With the news that John Edwards will debate Karl Rove on September 26 at the University of Buffalo, it's a good day for some quick tea-leaf reading. Does this mean Edwards is out of the running for VP? “We’re working on something like that for our Distinguished Speakers Series,” said Bill Regan, UB’s director of special events. “We’re not really sure of the format yet. But we do think they are scheduled to do it at least once together before they come to UB.”
Let's agree up front that if Edwards were offered the #2 slot and took it, the notion of canceling the event with Rove would not be any big deal. Telling the university and obviously interested media that he regretfully needs to focus on VP stuff, and perhaps finding a stand-in to keep the event(s) viable, is an excuse everyone would obviously accept. And it seems highly unlikely Obama would want Rove getting clean shots at his VP, so the cancellation of said debate(s) would seem automatic.
Still, Republicans would carpet the airwaves for a day, asking, "What's John Edwards afraid of? Just because he's the VP candidate he can't still debate Karl Rove? Why are Obama and Edwards afraid? (Blah blah blah "Democrat Party" national security here)." Why give away cheap, freebie points like this? Why even waste the energy having surrogates point out how silly it is and even one day of controlling the message?
If you're standing in John Edwards' shoes, and let's say you want the #2 offer, is accepting this kind of commitment five weeks before the general election more or less an indication that you're clearing your schedule for the fall? It can be argued that if the unwritten rules require you to appear publicly disinterested in the post, this commitment signals excellent blasé-itude.
But what to make of the snippet that this may not be an individual event, but part of a series?As surrogates for the parties’ standard bearers, the two also could square off more than once at other locations around the nation.
Committing to a series of high-profile and sure to be much-discussed debates with Karl Rove is a great way to stay important in the Democratic Party; it's also a telegraphed sign that Edwards knows the answer to whether he'll be the pick.
Have a safe and happy 4th!
Friday, July 4, 2008
Fall Edwards-Rove Debates Mean No Edwards VP?
-- Sean Quinn at 3:06 PM
Labels: edwards, vice president
42 comments
Can we have the "Days till the Election" counter back?
I don't think it's going to be Edwards. He's indicated many times he doesn't want the position and while I think he'd be a good choice - he wasn't a great VP candidate in '04 so I don't see any great reason for Obama to select him in '08.
It hit me while reading that you missed one possibility: that by September it might be VP Edwards up against VP Rove.
I'm still rooting for McCain to pick Lieberman as a running mate, mind you....
Being elected VP might be the only way for Karl to stay out of the slammer. He could instantly classify his life history as a state secret.
Lieberman as VP would be an excellent way to energize both the left and the right ... against McCain.
I think an Edwards or Lieberman pick for either candidate sends a message that I doubt that they'd want to send:
"We're in tune with the failures of the past!"
Let's say Obama does pick him, and then Edwards doesn't bow out. Wouldn't that make it look as if McCain's true "running mate" is Rove and the Bush administration?
It's not going to be Edwards. He really offers nothing to the ticket. He has no executive experience, no particular foreign policy credentials, no key constituency base (could he bring the Machinists aboard? could he help with the hispanic vote or with women?) and no base in a swing state (could he deliver NC? I doubt it). He swung hard to the left during the primaries. Beyond that, he is utterly unexciting as a choice due to his connection to the Kerry race. I seriously doubt that the Obama campaign is giving Edwards any serious consideration, and anything in the press on the matter is simply idle speculation.
Am I correct in saying that John Edwards is far more poppular than Karl Rove?
What opinions do you (all) have of MT governor Brian Schweitzer for VP? My first choice was Warner, but he seems to have removed himself from the running, so now my first choice is Schweitzer, but it's just a hunch. I don't really know much about him.
Being elected VP might be the only way for Karl to stay out of the slammer.
I think the pardon from Bush coming in December will be more effective.
Sorry to break this to you Sean, but you're pretty much the last to know that it's not going to be Edwards if you're just finding out now. It was obvious before the primary ended. And, I don't mean to blow your mind or anything, but it also won't be Lieberman, Gore, Clinton, Pelosi, or Dean.
Am I correct in saying that John Edwards is far more popular than Karl Rove?
On the left, I'd say Rove is in hot contention with Bush, Cheney, Lieberman and Bin Laden as the most unpopular person in the world, but I think the right reveres him in the way that Tigers fans must have revered Ty Cobb with his razor spikes or Giants fans revered Bonds and his chemically altered physique.
I think the pardon from Bush coming in December will be more effective.
He'd have to issue a series of pardons - one for Siegelman, several for the US Attorney scandal ... several for the Abramoff scandal, a wide variety for the various aspects of the politicization of the Justice Dept, GAO, etc.
In other words, to thoroughly protect Rove from his dozens of felonies, Bush would have to pretty much spell out each one, admitting executive branch culpability in the process. He can't just pardon Karl for any unspecified crimes he may been discovered to have committed, can he?
CAN HE???? He'll probably getting Addington and Yoo to tell him he can.
"He can't just pardon Karl for any unspecified crimes he may been discovered to have committed, can he?"
Yeah, I'm pretty sure he can. Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon said,
"Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,1974." (http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/speeches/740061.htm)
Intrade just added Colin Powell contracts to both the 2008 Republican and Democratic VP Nominee categories.
Schweitzer remains my guess and hope, but I can't imagine Obama wouldn't check with Powell to see if he'd be willing to join the ticket before asking anyone else.
Edwards would do much better as Obama's AG. He can be the pit bull the left needs to prosecute the crimes of the Bush administration.
To Obsessed,
MT Gov Schweitzer is my first choice. There are several great choices and many good choices.
Powell would be a good endorsee, but VP? Well, first of all there's no way he'd take it from McCain - he's already as much as said he's voting for Obama. Second, his role in the Iraq debacle is poison to Obama's strongest argument - that he risked taking the extremely unpopular position of opposing it on principle from the beginning.
I'm not sure what the impact would be of the doubled-down demographic of having two sort of black guys on the same ticket.
Hey - we've got RINO and DINO ... how about BINO? jajajaja
No - BISCO - "Black in Skin Color Only". Seriously though, I guess Obama can lay claim to a certain modicum of cultural blackness, but Powell is much closer to Ward Cleaver than he is to Eldridge.
Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon said ...
Ouch! Okay - you're right - Bush is almost certain to give Karl a blanket pardon. Of course, that opens up the same can of worms with civil suits that a Libby pardon would have.
And I trust he can't give him a blanket commutation, right?
You say Obama wouldn't want Rove getting clear shots at his VP. I agree, but why? You offer that "telling the university and obviously interested media that he regretfully needs to focus on VP stuff" is an "excuse." What is the real reason? Surely it would be a little unorthodox for a party's VP candidate to debate with the other party's chief strategist, but that's not why they wouldn't do it.
They wouldn't do it for the same reason Obama refuses to debate McCain or have town hall meetings and the like. It's because it would be stupid for a front-running candidate with all the momentum to put himself on the same stage with the lesser candidate, risking unscripted moments, especially when said front-running candidate has very vague and silly positions that would easily be torn apart by most opponents (probably not McCain, though).
Edwards was never an option. He endorsed Obama far too late. He was paid in full for it too (remember Obama adopting his anti poverty program). As for him bringing voters with him, he didn't even bring his wife!
Every election Colin Powel's name comes up for VP. He can have it any time he wants, from ether party.He could probably have it from both at once. He is the only AA in the USA that Obama could pick without claims of jobs for the (black) boys. The problem is that Colin doesn't want it.