Edwards' N.H. visit may be '08 groundwork

[Freddie Stubbs]

By ROB CHRISTENSEN, Staff Writer

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- The same thumbs-up gesture. The same broad grin. The same talk about two Americas.
Three months after his vice presidential concession speech, one month after his Senate term ended and a little more than two weeks since President Bush's second inauguration, John Edwards was back on the campaign trail Saturday.

Edwards spoke at a Democratic dinner here in New Hampshire, in what many believe is his initial effort to lay the groundwork for the 2008 presidential campaign. Edwards delivered a pointed and retooled message to a reeling Democratic Party: That the party is right on the issues and should stick to its core convictions, rather than shifting with the political winds because of the loss in November.

And Edwards dished up partisan red meat to the Democrats, portraying Bush as a spokesman for privilege, while depicting Democrats as champions of the poor and the struggling middle class.

more: http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/politicians/edwards/story/2094948p-8473846c.html

[Semi_subversive]

1. I hope so

[AP]

2. Yeah, me too. I hope poverty, work and opportunity become part of the...

...debate over the next four years, even if Edwards doesn't win the nomination.

[tralfaz]

3. Edward's couldn't

even help Kerry win in Edward's home state. What makes you think that he can win any other states?

[AP]

7. Here's a good reason to think he could win other states:

Edwards' strength vis-à-vis Kerry appears to stem from a greater appeal to Republicans and Independents. Post-deliberation, our Republican participants rated Kerry's traits at about 43 (somewhat to the negative side of the neutral point of 50) but Edwards' at 57, a statistically significant difference. Our Independent participants rated Kerry at 61 but Edwards at 66, a close to statistically significant difference. (Our Democratic participants rated the two about the same.) Among both Republicans and independents, these ratings are significantly more positive among the participants than in the control group for Edwards but not Kerry, indicating that deliberation increased Edwards' advantage.


Furthermore, in a hypothetical November matchup against President Bush, Edwards fared significantly better than Kerry. While Kerry and Bush were tied at 47%, roughly a quarter of the participants favoring Bush in that matchup said they would be undecided or would prefer Edwards if the choice were instead between Bush and Edwards. In all, 48% said they would vote for Edwards and only 37% for Bush, if Edwards were the Democratic nominee. The contrast with the control group, which showed a similar but significantly weaker pattern, was highly significant statistically (26% of Bush supporters defected in the experimental group while only 12% defected in the control group). These results suggest a strong appeal of Edwards among Independents and Republicans.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/march04-poll.html

[ultraist]

8. KERRY LOST NC. KERRY wrote off the South

People don't vote for VP they vote for President. The KERRY campaign made some serious strategic moves, one of which was to NOT campaign in the South.

I'm with Dean and Edwards on this one, return to our core values and campaign in all 50 states!

[MR. ELECTABLE]

4. Unfortunately, Edwards chances are even LOWER now than they were before...

He doesn't even hold elected office anymore. And if he's planning on running for president again, that means he's basically going to be sitting on his hands for the next for years.

Running for president as a single-term senator still in office (holding no previous elected positions) was ambitious almost to the point of ridicule, which is one reason I had trouble with his candidacy last time around. Trying to run for president as a one-time single-term office holder is laughable. Edwards is good, but not that good.

He's hella young, he should try running for governor or something-- get some more experience under his belt before he tries to run again. He probably would have been better off serving two terms as Senator before he ran the first time-- but to try the same stunt twice would be complete political suicide.

[AP]

6. Dean was the early favorite in 2003, and he had been out of politics.

Was Carter out of politics when he ran? Clark was never in politics and he was challenging Dean for first place in the December and early January polls. Lincoln hadn't served in the federal government for a decade when he ran (he was a one term congressman from '48-'50, and a losing senate candidate in '58, and had been going around the country for two years giving speeches about slavery for the two years prior to running successfully for president).

Edwards was incredibly well-received for having only been in office for four years when he started running. I don't see how he could possibly be less popular by 2008. After all, like Lincoln, he'll be barnstorming the country talking about the most important issues of the day. In Edwards's case, however, it will be poverty, work and opportunity.

I think, rather than argue why he shouldn't be very popular for 2008, it would probably be more interesting to sit back and watch him be very popular and an early favority in 2006, and then discuss how he stacks up against the other candidates.

[ultraist]

9. I don't think Edwards will be sitting on his hands for four years

Nor do I think Clark will. If Edwards stays visible, he has a good chance to run in the primaries. Time will tell.

I read that a right wing think tank stated the Edwards should run for governor of NC. Problem is, Easley, a Democrat already holds that position. Hmmm...

[NewYorkerfromMass]

5. Oh there's "two Americas" alright

Edwards' arguements fell on deaf ears.
It's still red vs. blue.