Reply #124: Nothing in my post is in Edwards voting record

[katieforeman]

1.) Yes Kerry and Edwards have similar records in the last 5 years. However, Edwards did not vote to cut intelligence. Edwards did not vote against the first gulf war etc. Everything in my post is in Kerry's voting record but not Edwards. That is my point. Republicans cannot say Edwards has been wrong for 30 years.

2.)They won't say Kerry's experience is a liability. They will use his long record to attack his judgement and integrity. His record is a liability. Technically, Bush has 3 years of experience as commander and cheif. Edwards and Kerry have no experience in this role. Should we elect Bush because he has more experience? I would say no because Bush has a terrible record because he lacks judgement and integrity.

3.)Independents and Republicans voting out of fear of terrorism will see these defense cuts as a negative. Thes are the voters Kerry is claiming he will be ablle too win over.

4.)The point is Kerry flip-flopped on the death penalty for terrorists. He opposed it and now that it's politically popular he's for it. This will be the Republican line of attack. People won't trust their security to someone who panders.

5.)I saw David Brooks on the Newshour last night listing lots of specific instances of Kerry writing letters and inserting amendments to protect contributors. Because Kerry has been in the Senate for nearly 20 years, Republicans will be able to find more instances of this in Kerry's record than in Edwards.

6.)The very people who are swinging to Edwards know he's a trial lawyer. Most of the people voting for Kerry probably don't know all of these specifics in his voting record.

7.)Edwards has more experience than Bush when he was elected. Bush can't argue that he is a good commander and cheif despite his inexperience when he was elected and argue that Edwards is too inexperienced to be a good commander and cheif. This is a self-contradictory argument. Like I said before, Edwards has more than enough experience to be knowledgeable and credible on national security. Edwards will seem much more in command of the facts than Bush in a debate.

I like Kerry too, but I think his record hurts him at least as much as it helps him and Kerry does not have the strengths that Edwards has as a candidate. These too young and inexperienced arguments were used against Clinton, Reagan, and Kennedy and they didn't work.

Please see my post- "top 10 reasons Edwards is the most electable" to see why I think Edwards is the better candidate. I'd be interested in your opinion.