I was very disappointed to read this article in the Boston Globe this morning, and I hope it's not true.

The Globe is reporting that "advisors" to Kerry have said that "the Massachusetts senator is skeptical about Edwards's strength as a running mate, saying he appears to lack the clout with Southern voters that he often brags about being able to deliver."

Well, that very well may be true. But wouldn't Edwards at least help to make those states more competitive and force the Bush campaign to divert resources there? I firmly believe that Edwards' strength as a retail political and campaigner would be a great strength to the Kerry campaign. Also, think about those trial lawyers who've already given Edwards $2000, who presumably would give $2000 to a Kerry campaign too, to help us compete with Bush?

The article goes on to say that "Kerry is also said to be unconvinced that Edwards is experienced enough to step in as a wartime president should something happen to him. National security credentials are the most important assets that the Democratic presidential front-runner would use to choose a running mate, these aides said."

Now, the concern about his national security inexperience may be legitimate, as it's probably the main reason that Edwards hasn't caught on with more Democrats after 9/11. But the balancing of Kerry with the national security experience and Edwards' connection with real voters would be a potent balance. Also, Edwards has more national security experience after five years in the Senate (I believe he's on the Intelligence Committee) than Bush did after 5 years as governor.

Please, John K., reconsider! I know I'm not the only Democrat who likes Kerry, but is truly excited by Edwards and his potential. I've heard Edwards described as "Clinton without the scandals." How can you not like that? A Kerry-Edwards ticket would really motivate Democrats.


- posted by Joshua @ 10:25 AM