It's the John-John ticket?
Well, Kerry just announced John Edwards as his ticketmate for this November. I can see the jokes already... One prostitute says to the other, "Hey, did ya' hear? The two Johns are going to try to take down Bush this fall?" The other responds, "Huh, two Johns for one Bush? Isn't it usually the other way around? How do they make any money?" Or how about "I heard we may have two Johns running the country..." "Wow, the qualifications to run for office are really dropping, aren't they?" or maybe "At least politicians are finally getting honest with the public."
Okay, okay, enough. But there's so much there to play with.
Anyway, my initial reaction to the John-John ticket isn't very positive. Let's face it, I wasn't thrilled with Kerry in the first place, so I was hoping he'd strengthen his credibility, not weaken it, with his Veep choice. I can see why he chose Edwards; he wants to avoid the mistakes of Gore (and let's face it, aren't Gore and Kerry much the same? different accents, but the same wooden exterior with good credentials but not a lot of charisma) -- he wanted someone photogenic and charismatic who is vibrant and a good stumper to offset his own shortcomings. But why would you choose a loser? Not to disparage Edwards, but pretty much everyone knows that he won't even carry his own state, so what does that say about his viability for higher office? And what does that say about Kerry's decision to pick him? It saves Edwards' face, but does it add anything other than photo ops to the ticket? I dunno. One term as Senator just doesn't cut it, but then again the Rs can hardly throw lack of elected experience as a criticism of Edwards... but they'll probably try.
I think that any way you look at it, Kerry had a hard choice. He needed someone who would make up for what he was lacking, and that boils down to sex appeal and geographic balance. He has money, brains, and military/public service. What he needed was someone who energized the masses and made them believe that his ticket would be smart, modern and fun and not stuck in the mud while still being moderate and informed. The Rs have forever been trying to paint him as this ultra-liberal New England guy (ha!) and shove him to the extreme left to piss off those who think gay marriage is the worst thing to happen to politics since Hillary Clinton. Edwards adds flash but I don't think he adds much content. No doubt that he is smart and sexy and vibrant and will make the Sunday morning pundit shows much more interesting to watch (not necessarily listen to) than before. Maybe that's enough to win the White House? Shades of the other John-John?
It's easy to criticize and harder to offer constructive solutions. Who would have made me happy? Dunno. Gephardt was the "front runner" but he's just another Kerry clone -- great credentials and little mass appeal. So, in that respect, Kerry was smart to shake things up with Edwards. I would have loved to see a younger version of Ann Richards or another ballsy woman. All in due time.
But if the John-John ticket takes the White House, at least the dating pool here in DC will improve dramatically after January!
All politics are local, aren't they?
Okay, okay, enough. But there's so much there to play with.
Anyway, my initial reaction to the John-John ticket isn't very positive. Let's face it, I wasn't thrilled with Kerry in the first place, so I was hoping he'd strengthen his credibility, not weaken it, with his Veep choice. I can see why he chose Edwards; he wants to avoid the mistakes of Gore (and let's face it, aren't Gore and Kerry much the same? different accents, but the same wooden exterior with good credentials but not a lot of charisma) -- he wanted someone photogenic and charismatic who is vibrant and a good stumper to offset his own shortcomings. But why would you choose a loser? Not to disparage Edwards, but pretty much everyone knows that he won't even carry his own state, so what does that say about his viability for higher office? And what does that say about Kerry's decision to pick him? It saves Edwards' face, but does it add anything other than photo ops to the ticket? I dunno. One term as Senator just doesn't cut it, but then again the Rs can hardly throw lack of elected experience as a criticism of Edwards... but they'll probably try.
I think that any way you look at it, Kerry had a hard choice. He needed someone who would make up for what he was lacking, and that boils down to sex appeal and geographic balance. He has money, brains, and military/public service. What he needed was someone who energized the masses and made them believe that his ticket would be smart, modern and fun and not stuck in the mud while still being moderate and informed. The Rs have forever been trying to paint him as this ultra-liberal New England guy (ha!) and shove him to the extreme left to piss off those who think gay marriage is the worst thing to happen to politics since Hillary Clinton. Edwards adds flash but I don't think he adds much content. No doubt that he is smart and sexy and vibrant and will make the Sunday morning pundit shows much more interesting to watch (not necessarily listen to) than before. Maybe that's enough to win the White House? Shades of the other John-John?
It's easy to criticize and harder to offer constructive solutions. Who would have made me happy? Dunno. Gephardt was the "front runner" but he's just another Kerry clone -- great credentials and little mass appeal. So, in that respect, Kerry was smart to shake things up with Edwards. I would have loved to see a younger version of Ann Richards or another ballsy woman. All in due time.
But if the John-John ticket takes the White House, at least the dating pool here in DC will improve dramatically after January!
All politics are local, aren't they?
<< Home