Which would you prefer?

[downtown]

Let's go back in time to 2004, and consider the following scenario.

You get a chance to replay the 2004 US Presidential election, with Bush/Cheney against Kerry/Edwards. In this scenario HOWEVA:

If Kerry/Edwards wins, John Kerry will have a fatal heart attack in 2006, and John Edwards becomes president. He selects Bill Richardson to be his running mate.

In this scenerio, you know everything about John Edwards that we know now. We know that he's a bit of a sociopath, he was having at least one affair (while his wife was dying of cancer), which would blow up during his second term (if he was able to defeat McCain or Romney in 08 or whatever). We also know that Edwards was willing to let basic morality slide in the name of winning, AND that Richardson was enaging in some sketchy behavior as well.

YOU CAN'T VOTE FOR A 3RD PARTY.

Who do you vote for? For all of the crap that Bush did (the Iraq invansion had already happened at this point), is that preferable to Edwards running the show? Would the combined scandals of an Edwards/Richardson ticket ruin Democrats ability to win elections from 2008-to the current? Note that Obama would still be an Illinois Senator in this situation, unless you think that Edwards screws things up so bad from 2006-2008 that he couldn't run for releection...

 

[holy king]

well, would he start a war?

i'm kind of against starting wars.

 

[downtown]

well, would he start a war?

i'm kind of against starting wars.

The Iraq Invasion was in 2003. I don't think a Kerry/Edwards ticket would have been able to get US troops out of Iraq much faster than actually happened. I'd be open to arguement that Kerry/Edwards would have started another war though (I don't think that is likely).

 

[amadeus]

I'd vote for Kerry.

No Obama in 2008.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

As an Australian I have the luxury of selecting my preferred Presidents based mostly on entertainment and comedy value. So it's hands down Dubya FTW.

 

[NickyJ]

 

[Save_Ferris]

I would only be 7, so yeah.

 

[History_Buff]

Tough call. But I'll go with Edward, if only because it takes two Supreme Court appointments away from GWB. That very well might have avoided this whole Citizens United stupidity.

 

[Cutlass]

Edwards may have been personally a sleeze, but at least he was decent policy wise.

So your real choice is between someone good on policy but lousy as a person, or someone disasterous on policy who has a good personal life.

 

[bhsup]

Bush/Cheney, without a doubt.

 

[Murky]

Why 2004 why not the previous election, just skip W all together?

 

[NickyJ]

Tough call. But I'll go with Edward, if only because it takes two Supreme Court appointments away from GWB.

Good point. With that in mind, I'd vote for Bush/Cheney.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The Iraq Invasion was in 2003. I don't think a Kerry/Edwards ticket would have been able to get US troops out of Iraq much faster than actually happened.

I certainly think they would have. Probably would have been out by the end of the first term considering how critical that was to the campaign.
With that in mind, I'd still vote for Edwards for that reason.

 

[Hygro]

Let's go back in time to 2004, and consider the following scenario.

You get a chance to replay the 2004 US Presidential election, with Bush/Cheney against Kerry/Edwards. In this scenario HOWEVA:

If Kerry/Edwards wins, John Kerry will have a fatal heart attack in 2006, and John Edwards becomes president. He selects Bill Richardson to be his running mate.

In this scenerio, you know everything about John Edwards that we know now. We know that he's a bit of a sociopath, he was having at least one affair (while his wife was dying of cancer), which would blow up during his second term (if he was able to defeat McCain or Romney in 08 or whatever). We also know that Edwards was willing to let basic morality slide in the name of winning, AND that Richardson was enaging in some sketchy behavior as well.

YOU CAN'T VOTE FOR A 3RD PARTY.

Who do you vote for? For all of the crap that Bush did (the Iraq invansion had already happened at this point), is that preferable to Edwards running the show? Would the combined scandals of an Edwards/Richardson ticket ruin Democrats ability to win elections from 2008-to the current? Note that Obama would still be an Illinois Senator in this situation, unless you think that Edwards screws things up so bad from 2006-2008 that he couldn't run for releection...

Bush was less awful his second term. We do know that Edwards might be a sociopath but we only know for sure he's a narcissist. Cheating on his dying wife is f'd but that doesn't make him evil nor is sociopathic.

We don't know what kind of president he'd be, but 2 years of Kerry would be not bad (I actually really liked him, though voted Edwards in the primary as he was the electable guy who was left of half of em), and following it with Edwards could have still done good things for our nation. Even a bad person can govern well.

Edwards is definitely impulsive, which is bad, too.

But I still think he could have done well in the post.

Echo the supreme court.

 

[downtown]

Bush was less awful his second term. We do know that Edwards might be a sociopath but we only know for sure he's a narcissist. Cheating on his dying wife is f'd but that doesn't make him evil nor is sociopathic.

We don't know what kind of president he'd be, but 2 years of Kerry would be not bad (I actually really liked him, though voted Edwards in the primary as he was the electable guy who was left of half of em), and following it with Edwards could have still done good things for our nation. Even a bad person can govern well.

Edwards is definitely impulsive, which is bad, too.

But I still think he could have done well in the post.

Echo the supreme court.

The whole getting his chief aide to pretend he was the baby-daddy thing makes my skin crawl a little.

It's also kinda crazy, in retrospect, how little Edwards was vetted. He had won a kinda flukish election as a NC Senator, and only served the one term. He had some of the Obama-like glow, but WAY more impulsive and self-serving. Basically, I think he combined the worst parts of Clinton and Obama.

The Supreme Court thing is certainly something to consider, but if Edwards/Richardson gets caught in a scandal or really bones things up, there is a good chance they don't win in 2008, and the Republicans add the next two supreme court choices, basically making all this a wash. Remember, 06-08 is when the economy was starting to tank again, and people wouldn't be able to run against Bush nearly as well as they did from 2008-onwards...

 

[GhostWriter16]

You could have just said "Would you vote for Bush or Kerry" and I still would have picked Bush

Bush was horrible, but still better than practically any Democrat at a national level.

 

[utgotye]

I am a firm believer that Bush will be somewhat vindicated by history. He was a domestic policy president who had his world flipped just like the rest of us did. Despite the unpopularity of a lot of what he did, I think, for the most part, he did what he thought was right, given the information he had. While I may not have agreed with a lot of it, at least I can respect it and I'll give him tons of credit for taking responsibility for it. Katrina is a great example of that. I'd go with Bush/Cheney in a heartbeat.

I'd rather deal with someone who has principles, even if I disagree with them, than someone who only believes in what is convenient today or tomorrow. That's the biggest problem with the two candidates we have. Neither of them really believe what they spout, but I'll go with Romney because I have seen what has happened with Obama and I don't think Romney could do as much damage in his first term as Obama could do in a second term. Obviously a lot also depends on how the Congressional elections go.

 

[Smellincoffee]

PATRIOT act was already in place and Iraq had already begun, so the point seems moot. It depends somewhat on what Kerry would have been able to accomplish were he president, given that the Congress we elected in 2004 was conservative. I wonder how the rise of the right-wing populists in the tea party might have been affected by the prescence of a psuedo-populist in the white house.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

That's the biggest problem with the two candidates we have. Neither of them really believe what they spout, but I'll go with Romney because I have seen what has happened with Obama and I don't think Romney could do as much damage in his first term as Obama could do in a second term. Obviously a lot also depends on how the Congressional elections go.

Well, I guess some people like liars with chiseled haircuts. No shame in that.

 

[Save_Ferris]

I am a firm believer that Bush will be somewhat vindicated by history. He was a domestic policy president who had his world flipped just like the rest of us did. Despite the unpopularity of a lot of what he did, I think, for the most part, he did what he thought was right, given the information he had. While I may not have agreed with a lot of it, at least I can respect it and I'll give him tons of credit for taking responsibility for it. Katrina is a great example of that. I'd go with Bush/Cheney in a heartbeat.

I'd rather deal with someone who has principles, even if I disagree with them, than someone who only believes in what is convenient today or tomorrow. That's the biggest problem with the two candidates we have. Neither of them really believe what they spout, but I'll go with Romney because I have seen what has happened with Obama and I don't think Romney could do as much damage in his first term as Obama could do in a second term. Obviously a lot also depends on how the Congressional elections go.

Amen. I didn't like him either, he was just out of place.