ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

DonkeyDude said 05/21, 01:43 PM
Your argument strays from Edwards' motive (wanting to be VP) to an analysis of the strength of an Obama/Edwards ticket. I will focus on the Thesis/Subject, which is Edwards' motive.

Simply put, Edwards' motive in endorsing Obama is not to be selected as VP.

Evidence:

1) Edwards has ruled out running as his VP:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/16
/edwards-flatly-rules-out-running-with-obama/

Unless you can explain why he would rule it out, just as VP discussions are revving up, for some ulterior purpose, I think this is pretty persuasive.

2) Edwards waited to endorse until it was all but certain Obama would be the nominee. If Edwards wanted to be Obama's running mate, he would have endorsed him as soon as it became evident Obama would win. He did not, instead waiting until after even his home state of NC voted.


Not that I need to posit another theory as to Edwards' motives, but I will for the hell of it. I think he wants to be named Attorney General. He has said so publicly, so I'm not claiming to be clairvoyant here. He waited to endorse for the same reasons as Gore and Carter: they feel that their high-profile endorsements would only serve to divide the party

DonkeyDude said 05/21, 05:26 PM
You say that nobody ever voices their desire for the position and nobody ever turns it down. That is demonstrably incorrect. Many people have voiced their desire (or at least openness) to be a running mate, most recently Mitt Romney.

Your admitted speculation about the "glossiness" of his political career doesn't carry much weight, as it contradicts Edwards' own statements regarding his interests, which are much more credible. He has stated, publicly and privately apparently, that he wants the Attorney General position. That would add a lot of "gloss" to his political and legal careers.

In response to your numbered points:

1) This is not relevant to the debate topic you put forth.

2) This is notably not true, especially if he becomes AG. Political losses do not necessarily lead to obscurity or failure. Just look at Al Gore.

3) This is not true. As youngdem pointed out earlier, his superdelegates are going for Obama as well. On a more important note, his populist message resonated with a lot of Clinton's supporters. When he dropped out, she took up some of his anti-poverty rhetoric, which clearly earned her some support among his millions of admirers. But this too is off-topic.

DonkeyDude said 05/22, 11:01 PM
Your thesis is that his desire to be VP caused him to endorse Obama. I countered by saying he expressly said he does not want to be Obama's running mate; and if that were his motive, he would have endorsed months earlier, when it seemed more meaningful and could have actually helped Obama. Now it just looks like obligatory party unification. I don't see how you've really countered any of that.

The AG point was taken from a recent CNN article I read. But his interest in the position is, as I mentioned earlier, not relevant to this discussion.

And I wouldn't go so far as to say that if he doesn't get VP or AG he "will be unemployed this upcoming year." Again, look at Al Gore, who holds neither of those positions. Or Bill Clinton, really. Being in the political spotlight can bring a lot of lucrative opportunities.