Obama's Best Choice for Veep? Elizabeth Edwards

I'm often asked who Barack Obama should select as vice president. My answer: Elizabeth Edwards. Think about it. As a woman, she will help lure female Democrats and undecided voters who supported Clinton. As a southerner, she may help Obama win a few battleground states in the south. And as a cancer survivor and Obama's health care czar, she will help shine a light on the failings of John McCain's abysmal plan, while perhaps bringing Obama's more closely in line with Hillary Clinton's, whose plan would do more to cover uninsured Americans like me.

I am personally opposed to John Edwards getting the nod, especially after his lackluster debate performance against Cheney in 2004. I also don't think I could stand listening to Edwards retell the story about his pa working in a textile mill again. Or bear more sentences like this one, which he delivered last May before the Council on Foreign Relations: "What we need is not more slogans but a comprehensive strategy to deal with the complex challenge of both delivering justice and being just. Not hard power. Not soft power. Smart power." (Er, senator, isn't that a slogan you just uttered?)

Unlike her husband, Elizabeth Edwards comes off as genuine, intelligent, and likeable. She has a compelling life story, growing up the daughter of a naval aviator on military bases abroad her whole life. Her views are also preferable to her husband's: for instance, she came out for gay marriage much, much sooner than he did. Like Obama, she is a book writer, having penned a recent memoir that documents her battle with breast cancer. Edwards combines Hillary's intellect but without the baggage of the "Clinton" surname.

Of course, there are obvious snags. Elizabeth Edwards has not exactly sounded enthusiastic about the role of vice president in American politics. As she recently told the National Journal, after watching the John Adams series on HBO, "[O]nly terrible things are said about the vice presidency." She has also clashed with Michele Obama at times over the past year (albeit over pretty trivial stuff), not to mention that Edwards was a supporter of Hillary, until she came onboard to advise Obama on health care issues. She also does not help Obama fill his foreign policy deficit.

But Elizabeth Edwards is preferable to, say, Jim Webb, who is a loose cannon and a little too grumpy for the position. Her favorability ratings are high. And unlike many of the no-name governors mentioned, Edwards brings to the ticket instant name recognition. I like an Obama-Edwards ticket -- so long as it's not John Edwards.

Comments

[appledown]

I agree with "beaupritc­hard"-Caro­line Kennedy Schlossberg it is!

[manualfordemocracy]

I have to disagree, not because Elizabeth Edwards wouldn’t do well but, she’d do better in a Healthcare roll more than as VP and without any experience in Government and never holding elected or appointed office, her expertise in Healthcare would be far better put to use in a different position.

John Edwards would be an excellent Attorney General and he would go after Bush and his proxies for certain.

But I strongly feel that Obama needs an experienced war vet to balance or exceed McCain’s war experience. Senator Webb or General Clark would be ideal there.

Anthony Congiano
Senior Editor & Founder
www.manualfordemocracy.com

[fishsandwichesr2good]

Um, other than being a cancer survivor, her resume includes....? Never mind, that almost makes her more qualified than BO whose resume includes....?

[nuglet304]

so here we go again, basing our opinions and preferences on the most dramatic and news-making candidates, rather than those most able to handle the job. appearances aren't everything; eventually substance is gonna have to play a part in our politics once again if we've got any hope at all.

[StrategicThinker]

No one would help Obama win in the south, after the GOP hits him hard after he's officially nominated.
People apparently have little foresight. The GOP won't go hard after Obama until he's officially nominated, because he's one of the candidates they MOST WANTED TO RUN AGAINST, next to Hillary Clinton. Therefore, they'll go easy on him until it's guaranteed that his name will be on the ballot in November or it's too late for the Democrats to do something about him being on the ballot.
They'll go hard after him beginning near the end of September, and then it'll be all about Reverend Wright, Tony Rezko, William Ayers, radical signs hanging in offices, Larry Sinclair, birth certificates, "whitey," unscreened campaign donations from the middle east, supporters connected to the PLO, etc,.
By the time they (GOP/Corporate media) finish with a black candidate named "Barack Hussein Obama," he won't have a chance in the south, or anywhere else.
Which, again, is why they wanted to run against him...not the husband of the woman you think he should pick as his running mate. That's the guy they "SAID" they were worried about facing both times, so they attacked Kerry during the primaries last time, because they preferred him being nominated to Edwards, and they knew that if they attacked Kerry, Democrats would rally around Kerry.
Well, this time they promoted "CLINTON V. OBAMA" from the beginning, and dumbocrats believed they only had two legitimate choices.
Democrats are so gullible.

[darcy]

I totally disagree about this. Elizabeth Edwards has no qualifications to be vice president. If Obama is smart, he will pick Clinton and ensure that he is elected.

[kvet]

Hey Lionel,,,
You Are way Off Base on this one......Not VP.....
I think Executive Director of the Dept. Of Health is more appropriate....

[Zogtastic]

I like Elizabeth Edwards, she can do a lot of good working with health care.

But when are we going to start looking at the VP options from the most realistic perspective? I get it, they can help win the Presidency... maybe. But they're not an accessory to the President, they're 2nd in line to the Presidency.

Simple as that, I can't see Elizabeth Edwards as President.

[BlackLeatherRain]

Nine months ago we weren't sure that Elizabeth Edwards was going to even live a year. I can't see how anyone can suggest in any serious manner that she should be second in line for the Presidency - if something happens to the President, you'd nearly be passing over the Veep to get to the third in line.

[Rosanneofpgh]

Which would be nancy(impeachment is off the table)pelosi.

NO WAY/

[Fabienne]

Elizabeth Edwards has NO political experience and she has an incurable cancer (which, I hope, stays in remission).

[beaupritchard]

I'm still liking Carolyn Kennedy ... kind of a way of chopping out 1964 to 2008 ... big ideas ... man on the moon ... camelot ... dare to dream again.

[jrterrier]

i like both women. but folks, let's understand here, we are talking about the presidency of the US. neither woman has the necessary experience. we've had 8 years of what happens when we elect someone who to the majority of americans was charming enough to have a beer with but lacks any experience to do the job.

[Thorn]

"Camelot" was a complete myth spun from whole cloth by Jackie Kennedy and Ted Sorenson -- after the death of JFK. And it's "Caroline," by the way. Hi.

[reggieb]

no

[zull2]

I know it's meant to be tongue in cheek, but it's also kinda pathetic.

It's like we think that if we stick a woman in there as VP, women will all line up instantly. Or if we put a vet in there, the vets will come out and vote. Or if you make a Southerner the VP, Southerners will vote for your candidate.

I wouldn't vote for a white guy just because I'm white, and a guy. If all you need to vote for someone is for them to look or talk like you, then you're really pretty freaking far down on the intellectual totem pole. Somewhere just above sheep and just below goats, I'd think. I'd personally rather see a good candidate that knows how to run Obama's campaign, gets along well with him, challenges him to take a stronger stand on the issues, cuts through the BS, fights for what he/she believes..­.whatever. Forget this passive/aggressive racist/sexist crap.

[Daly]

working with a deadline and had to get something out? Why do you not focus on Cain; he has been the "presumptive" for months now and it would be wise to let him get his selection out of the way first.

Nothing in this season has been like past elections and that means the VP selection might need to be someone that can at least bring in a state or two.

This may be the year to go with a woman but that needs to be pivoted off the Cain selection; heck the GOP might even push for a woman just to try and have some sort of base aside from grumpy and ignorant

[gba]

This is just another hitp iece on John Edwards. And no, according to most polls after the VP debate in 2004 he actually won the debate with Cheney

[PennP]

Mrs. Edwards is ill. This suggestion seems in very poor taste.

[wanked]

Beating back cancer for one year does not a suvivor make!

[Thorn]

You're both absolutely right.

[Alfannell]

If he really want to pick a qualify woman VP besides Hillary Clinton why not pick Claudia Kennedy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudia_Kennedy

[mergina]

Obama should run without a running mate. Change. Change the rules. When you are a political messiah why would you need a v.p. anyway? Voters seem to either love the guy or could care less about him. There is only one person who won 18 million votes who could make a difference as a running mate, and his big ego will more than likely not allow that to happen. but if it does...welcome to the White House President Obama.

[leftcoastliberal]

The only office that "one person who could make a difference" should be running for is a psychiatrist's office. Anyone who voted for Bush's war in Iraq, threatens to "obliterate" a whole nation, and objects to diplomacy with our nation's enemies on principle (like not talking to people has ever worked?) has got to be crazy.

[wutzhappn]

Uh, didn't Elizabeth Edwards' husband "vote for the war?"