John Edwards Joins Presidential Race

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Aeson
Too bad it's probably just going to be the same tripe that would show on any political TV ad anyways. It would be awesome to see a cannidate start (unscripted) blogging, interacting with the community. I know it would probably be political suicide, but I could at least respect someone willing to state the way they think instead of a reciting some speech writer's interpretation of the campaign manager's views about what will garner the most votes.

That's the thing. It's just a ploy to appeal to, well, me - a 21 year old, liberal, internet geek who's highly interested in politics. But it turns me off. Because, as you said, it's just going to be the same drivel we're used to.

I would definitely respect a candidate who was just as engaged in modern technology as the younger voters that person is attempting to appeal to, but that's not what this is. This is just recognizing a market and exploiting it.

If thirteen year olds could vote, Jon Edwards would win.

[Aeson]

As I said, it's the same thing as a TV ad. Only it's free. (And the TV ad will end up on YouTube one way or the other anyways.)

If the drivel turns you off, why does it matter that it's on YouTube too? If it's interrupting my favorite TV show, that's far worse than if it's sitting there waiting for me to go find it on YouTube. No one has to watch anything on YouTube.

[Lorizael]

Matter? It doesn't really matter; I'm not even a YouTuber. I just think it's condescending, in a way. Condescending and transparent.

I'm probably reading too much into this, but that's because I think it's crucial that those who are going to vote democratic in this election be as critical as possible of the democratic candidates to make sure we get one that actually has a chance of winning.

[Victor Galis]

What's condescending about a candidate relying on free advertising?

[SlowwHand]

YouTube is just the latest means of reaching a demographic. Like the candidate or not, I see nothing wrong with it.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Edwards isn't much better. 5 years in the Senate when he ran for VP, almost 6 by the time of the election. He hasn't done any political office since then, IIRC.

And Bush '43 was just the Governor of Texas, which is a part-time job. What's your point?

[Lorizael]

Victor, Sloww:

Originally posted by Lorizael
I'm probably reading too much into this...

[Whoha]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Edwards is a protectionist *******

Edwards is not a protectionist.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
And Bush '43 was just the Governor of Texas, which is a part-time job. What's your point?

The point is that it is dumb to complain about Obama's lack of experience when Edwards had little more than Obama did when the election rolls around.

And Bush was re-elected to office and held an executive position, no matter if it was a weak governorship.

[SlowwHand]

I don't think some of you give the job of governor enough credit.

Maybe in some podunk place like New Hamphire, you might have a point. Delaware. Rhode Island.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sloww, the governor in places like NH, Delaware, and Rhode Island has far more power than the governor of Texas. The governorship of Texas is very limited by the other parts of the Texas government.

[SlowwHand]

I'm referring to population and area.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The point is that it is dumb to complain about Obama's lack of experience when Edwards had little more than Obama did when the election rolls around.

But it's not dumb to complain if you don't think Edwards had enough experience either.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I'm referring to population and area.

Doesn't matter. Different size states have different demands. I think that stong governorships in smaller states probably have more responsibility than a weak governor in Texas.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


The point is that it is dumb to complain about Obama's lack of experience when Edwards had little more than Obama did when the election rolls around.

And Bush was re-elected to office and held an executive position, no matter if it was a weak governorship.

has a losing VEEP candidate gone on to win the presidency ? since FDR, at any rate.

None of the GOP guys who ran from 32 to 38. Or Barkley, or Kevauver, or the other dem who ran with Stevenson in 52. Not Henry Cabot Lodge. Not William Miller. Not Ed Muskie, despite being front runner in 72. Not Sargent Shriver. Not Bob Dole, despite being nominated in '96. Not Geraldine Ferraro. Not Lloyd Bentsen. Not Jack Kemp. And not Joe Leiberman, despite also being front runner.

Just limiting it to losing VEEP candidates who actually ran for Prez - Lodge, Muskie, Dole, Leiberman. 3 never got the nomination, one got it and lost. Why do people still think a losing VP campaign is a stepping stone to anything?