To: ewing
A good bet. But Edwards oozes slime, if you ask me. I dont think he'll ever get elected president, but putting him in as VP would only hurt the one running. Clinton- Edwards? Dean- Edwards? Kerry- Edwards? All three of those scenarios go together like Abbot and Costello.
12 posted on
07/10/2003 7:12:59 AM PDT by
cardinal4
(The Senate Armed Services Comm; the Chinese pipeline into US secrets)
To: cardinal4
The Dims would be crazy not to take Gen. Wes Clark as VP if he doesnt win the nomination.
He is the only candidate who can close their leadership gap on national security..
17 posted on
07/10/2003 7:22:58 AM PDT by
ewing
To: cardinal4
Edwards does not show well and he's down in the polls. However, the reason he concerns me is that the Clintons back him. I assume that means he's easily controlled by them. Mysterious things happen when the clintons are involved in the political scene. I think Graham is more likely to be named as a VP because he's from FL and he's therefore needed to win that state. I'm not sure what the deal here is with Edwards, but I don't like it.
20 posted on
07/10/2003 7:40:43 AM PDT by
twigs
To: cardinal4
"But Edwards oozes slime, if you ask me. I dont think he'll ever get elected president..." And Bill Clinton didn't...???
56 posted on
07/10/2003 1:02:30 PM PDT by
okie01
(The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson