candidates around -- Gephardt and Dean, IIRC. They did a general wrap up of what was going on in the primaries. No mention of Edwards.

Then, the last thing they did was play clips without any commentary at all. They had a clip of Edwards. That was the only time Edwards's voice was heard on the show, and his name wasn't mentioned once.

Surely, the press must know what the polling is saying two days before the primary. And the polling must have shown that Edwards and Kerry were doing OK and Dean and Gep poorly. So what did NPR do? They studiously avoid any mention of Edwards's name and they tried really hard to buttress Dean's sagging numbers.

Like I said, the media may not have treated any two candidates the same, but they did what they could to deliver up to Bush the most faulty nominee possible. At first, it was clearly going to be Dean. Then I really believe the project was to not let people get to know Edwards too well because he really was compelling. The project was also not to let Clark become an effective critic of Bush's national security skills regardless of whether Clark was going to be nominated. The project was also to destroy Kerry last fall, and they almost did, but he pulled back in Iowa with NO help from the media.

[Tom Rinaldo]

44. Excellent post AP, both in tone and content

I fully agree with you. It is so easy to fall into being angry at another candidate's "camp" when it's the stage managed media coverage of the campaign that pushs us at each others throats. We're on the same team. There were several Democrats who could have been strong Presidential candidates, and now there are several good VP possibilities. Whoeer gets the VP nod, I look forward to that selection being made, so we can unite behind what I am confident will be a strong ticket.

[AP]

45. Why thanks.

But why are you the tone and content police these days?

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. AP, gimme a break! OK, I'll play the role.

Use of the word "police" sure sets a negative tone, don't you think? Spit it out! What's bothering you? Is praise too dangerous to give around here also? Hey, I back peddled much earlier in this thread, to you specifically I think, about thinking people should get back on topic. That wasn't good enough?

Excuse me if I don't see the point in endless rehashing over why Clark was unfair to Edwards, or vice versa, during the primaries. I don't, so sue me. But instead of continuing to rant about it, I thought maybe I should just acknowledge it when people around here who have a different opinion than I do make an obvious and thoughtful effort to be open and even handed. And I thought that's what you were doing. Suddenly that's controversial to say? Sorry I bothered. Geese.

[AP]

47. Thanks again.

Your veneer of even-handedness seems very easy to scratch.

Why do you post these outstreched-hand posts if you're so quick to use them as an opportunity to snap when you think they're not responed to within the constricts of what you deem on-topic or properly toned?

What's the point?

If you really want to be friendly, you'd think that you'd go the extra step and just ignore the stuff you don't approve rather than use it as another excuse to criticize people you know would prefer someone other than Clark on the ticket.

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. AP. If you look for a post with me attacking Edwards

Or me attacking someone for supporting Edwards, you will not find one. The closest I think I ever came to "snapping" were two posts I made earlier on this thread, and I posted again soon after that saying that I was probably partially out of bounds in what I said (those weren't the exact words I know, but something like that). You of course remember. It had to do with the respective Progressive tax plans of Clark and Edwards.

Originally what I said was that I thought Clark had come out with an amazingly progressive tax plan, after he had time to think about the issue. The context for my original comment was whether it was fair to view Clark as pro corporate in domestic policy, and my point was that originally Clark leaned on the soft Pro Business Clinton advisor's because he had to pull together an initial platform almost instantly in order to be credible in the early debates. I never ever said anything negative about Edward's tax positions. It was not my point to open a debate on their relative tax positions, rather I was commenting on the early dynamics of the race and how certain perceptions about Clark might have taken root. I thought that was the type of stuff the original poster was asking us to discuss.

Yeah I was bothered some by how that seemingly evolved into what could be perceived as a debate over whether Clark was using his tax proposals to further his own self interests. Like I said, I posted, then backtracked and conceded that a debate on Progressive taxation is a healthy thing, while saying that I didn't think this thread was started with that intent. After that I stayed out of it. Lots of comments went back and forth on Edward's and Clark's positions. Some of them seemed barbed. But I let go of it, OK?

Can you tell me of any other instance of me "snapping" that I might be forgetting?

[AP]

49. It seems like a couple of your posts today are sort of the equivalent...

...of trying to hold out dog biscuits to people who post things that please you and then slapping the noses of those that don't.

[Tom Rinaldo]

50. I can get where you "see" dog biscuits...

But where are the slaps? All I've noticed today is "incoming"

[AP]

51. It's just an impression I got.

If you want to give me links for all your posts today, I'll take a look at all of them when I have a second and I'll let you know.

[Tom Rinaldo]

52. Fine. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=538724&mesg_id=538801

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=538771&mesg_id=538834

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=529136&mesg_id=538852

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=539053&mesg_id=539053

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=539053&mesg_id=539060

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=537484&mesg_id=539079

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=529136&mesg_id=539094

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=539053&mesg_id=539122

I left out the last back and forth posts of our current dialog. You will find one critical post that I wrote, but it is clear that I didn't start it. What would you do if you got a reply to positive post on a subject you thought worth discussing which said this?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=539053&mesg_id=539054&page=

Look AP, I was absolutely sincere in the positive things I said today that you now call "dog Biscuits". Sincerity can be dangerous to express on Bulletin Boards. I am interested in reading your next reply.

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. Sorry, didn't get all of them:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=529136&mesg_id=539012

I think that's it.

[AP]

55. What was the point you were trying to make in that one?

[Tom Rinaldo]

56. Reread Patrick's post. He really was being gracious

He didn't just start his post with something nice to say about Clark, and then move on to making some other point that supported the case for his own candidate, Edwards. He said that CNN was harsher on Clark than anyone else. That may or may not be objectively true, but coming form an Edwards supporter, I just thought it was a very gracious thing to say. The rest of my post I guess I wrote because I didn't want my own reply to Patrick to only be "Thank you for getting it right" or anything that partisan. So I talked a little about the role of media filtering our perceptions, but a lot of good Dems came out of the campaign anyway with a louder voice that we can use to Kerry's advantage. Fluff I suppose, mostly I just wanted to thank Patrick. The type of thing you might do too if someone went out of their way to defend Edwards against unfair treatment.

[AP]

57. Don't take this the wrong way, but why do feel the need to describe what

everyone does with their posts?

Take a look around DU. Notice that NOBODY else does that. You have set yourself up as the arbiter of appropriateness in a way that is...well...unusual.

Do you think that Patrick's post didn't speak for itself? Do you think DU'ers aren't capable of understanding what he said?

You started doing this recently and you haven't stopped. And now it seems to be about 80% of what you post.

What's the point?

[Tom Rinaldo]

58. Well overall I would dispute your percentages

Though I can see why you might think this last batch top heavy in a manner that you seem to find offensive, I think you are way over the top in describing what you think I am doing. I am sure that others must feel the way you do, and I am just as sure that not everyone does. Were you party to the ramping down of the Dean vs Clark flame wars on DU AP? There was an open intentional effort made by supporters of both men to change the tone of the ongoing discussion at that time. One of the means that was knowingly used was positive feedback to those who held different loyalties yet made efforts to stay positive while continuing honest debates. It was seen as helpful at a time when the board was being consumed by back and forth attacks between the camps.

But I'm not trying to promote a grand effort here AP. You will notice that I don't post on most pro Edwards threads. I'm not looking to mix it up and impose a code of conduct. OK, I winced a little when I saw topics posted about the rivalry between Clark and Edwards supporters. I think there were two threads, I dunno. Given that that issue was put squarely on the DU table, I have commented more on it in the last two days. Sure it's my position that it is stupid for us to fight each other now over things that happened in the primaries. And that is not an irrelevant position to take. It is a perfectly legitimate position to have, as bad blood easily gets established, and often lingers, and clearly both Clark and Edwards can't get the VP nod.

From my perspective I don't know why you are so "overly sensitive" about this (that's how I see it, it's subjective I know). Like I said above, I get it that you don't like it when someone seemingly tries to shut down a discussion about something. I can see your point there. But I don't get why it puts such a burr up your butt for me to acknowledge a post that I appreciate. I think that's your problem, and I don't know why you have it. I guess I seem false or forced or whatever to you, but even were that to be true, that has to rank among the most minor of sins regularly committed on this message board.

I think there is usually a point to expressing agreement with something one finds fair or thoughtful. I am not the only person to do that here, and I am not the only person who does that in reply to things said by someone who they might otherwise disagree with. I'm sorry that my "style" bothers you. Again, I think you can find two posts where I was negative about someone saying something when where and how they said it, and I already explained what happened, and acknowledged the problem with that. I think you should look at why you were so prone to jump all over someone who tried to give you credit for being fair and thoughtful. How suspicious are you, and why?

[AP]

59. If there's a question in there that you want me to answer...

... please let me know.

[Tom Rinaldo]

60. Might be best for us to give it a rest now (attached to wrong post)

I meant to attach this to AP's post wondering if there was anything else I wanted him to address.

I'm not trying to duck anything, but what else can I say? I really don't know what else you can say either. You don't like the way I participate on DU. I am somewhat baffled by that, or at least by the fact that you dislike it enough to make a public issue about it on the board rather than simply not liking my posts, the way lots of us don't like lots of people's posts. That's why I wondered if you are suspicious about something, that you somehow think I'm up to something in regards to a candidate rivalry or whatever. Probably that's not fair to wonder either. Obviously I push some buttons for you. You tried to explain what they were. I think you were sincere about that part, though I also still think you have unfairly characterized me. You never retracted your comment about me trying to slap people into place, nor did you back it up with anything specific. I am frustrated with you AP because you went out of your way to say quite a few negative things about me, using a friendly post to you as your starting point for attacks, and friendly posts to other people as your ammunition.

You certainly have a right to your opinions.

[AP]

62. In some ways I'm just doing the equivalent of what you're doing.

You see a post. You describe what the post was. "Patrick, that was a good post. It did X."

I see your posts. I describe what I think they're doing. "Tom, it seems to me that many of your posts are simply patting people on the head for engaging in the kind of discussion you think is appropriate."

No big deal.

[Tom Rinaldo]

63. Fair enough. I can see that. Matter resolved without prejudice lol

Again, this was meant as a response to AP's prior post, and I edited it to make that clear. Glad that's all over lol.

[AP]

54. Yeah, that last one is probably the one that I was thinking about.

[Tom Rinaldo]

41. Patrick, you are usually gracious

And that is always appreciated. It is dangerous for Democrats to rate our candidates through the prism of the media. They increasingly tend NOT to be our friends. There are many good points that can be used to boost Edwards, Clark, and a number of other fine potential VP candidates. the Primary season added elevated national stature to several Democratic voices. Compared to how well known and listened to they were prior to running, Kerry, Dean, Edwards, Clark, Kucinich, and even Braun and Sharpton, now have national standing. Add in the Clintons, and Gore etc. and we have a host of potent and often relatively new voices to take it to Bush throughout the coming campaign. I try not to let the media anoint our spokespersons.

[mountainvue]

61. Internet poll.

Freeped.