Kerry on Dem ticket: "We've got better hair"

[Evilmav2]

John Kerry and John Edwards: Do they have better hair?

By LIZ SIDOTI
www.washingtonpost.com

CLEVELAND (AP) - An upbeat John Kerry campaigned for the first time with running mate John Edwards on Wednesday and boasted that the Democratic team has a "better vision, better ideas" than its Republican counterpart - and joked, "we've got better hair."

In Raleigh, N.C., President Bush dismissed Edwards' credentials to be vice president, curtly telling reporters, "Dick Cheney can be president."

One day after Kerry chose Edwards as the vice presidential candidate, the two senators offered glowing critiques of each other at a downtown plaza in Ohio, a critical battleground state.

Introducing Edwards in Cleveland, the first city to get electricity, Kerry welcomed "a different kind of electricity called John Edwards." The Massachusetts senator called his running mate a man with "passion, conviction and strength."

"He represents the best of the hope of our country, the best of opportunity," Kerry said.

Kerry also poked fun at himself as well as his running mate for something the two often are teased about.

"We've got better vision, better ideas, real plans. We've got a better sense of what's happening to America - and we've got better hair," Kerry said, laughing.

In turn, Edwards praised Kerry for showing "strength and courage and determination" during the Democratic primary. "And the truth is, it's the same strength, courage and leadership that he showed his whole life," he said.

Kerry and Edwards sought to dispel any notion of ill-will from the primary campaign by embracing and laughing together like old friends. The two - both millionaires - promised that together they would fight for the middle class. And, they criticized Bush.

Still, the entire day had a celebratory feel - all part of the campaign's plan to introduce the Democratic ticket before the convention in Boston July 26-29 - and it was definitely a family affair.

Earlier, the candidates, their wives and children appeared on the Kerry family's suburban Pittsburgh estate for family photographs before heading to Ohio and then to Florida to kick off four days of campaigning that will end Saturday with a rally in Edwards' home state of North Carolina.

Edwards, a constant grin on his face, said he had assumed when Kerry called him on Tuesday morning that it was another reporter calling. "I was very pleased to have gotten the news," he said.

"This is a great privilege for me - a great opportunity to serve my country, which I love so dearly," Edwards said.

Kerry said the two families spent last night talking about the announcement and having fun getting to know each other better. He joked that the ticket was announcing a new campaign manager.

"Jack Edwards is taking over everything," Kerry quipped, referring to Edwards' 4-year-old son. "He does a wild cannonball."

Amid questions about the depth of Edwards' experience after less than six years in the Senate, the Kerry campaign on Wednesday defended the selection by pointing to his service on the Senate Intelligence Committee and his participation in an inquiry into the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"He brings a great deal to the table and actually more than the current president did when he was elected in 2000," Mary Beth Cahill, the Kerry-Edwards campaign manager, told "Good Morning America" on ABC.

Polling conducted the night after the choice of Edwards was announced indicated a favorable impression among voters toward Kerry's choice. Sixty-four percent in a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll taken Wednesday night said the choice of Edwards was excellent or good.

In 2000, just over half said they felt that way about the choices of Republican Dick Cheney and Democrat Joe Lieberman. Nine in 10 Democrats, and seven in 10 of all voters, said they were satisfied or enthusiastic about the Edwards pick, according to a CBS News poll.

On Capitol Hill, House Republican leaders dismissed Edwards as another liberal Democrat and doubted he would gain the party serious support in Southern states.

"It's not a very balanced ticket," House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., told reporters. "Senator Kerry is the No. 1 liberal in the Senate and Senator Edwards is the No. 4 liberal in the Senate."

"There has been a trend over the years that has rejected those liberals that come home and talk conservative," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. "That's why Republicans are the overwhelming majority party all across the South."

Although Hastert said Edwards "didn't even carry his own state against Kerry," Edwards won both his native South Carolina during the competitive phase of the primary race and then North Carolina, which gave Edwards a victory even after he had dropped from the race.

---

[dude1394]

Let the contest begin!!

Wait a MINUTE!!

Is this Mavdog??/

"He brings a great deal to the table and actually more than the current president did when he was elected in 2000," Mary Beth Cahill, the Kerry-Edwards campaign manager, told "Good Morning America" on ABC.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Let the contest begin!!

Wait a MINUTE!!

Is this Mavdog??

what can I say, great minds think alike,,,[img]i/expressions/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[dude1394]

Damn she IS Mavdog.

[quote]
Mary Beth Cahill

On November 10, 2003, Mary Beth Cahill, chief of staff to Senator Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., replaced Jim Jordan as John Forbes Kerry's campaign manager for the U.S. presidential election, 2004.[1]

In February 1999, Cahill, described as a "Capitol Hill veteran", was appointed by President William Jefferson Clinton as Assistant to the President and Director of the Office of Public Liaison. She had "recently left her position as executive director of EMILY's List ("the nation’s largest financial resource for pro-choice Democratic women running for the House, Senate and governor" / "a nonprofit Democratic political action committee"), which provides financial and political assistance to candidates for office. She formerly served as the organization's political director. She ... managed a number of gubernatorial, U.S. Senate, Congressional, and other political campaigns around the country. Ms. Cahill served as director of personnel and as director of the Washington, D.C., office of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under Governor Michael Dukakis, and ... worked on the staffs of Representatives Robert Drinan and Barney Frank. She received a B.A. degree from Emmanuel College."[2]

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

what can I say, great minds think alike,,,[img]i/expressions/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Sure if by great you meant pathologically unstable and vacuous.

[madape]

STERLING, Ill., July 8 /PRNewswire/ -- May the best candidate win, but
when it comes to the best presidential hair, George W. Bush has America's
vote, according to Wahl Clipper Corporation's 2004 Grooming Survey and First
Ever "Index" on men's grooming habits.
Despite John Kerry's recent claim that the Kerry-Edwards ticket has the
best hair, Wahl's survey found that the majority of Americans overwhelmingly
voted for Bush's hair over Kerry's (Bush -- 51 percent; Kerry -- 30 percent;
neither -- 10 percent; don't know -- 9 percent.)
"Wahl isn't choosing sides politically, but when it comes to what we know
best -- hair -- we're interested in what Americans think is a fitting
hairstyle for their president," said Pat Anello, Director of Marketing for
Wahl Clipper. "Whether you're running for president or running a busy
schedule, Wahl has innovative, quality products that make grooming easy."
The truth behind these and other hairy facts have been tabulated to form
Wahl's first annual Grooming Index, designed to benchmark the grooming
behavior and habits of American men (age 18 and over).
The survey, conducted by Opinion Research Corporation, is based on
telephone surveys of 1,009 adults, 18 and over (including 512 men) conducted
between May 6-9, 2004 with a margin of error among all adults plus or minus
three (3) percent (and a margin of error plus or minus four percent among
men).

For complete survey findings, visit http://www.wahlclipper.com/home.htm .

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: Drbio

Sure if by great you meant pathologically unstable and vacuous.

HAHAHA
Line of the week, without a doubt.

[Evilmav2]

Speaking of the Kerry-Edwards hair alliance, I couldn't help guffawing in my cold beverage after I saw this graphic...

[Drbio]

genius.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Evilmav2
Speaking of the Kerry-Eduards hair alliance, I couldn't help guffawing in my cold beverage after I saw this graphic...

WOO HOO!!!! Hilarious....

[Mavdog]

The obvious irony is of course that 2 and 1/2 years after the largest mass murder in America's history, the one person who publically declared he is responsible is still at large. Remember al Queda and Afganistan? I wonder when we'll see GWBush under a banner saying "Mission Accomplished" in regard to that endeavor...

Clearly Osama isn't too "scared yet" of the current President and Vice President, no matter what their hair style is.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
The obvious irony is of course that 2 and 1/2 years after the largest mass murder in America's history, the one person who publically declared he is responsible is still at large. Remember al Queda and Afganistan? I wonder when we'll see GWBush under a banner saying "Mission Accomplished" in regard to that endeavor...

Clearly Osama isn't too "scared yet" of the current President and Vice President, no matter what their hair style is.

Why blame Bush because the army wasn't able to scope out coward-boy Osama in his little 5x5 hole in the ground? You come up with the dumbest crap to bash George about. He's done everything in his power to oust Osama, it's all up to sheer luck from here on out. Good grief.

[dude1394]

Oh I believe Osama is plenty scared. I would imagine he hasn't seen the sun very much in the last 2.5 years. That's if he isn't already adorning the side of a cave somewhere, which is what I suspect.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: mavsman55

Why blame Bush because the army wasn't able to scope out coward-boy Osama in his little 5x5 hole in the ground? You come up with the dumbest crap to bash George about. He's done everything in his power to oust Osama, it's all up to sheer luck from here on out. Good grief.

yeah, why hold the chief executive accountable? after all, he is the leader, right? he made the decisions that either proved a successful plan or one that failed. as Truman was famous for saying, "the buck stops here."

now. for you to call this "dumb crap" reveals your blind idolatry for Bush, for other than by their record, in this case the real war on terror, how would one evaluate his performance? "sheer luck" isn't much of a plan...

"good grief"

[dude1394]

Let's compare bush's "dumb" plan to the russians? Why don't we compare his plan and execution to the oh woe is me democrats, NYTimes and main stream appeasers. What was the chattering masses at the time?

- Cant' fight in afghanistan in the winter.
- Afghanistan fighters and mountains will chew us up like they did russia.
- After 3 weeks (Woe is me, it's a quagmire, it's VIETNAM!! Wooo Peee, happy days are here again!! ).

I'm also curious what you are suggesting anyway, are you suggesting we should invade Pakistan's sovereignty to get osama bin laden if he is there? It's easy to call for things, without having to be responsible for considering facts. It's sort of like the democrat party these days.

Sure I wish he had got him, (and I'm not sure we haven't to be honest, those were mighty big bombs being dropped in those mountains) but come in here with a little bit more of a bag MD. You know maybe at least one sensible suggestion that bush SHOULD be doing.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Let's compare bush's "dumb" plan to the russians? Why don't we compare his plan and execution to the oh woe is me democrats, NYTimes and main stream appeasers. What was the chattering masses at the time?

- Cant' fight in afghanistan in the winter.
- Afghanistan fighters and mountains will chew us up like they did russia.
- After 3 weeks (Woe is me, it's a quagmire, it's VIETNAM!! Wooo Peee, happy days are here again!! ).

comparing (as you put it ) "bush's dumb plan" to what? the russians? why?
The point made has nothing to do with AYTHING in the above.
The point I am making is that the US has not accomplished its goals in Afganistan. There remains Taliban/al Queda activity, and Ossama has not been found.
simple facts actually.

I'm also curious what you are suggesting anyway, are you suggesting we should invade Pakistan's sovereignty to get osama bin laden if he is there? It's easy to call for things, without having to be responsible for considering facts. It's sort of like the democrat party these days.

US forces have gone into Pakistan several times BTW.
What I am "suggesting" is that we have not completed our mission in Afganistan.
remember Afganistan? where the real war on terror was? We kinda lost sight what with all this Iraq activity.

Sure I wish he had got him, (and I'm not sure we haven't to be honest, those were mighty big bombs being dropped in those mountains) but come in here with a little bit more of a bag MD. You know maybe at least one sensible suggestion that bush SHOULD be doing.

Bush should not have left the mission in Afganistan unfinished, but his preoccupation with Iraq took the administration's focus away from the real war on terror.
Can you honestly say that we finished our work in Afganistan? There is taliban activity ongoing, we failed to find Ossama, and the country is not rid of the terrorists.
No "mission accomplished" here.

[madape]

When did Bush leave the mission in Afganistan? As far as I know we still have a shit load of soldiers and special forces on the ground there, and will continue to have a shit load there for the foreseeable future. The real war on terror lives on in Afganistan, and many other places around the world. It is a war that in my opinion, Ameirca is winning quite handily.

We may not have Osama in custody, but we have crippled his ability to wage a terror war. He no longer has the Taliban providing him shelter and resources. Instead, he has the Americans, Pakistanis, and other troops hunting him day and night. He can't pop his head out of his cave, even for a split second, for fear that an American reconaissance satellite will target him and replay his coordinates to an incoming JDAM. He's a limp, flailing bafoon. Credit Bush for not flooding the Afgan mountains with 200,000 troops. Thank him for not sending hundreds of thousands of lightly trained infantry into conditions much less hospitable that those in Vietnam. To do so would have most likely left us with ten times as many American soldiers dead, and left us in a position in which we couldn't have deposed Saddam or implemented the glorious Democratic movement that is taking place right now in the middle east.

Finding Osama is important, but it is just a minor battle in the larger war on terror. It is not the ultimate solution. The ultimate solution will only come by removing the world of it's terror enablers - countries that support and harbor terrorists. Two of those dictatorships have already fallen (three if you count Libya). Thankfully, there aren't that many left, and those that still exist are seriously watching their P's and Q's. Step by step, the world is becoming a safe place to live again.

Focusing on Osama is, as my friend sturm and drang would like to say, myopic. Osama may still be alive, but America is winning the war on terror. Which is more important, long term? I guess the answer depends on which American political party you want represented in the White House.

[dude1394]

Mavdog.. How many US soldiers are still in afghanistan helping karzi and hunting bin laden, I believe it is about 20K US, and probably 10K international. How many more do you want?

You want all 138,000 in iraq to be swarming around in afghanistan? Or is your point that you just don't want any in Iraq and this is how you are making your argument?

As our president said and your candidate (and party) have no concept of, this is going to be a long hard slog. It won't happen in a 24/7 news cycle. It will be steady, slow, incessant and unyielding pressure. The electorate in general and the leftists of the country in particular don't have the stomach for this type of long-hard-slog (unless it is criticising and tearing down america, as they can do that in their sleep, it's like breathing).

Thankfully there is still one serious party in the us that is willing to take on long-hard tasks that need doing.