Gephardt- "Miserable Failure" as running mate

[katieforeman]

Jonathon Kohn wrote a piece in the New Republic pushing Gephardt over Edwards. Here is my response to his arguments:

Kohn: Geography- Gephardt has a geographic advantage over Edwards because Democrats have better prospects in the Midwest than South.

Response: Picking a candidate solely on the assumption that he/she will carry home state or have appeal in neighboring states is a mistake. Gore lost TN in 2000. Gephardt lost in IA, his own backyard, this year. In the age of national media, home state advantage isn't what it used to be. Furthermore, there are many closely contested states this year. We need a ticket with appeal to swing voters in all of the battleground states. Edwards demonstrated his appeal to disaffected Republicans and Independents in states like WI. Edwards finished ahead of Gephardt in IA. By making some of the Southern states contestable, Edwards forces Bush to spend time and resources there.

Kohn: Gephardt has a loyal labor base.

Response: Labor will be with us this year regardless of Kerry's running mate. The only substantive difference between Gephardt and Edwards here is the China vote. However, we can't really use this as a selling point because Kerry voted for China agreement. Furthermore, Gephart's labor constituency didn't demonstrate much loyalty to him in the primaries.

Kohn: Gephardt's somewhat more conservative social positions (Gephart voted for ban on partial birth abortions) will help us in the Midwest.

Response: To win a Senate seat in North Carolina as a Democrat, Edwards must be socially conservative enough to appeal in the Midwest. Besides Nader is running, Gephardt's vote to ban partial birth abortion could hurt us with potential Nader voters.

Kohn: Gephardt speaks language of blue collar workers in the Midwest.

Response: As someone who has worked in a mill himself,Edwards speaks it too. As I've already pointed out Edwards beat Gephart in IA.

Kohn: Gephardt is a better attack dog than Edwards.

Response: Gephardt is a clumsy attack dog. He hurt himself more than any of his rivals with his negative attacks in IA. Calling Bush a "miserable failure" won't help us in the general election. That kind of language turns off swing voters, allows Bush to dismiss our criticisms as attack politics as usual, and puts us in the position of defending ourselves. Edwards is an attack dog whose bite is worse than his bark. From his experience as a wildly successful plaintiff's attorney, Edwards knows how to attack Bush/Cheney's credibility withour damaging ours in the process. Edwards didn't win his trials by calling the defnedent's names. We won't win this election by name-calling. Edwards is the most qualified running mate to make our case against Bush/Cheney.

Kohn: Gephardt's political liabilities are well-known and he's overcome them in many elections in the past.

Response: Gephardt's liabilities make the Republican lines of attack against Kerry doubly effective. How many tax increases do you think Kerry/Gephardt have voted for in their 50+ years in Congress? How many contradictory positions have Kerry/Gephardt taken on issues during their long careers as insider Washington politicians? How much special interest money have Kerry/Gephardt taken and how many favors have they done for unpopular constituents? (This really hurts with potential Nader voters because it blurs the difference between Democrats and Republicans.)

Furthermore, Gephardt voted for the 87 billion in Iraq. Kerry didn't. This adds fule to the fire of Kerry as flip-flopper. Kerry is going to have a tough time explaining some of his "nuanced" positions on Iraq. Failure to reconcile Gephart's and Kerry's votes could be a serious blow to the crdibility of Kerry/Gephart.

Edwards, on the other hand, has a short voting record that, much to Edwards' chagrin during the primaries, is almost identical to Kerry's. Kerry/Edwards could present a unified position on Iraq.

Kohn: Gephardt has more experience and stature than Edwards. This would help Gephardt against Cheney and make Gehart a better vice-president or president if something happened to Kerry.

Response: Our main line of attack against Bush/Cheney is not going to be that they lack experience. If we are going to win, we need to successfully attack their record and their credibility and present our own competing vision for the future of this country. Edwards can do this better than anyone. Furthermore, Edwards has more foreign policy experience than Carter, Reagan, or Clinton when they were elected President. Edwards and Kerry were each beating Bush by about 10 points in recent national polls. This would not be the case if people didn't perceive Edwards to be qualified.

Choosing a vice-president is about shaping the image of Kerry in the public's mind. We need a vp whose close linkage to Kerry improves Kerry's brand and we need a vp who can effectively sell the Kerry package. Edwards is that man. Kerry/Edwards would be a ticket of optimism, change, and energy. Edwards is the best campaigner in our party today, he connects with voters and can sell them on Kerry. Kerry/Gephardt would be a ticket of old-style politics and Washington insiders.

Sometimes, the obvious choice is also the best choice. Please, please Senator Kerry and Democratic establishment, let's win this one. We would be crazy to pass up Edwards.

[goodhue]

1. spelling

Its Gephardt not Gephart. But I tend to agree with your analysis.

[katieforeman]

3. Oops. I'll make the change.

[jmoss]

7. Hi, Katie...

Add to your list that many Americans may feel as I feel: Rep. Gephardt is simply boring to listen to--as I have seen since I saw him speaking with Mexican-American activists on the steps where Pres. Washington was sworn in (Wall Street, NYC), and certainly in his town hall meetings in Iowa this Dec. & January. I respect his body of work, but I cringed at the thought of him becoming President. I don' t think Jim Johnson's focus groups will come back highly in favor of a Kerry-Gephardt ticket.
-Jeff

[katieforeman]

14. Another good point.

Thanks Jeff.

I'll be sure to add it to future posts.

[citizen snips]

20. Gep. is boring.

Most of his organization did not vote for him in Iowa.

[9119495]

2. Kohn is wrong. You are right.

Gephardt has never won a statewide office in MO. He will not necesarily bring Missouri on board any more than Edwards brings the South by being the number two man on the ticket. There are many good choices out there. Edwards is one. Gephardt is not.

[Mz Pip]

4. I have to agree with you

Gephardt doesn't do much for the ticket. Good grief, he came in 4th in Iowa after spending much time there.

I think we need some new material in this mix. Edwards has it. Clark has it. Bayh has it.

MzPip
:dem:

[KittyWampus]

5. Neither Edwards Or Gep Are Good At Raising Funds

I dispute your assertion Edwards is a good campaigner.

Clark beat him in quite a few places even though Edwards spent much more money and time.

Edwards has FATAL political libabilites... ZERO experience in Foreign Affairs and National Security.

Then there's the lamentable Truth that Edwards is happy linking 9/11 and Iraq.

[katieforeman]

9. An even more lamentable truth is that Clark was against the

war.

Clark is on record saying the Iraq war was a strategic mistake. (I agree with him.) However, Kerry voted for the Iraq war and is not criticisizing Bush on the grounds that it is a strategic mistake.

The main line of attack against Kerry, that we must successfully fend off if we are going to win, is that Kerry is a flip-flopper. Clark exacerbates this problem in two ways: first, as I've already pointed out his position on the Iraq war. Second, although Clark is an extremely intelligent man, he is an inexperienced campaigner who tends to make gaffs and change postitions (flip-flop.)This is how he lost his front runner status. Kerry/Clark would be a much easier ticket for the republicans to brand as flip-floppers than Kerry/Edwards.

Clark is not as diciplined a campaigner as Edwards and we would need to spend too much time on damage control.

Edwards does not have zero experience in foreign policy. He was a memebr of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. He was one of the first Senators to travel to Afghanistan and meet with leaders there. Edwards has met Musharif. Bush was unable to name Musharif in the 2000 campaign. Furthermore, Edwards has more foriedn policy experience than Clinton, Carter, or Reagan when they were elected. Our main line of attacka against Bush/Cheney is not going to be inexperience and their main line of attack against us is not going to be inexperience. This election will boil down to credibility. Edwards helps Kerry there. Clark hurts him.

Edwards was beating Bush in national polls by about 10 points. This wouldn't be true if people didn't think Edwards was up to the task.

[sadiesworld]

12. Clark was slaughtered by a media that rcognized him as...

the strongest threat to a Bush 2nd term.

[sadiesworld]

10. I agree...

Gephardt's time is passed and Edwards has the same liabilities as a VP as he did as a presidential nominee. We need someone who can jump in immediately as pres if something should happen to Kerry. Seeing how the campaign is shaping up (no surprise really) it seems seems to me that the General is far and away the best choice.

[katieforeman]

13. Foreign policy and defense is only one aspect of

the presidency. As I've already pointed out, I think Edwards has enough experience to pass the bar there.

The ability to work with Congress to get legislation through is another important qualification. Clark's used to giving orders and has absolutely zero experience with the legislative process.

The ability to use the bully pulpit of the presidency is another important qualification for being successful. Edwards has this and this skill will actually help get things done.

Political instincts and skill and dealing with the media are also important. Edwards has more experience than Clark there also. If you think the media was out to get Claark in the primaries, what makes you think they'll lay off him if he is Kerry's running-mate or if he assumes the presidency?

[jmoss]

11. Granted, I won't sway your hopes of Clark for VP...

..just as no debate will sway mine.

But in all fairness, although John Edwards does not have the wonderful experience of working as a 4-star General, carrying out DOD/Foreign Policy on the front lines, Edwards IS on the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Justice, & the Labor committee. He also played a role in exonerating Pres. Clinton over the House's Articles of Impeachment. He's had "compact", yet fruitful experience, not to mention his 20 years as a well-respected attorney, and federal court clerkship.

[democratreformed]

17. I would like to thank you for making your

case for your candidate without attacking or speaking badly of mine. With all honesty, I appreciate that more than I can say.

On edit: I have no hopes of Clark for VP. But, my patience was being severely strained by all the posts saying bad things about him so others could stand up for why their candidate should be.

[efront]

21. Please name one place where

Clark beat Edwards, but spent less time and money there than Edwards. Clark spent all his time and money in NH, and beat Edwards by 800 votes, then spent the entire week leading up to Feb 3 in OK, and beat Edwards by 1200 votes. Your statement is totally false. Clark only beat him by a decent margin in states where JRE spent no time or money e.g. ND (1500 votes), New Mexico (9000 votes) and Arizona by 44000 votes.

Bragging about New Mexico and Arizona would be like me bragging about Edwards beating Clark by 83,000 votes in Missouri-- it's stupid b/c Clark spent no time or money in Missouri. Or, nobody cares that Edwards got 11,000 more votes in Michigan b/c neither guy campaigned there either. People do care that each guy focused on one state for Feb 3 and Clark squeaked by Edwards by 1200 votes and Edwards beat Clark by 110,000 votes in South Carolina. And more importantly, people care that Edwards beat Clark by 70,000 votes in Virginia and 13,000 votes in Tennessee. Before Clark dropped, Edwards had about a 230,000 edge in the popular vote overall.

So, although you've repeatedly illustrated your disdain for Senator Edwards, blaming him for Clark's demise and such, please stop making shit up. Thank you in advance.

[katieforeman]

22. Well done

[efront]

24. Thanks

I can't stand some of the b.s. Clarkies throw out there. They can't really believe as they're typing can they?

[King of New Orleans]

6. You are quite the bulldog

you certainly stay "on message" too.

My 2 cents says it'll probably boil down to either Edwards or Mark Warner of Virginia


Edwards strengths-Energy, high favorables, does well with young voters, struck a chord on the "fair trade" issue.

Edwards weaknesses--Inexperience (though not so much for VP) NC might be difficult to win even with him on the ticket. (although it'd be interesting to know if internal polling shows Edwards does help in places like Ohio which I have a hunch he might)

Mark Warner's strengths--Business and governing background. Also young and telegenic. Virginia is probably more winnable than NC. His ideas on improving business investment in rural areas is also interesting.

Mark Warner's weaknesses--By being governor he has to deal with the messy details of governing (something Bush apparently can't be bothered with). Those messy details means dealing with budget gaps and some form of tax increase is inevitable in VA. Could be a brawl in the state legislature in deciding who gets taxed and how much.
Also Warner doesn't have the name recognition of Edwards

[goodhue]

8. If the choice is Edwards or Warner

Then by all means go with Edwards.
I would prefer Vilsack.

[katieforeman]

16. I have a lot of anecdotal evidence that Edwards

does help in Oh. I grew up in Dayton and still spend a couple months a year there. One of the reasons, I decided to support Edwards was the comments I heard from independents and self-described moderate Republicans. They like Edwards. He connects with people and wins their trust. He can help Kerry this way. In my opinion, these are the qualities that will win votes in the Midwest. There are so many people who didn't vote for Gore because they just didn't like him. I think a Kerry/Gephardt ticket would face the same problem. Edwards certainly makes the ticket more likeable.

[robsul82]

15. Look at the bright side...

If Kerry picks Gephardt, odds are we get to see CRAZY Gephardt Girl on CNN again! Remember her, the Iowa caucuses, the biggest politician I probably SAW during this race? She ruled! :)

Later.

RJS

[legin]

18. I'd kinda like a big name

I sort of noticed my instinctive reaction when Kennedy was mentioned as a VP choice down here. This sort of 'guy that everybody knows' feeling was kinda comforting.

It's a thought.

[legin]

19. Also given that bush* has gone out of his way

to make people feel unsafe and scared, that is a feeling that is now a part of the American publics thinking, perhaps someone they know and feel safe with might be a good idea at the moment.

[Crunchy Frog]

23. Disagree with you about Edwards but agree

that Gephardt would be a "miserable failure" in every way as a running mate.

Kerry could certainly do alot worse than Edwards, but in my opinion, he could do alot better too.

That's just my opinion, it's no more valid than yours, and I don't mean any offense. I know that you probably feel just as strongly about Edwards as I do about Clark.:)