Comments: Kerry-Edwards
Granholm's Canadian. You don't think the GOP will push through the "Elect Arnold" ammendment before 2008 do you?
Posted by stress at February 29, 2004 10:18 PM
I think Richardson is the better choice because frankly, I'm not convinced ANY southerner is enough to win over any southern states from Bush, whereas I think Richardson not only brings in New Mexico and Arizona but quite possibly Colorado and Nevade. Further, Richardson is a grab for Hispanic voters for the future, an extremely important grab. We need hispanic voters a hell of a lot more than southern voters. Hispanics are the future of elections in the United States. The south is, as far the DNC should be concerned, the past. Lastly, I just don't buy that Edwards is qualified to be President. I know that such quibbles are meaningless this year in our quest to win at seemingly any cost, but the guy does not have the experience and knowledge I believe the President should have. Bill Richardson does, and then some. He has a great resume and is a good and decent human being. Edwards has half that, and his half just doesn't cut it for me.
Posted by Voice of Reason at March 1, 2004 03:34 AM
Folks, we're gonna win Nevada anyway. Yucca, Yucca, Yucca.
But I do agree that Richardson would be a better VP pick for either Kerry or Edwards than either Edwards or Kerry.
And lastly, Kerry won't pick Edwards anyway. Kerry feels threatened by the last other man standing, and isn't going to get over it any time soon. He soesn't strike me as that large-spirited an individual.
Posted by Will at March 2, 2004 09:29 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)