Why isn't John Edwards the Dem front runner for 08?

[usregimechange]

Why?

[autorank]

1. He's for the war and many feel he and Kerry let us down by folding

so quickly. They should have held back and showed up in Ohio; at least by challenging the election and all the crap that wen on there. Endorsing the Iraq war will be seen as a disaster for any politician in a couple of years when all our losses end up putting large portions of the country under Iranian influence.

Thats why.

[usregimechange]

3. I supported the war in Iraq

about 15 years ago.

[autorank]

7. Nothing wrong with betting on a winner. This one is a bad pony,

nobody with a brain should have bet on it. But they did, little chicken shits that they are. Do you remember the Senate debate on Gulf War I. It was intense, nobody was called a traitor for opposing the war, the media was neutral. This time around, when it took real courage, we only found about 21 Senators with the guts to do this.

In any event, Edwards didn't live up to my hopes for him. I wanted him to soar. I do feel very bad for him and his wife. I hope things go well for him.

[benny05]

99. JRE Is not a Bad Pony

He's a man of conviction and a good set of core values. He is pro-family, looks out for those who need more opportunities to get to the middle, and yes, he believes in some protection for our country.

He's not running for 2008 at this juncture, but I sure do like him. I've met him twice, and I've never met anyone who could electrify a crowd like him. Clinton perhaps does, but Edwards is good to his core.

[Crunchy Frog]

102. I believe the "bad pony" reference

was meant to refer to the Iraq war, not to JRE. He's saying, (I think), that JRE bet on a bad pony by supporting the invasion of Iraq, and that this was a display of poor judgement.

By the way, I absolutely do not see how supporting the invasion of Iraq can be equated with "believing in some protection for our country". Every presidential candidate that I've ever observed with the exception of extreme fringe third party ones, has believed in protecting our country. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with protecting our country, and has in fact made us less safe, and has taken away resources from going after terrorists, while creating a whole bunch more people who hate us.

I have no doubt that JRE is a very good and charismatic person, but I agree with the other poster that his support for invading Iraq was a mark of very poor judgement and lack of knowledge and experience in national security and foreign affairs.

[benny05]

106. If I recall

At the time, the terrible CIA and the British Intelligence folks were reporting WMD's, but JK and JRE didn't totally buy it, I don't think. They wanted Bush to wait, but he decide to go ahead. At the time, WMD were considered a national security threat.

Both of those men were (and JK still is) on Foreign Affairs committees. JRE is a very quick study, so I think his grasp is better than many give him credit for. You are correct that he bet on a bad horse, but so did many others, including Hiliary Clinton.
At least he admits his mistakes, something that I find refreshing in the world of mega-egos.

[Crunchy Frog]

108. I won't support anyone for the nomination

who bet on that bad horse, and that includes Hillary. I don't recall Edwards ever saying he thought it had been a mistake to invade Iraq, in fact, I recall him continuing to defend it even after it became clear that there were no WMD.

I give the Dems in Congress more credit than to think that they really bought in to all the lies coming from BushCo. The flip side of that is that I think many of them gave in to political expediency or cowardice, and that is something I cannot support in a presidential candidate.

[Guaranteed]

155. It's awful generous to even call it politically expedient.

For a Democrat, voting for the IWR was cutting one's own throat.

[Crunchy Frog]

156. Well, I think at the time they believed

it was expedient. My main point is that they weren't voting on the basis either of principle, or of their understanding of the facts (I just don't buy that one), but because they thought they were acting in their own political interest.

The fact that they were in fact cutting their own throats just further illustrates how truly out of touch they'd become. JMHO.

[DemDogs]

114. The Senate was voting to make Bush go the UN

If you remember, he wasn't going to go to the UN. The IWR shouldn't have been so strong, and I think JK and JRE and others would have wanted that, but the point was to make the administration do what they were not going to do. It turns out they didn't listen, but they took their shot -- with too much ammunition. It was impossible to say, however, then or now, that we would yield our foreign policy to the UN and other countries' vetoes.

And I do respect Edwards for admitting mistakes. Rare in a politician -- or a person.

[CarolNYC]

116. Iraq a mistake?

But Edwards never did say that invading Iraq was a mistake, right? Or did he? I seem to remember him defending the invasion even long after many said we shouldn't have gone in. Does he think it was the right thing to do?

Thanks!

[CTLawGuy]

132. no

they voted to give Bush nearly unlimited power to make war in Iraq.

If Bush didn't want to go to the UN,

and the IWR (for argument's sake) had forced him to go to the UN,

then why would Bush have endorsed the IWR over other resolutions?

Why would he PREFER a resolution that made him do something he did not want to?

[CTLawGuy]

131. poor judgement?

cowardice?

[Crunchy Frog]

136. Yes, poor judgement, cowardice, and political expediency

are the main reasons that I see for most Democrats supporting either the resolution or the actual invasion. Of course, some of them actually supported it because they genuinely believed in it. It's possible that Edwards falls into that last category. It's hard to know since I have difficulty really reading him.

Why, what do you think the most likely explanations are?

[CTLawGuy]

137. I think it is the DLC-drvien

fear of losing and obsession with "moving to the center."

Voting for the war made Kerry "electable", apparently.

[Crunchy Frog]

140. I think you and I are pretty much in agreement,

just using somewhat different terminology that mostly means the same thing.:hi:

[DemDogs]

164. Edwards was never DLC (n/t)

[MissWaverly]

170. agree with you, hope is on the way electrifying speech

also I know many people admire Hilary, but I just want a clean slate in 2008, I do not want any one who is the wife, mother, husband, brother, uncle, aunt, daughter or son of an ex-president. I do not want someone in power, who currently has a brother, sister, ex-husband, father, mother, son or daughter, etc. who is a governor of a state (especially a swing state). Also I do not want anyone handpicked by an ex-president. I do not want a president who has been the head of the CIA, FBI, Homeland security, this is because I want the government to have checks and balances and is not seen as a criticism, but I think that the system works better when the lines are clearly drawn and not fuzzy like they are now. And I like Edwards and I think he would make a good choice.

[AuntiBush]

181. I like Edwards, too!

I really do and firmly believe Edwards "IS" our MAN in 2008.

[DemDogs]

70. How many threads do need -- Edwards wanted to fight

Kerry's group folded. You heard Edwards election night speech -- he clearly wanted to fight. All the post-election analysis confirms this.

[Syrinx]

2. He IS the front runner!

In my mind anyway. Hillary Clinton has NO CHANCE of being elected president EVER. And that's why the media are pushing her. John Edwards is the man.

[NVMojo]

4. Edwards Says Aim Is to Get Wife Well, Not 2008 Bid

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former Sen. John Edwards, the Democratic Party's 2004 vice presidential pick, said his main goal was to help his wife overcome breast cancer and he was not yet considering a presidential bid for 2008.
Asked in an interview aired on Sunday whether he was looking to making his own run for the White House, Edwards said the well-being of his family came first.

"Since this election, I have been so focused on Elizabeth and on doing the work that I'm going to be doing here, I haven't even made a decision about what I'm going to do," Edwards told ABC News "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."

Edwards joined presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry on the Democratic Party's failed 2004 ticket. The former North Carolina senator said he spoke frequently to Kerry and their families were very close.

more...

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=7681789

[Leilani]

166. However, he has had time enough to travel

to future primary states.

[elshiva]

174. JRE is a great husband. Say what you may....

[caledesi]

6. Agree. John Edwards is da man. nt

[Roxy66]

16. He's my man too...he inspires me everytime I hear him....Hillary is

never going to win. I pray the Dems figure that out, and f*ck this election up too. Dont get me wrong..I love Hillary, but if a Vietnam purple Heart hero cant make it throught the "Lies O' Lot" media ...Hillary sure as heck will not! Edwards is just about as clean as you can find in any political group.

[liberalpragmatist]

5. There is no frontrunner

It's wide open. Hillary might be a slight favorite right now b/c of name recognition. JRE's biggest problem is that he's out of the national spotlight and his sole experience consists of 1 US senate term. However, if he comes up with some great policy initiatives, builds grassroots support, and stays visible, I think he'd make a great candidate.

I'm not committing to any candidate right now. I'd say I probably at this point favor Kerry again or Edwards (with Kerry as Edwards' Secretary of State, maybe?) but four years is a long time. Let's wait and see what happens in the future.

[Crunchy Frog]

8. I don't know why he should be.

Does he have any special qualifications I should know about?

[usregimechange]

10. Better hair than the Gen.?

[Crunchy Frog]

12. I prefer the General's hair myself,

but there are others with lesser hair that I think are probably more qualified than Edwards.

I admit, the hair is a strong selling point though.;-)

[Roxy66]

17. Yes...he's clean!!. The Repugs had a hard time finding something to rake

him over the coals with.

[Crunchy Frog]

21. OK, the reasons I've seen so far.

He has good hair and he's "clean". Not quite enough for me, but if it's enough for some people, I guess they're free to support him.

As far as the Repugs not digging stuff up on him, I would guess it had more to do with Kerry being the main target and Edwards just not being seen as that important. If he were to become the main focus, my guess is that they would find stuff on him, or at least undermine people's confidence in him by pointing to his lack of relevant experience.

[Padraig18]

30. They'll do that to anbody.

That's just a given, regardless of who the Democratic candidate is or may be.

[Crunchy Frog]

44. So, that's taking away one of his two strengths,

leaving him with good hair. OK, now I think we're getting somewhere.:)

[Padraig18]

63. LOL.

Doofus!

:spank::P:pals:

[Auntie Bush]

33. Another reason...he's good looking.

[yellozebra]

162. True can't trust myself to make a rational judgement about him

way, way, way too good looking

[Leilani]

165. Obviously, sarcasm is not your strong suit...

EOM

[yellozebra]

208. you know this because

you can infer tone from writing that does not communicate any?

[karynnj]

43. Remember that Kerry was clean

but that didn't stop them from making things up. You would have thought that the combination of the Nixon administration complaining that he was squeaky clean and the the FBI conclusion after following him in 71/72 that there was nothing to warrant continued surveillance would have counter any accusations from that time period.

Other than that they simply attacked him with flip/flop and weird reporting (he looks French, he's metrosexual (total Fox fabrication - but the reporter was not fired), he had an orange tan (photo shop is fun), he wind surfed (not a crime and he could also bike over 100 miles woithout falling on his face).

The point being it's good to be clean (and for some one with over 30 years of public life, Kerry was pretty clean), but being clean will not stop slime with these guys.

[Skwmom]

64. He's clean?

You've got to be kidding.

[PassingFair]

31. His daddy was a mill worker..... n/t

[Leilani]

167. And he was born in a small town.

[Yupster]

48. Agree Crunchy

I don't see why he should be the frontrunner over Kerry -- or Gore. The media will make Hillary the frontrunner.

I don't see what Kerry got from taking Edwards. I'm ready to now all it a bad pick.

Better tried would have been Graham or Gephardt.

[ZootSuitGringo]

9. Plain and simple. We are at war.

Although we may not want to believe that voters care about security; they do.

Although we may not want to believe that 9/11 happened; it did.

Although we may not want to acknowledge that we currently are fighting two wars; we are.

Although we may not want to contemplate the fact that more United States agression toward other countries is brewing; it is.

Please let me know what Edwards bring to the table on that front.

The perception that John Edwards is weak on National security and foreign policy is not going away; no matter how hard we may wish it.

It further doesn't help that he didn't win his state or even his county (where he resides)during the general. In fact, he won not one contest during the Democratic primary other than his birth state although he received much media adoration, right at the crucial moment(when voters where about to vote).

He got all of the help the media could offer, and he still couldn't rise to the challenge.

That's why.

[usregimechange]

11. I remember Kerry being the Pres. candidate, should not...

he get the blame for losing NC?

[FrenchieCat]

78. What was Edwards on the ticket for then?

To attract the "he's a babe and has good hair" voters?

[Hippo_Tron]

82. North Carolina is a hopelessly Repuke state, nobody expected Edwards...

To actually deliver it for Kerry, especially since the campaign pretty much wrote off the south. Remember, this is the state that sent Jesse Helms to the US Senate, year after year. Edwards was put on the ticket to help with the midwest and probably to attract younger voters as well. BTW I agree with what I assume your assertion is (Clark would've been a better running mate) but I don't think that it's fair to blame Edwards for the loss of NC.

[usregimechange]

204. Still Kerry effected more votes for and against

[Califooyah Operative]

13. I think its his lack of or percieved lack of experience. nt

[Catchawave]

29. That's certainly true of GWBush too! -nt

[cestpaspossible]

35. And look at the results.

[independentchristian]

198. That's a problem of "judgement" and intelligence

Are you saying that Edwards' judgment and intelligence is as poor as Bush's?

Fact of the matter.

Bush was less "qualified" than Gore.
Reagan was less "qualified" than Carter.
Based on resume', Clinton was less "qualified" than Bush, Sr.

Experience and qualification don't mean jacksquat unless you don't want the person to win and you're just looking for a reason not to back the person. People in this country don't normally vote for President based on "experience."

That's why Presidents have cabinets. It's really about judgment.

[VOX]

67. Edwards was the **first** Democratic candidate to take a hit from *...

all the way back in 2003. Edwards was the one the RNC feared the most. His "perceived lack of experience" actually can be turned into a plus -- the GOP felt that this "undefined" aspect was a dangerous quality in a Democratic candidate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54335-2003Feb10?language=printer
With Edwards, White House Shows First-Strike Capability
Tuesday, February 11, 2003; Page A19

Is President Bush afraid of John Edwards?
<snip>
But the White House and Bush's political arm, the Republican National Committee, seem preoccupied with Edwards, a first-term former trial lawyer. A month ago, when Edwards began his candidacy, the RNC put out a 10-page report a day later branding him "An Unaccomplished Liberal in Moderate Clothing and a Friend To His Fellow Personal Injury Trial Lawyers." At the time, the GOP had not issued similar takedowns of the other Democrats in the field.

A week later, on Jan. 14, a White House official told the Associated Press that Bush was delivering a speech on medical malpractice as part of a "whack John Edwards" day. When Bush called for limits on awards in medical malpractice suits last July, he spoke in North Carolina.
<snip>
A key Bush activist, Tom Rath, has joined the American Association of Health Plans, an adversary of Edwards, to help the HMO lobby's political efforts in New Hampshire. The group last week released a poll showing Edwards in fifth place in the state.

In private conversations, Republicans linked to the White House often talk of Edwards as the most dangerous of the Democratic candidates, because he is handsome and southern and "undefined" in the public imagination. That gives him the potential to create a populist challenge to Bush...
<snip>

[LdyGuique]

14. All of this speculation is a waste of time and energy

Four years is a long way off in terms of candidacies. Right now we have a war to end and at least two wars to stop. We need to stop the trashing of Socical Security, However, it's highly unlikely that Edwards will be chosen. He only served a single term in the U.S. Senate. He's not currently holding office and therefore cannot build experience or reputation. In Rock and Roll, this would be called a "one hit wonder."

[kodi]

15. explain for us why he should be.

ultimately i supported edwards in my state's 2004 primary. but i think more has to go in to why he should be the front runner for 2008.

he has no strong ties with any national constituency.

he has no political office from which to base his political stances.

he has scant political capital to draw upon.

there are several potential candidates who can ante up more than edwards for 2008, in money, message, and experience.

why edwards?

[lojasmo]

18. Because we learned our lesson in '04, hopefully.

Edwards can be painted as an equivocating flip-flopper, and as beholden to the trial lawyer special interests.

No more capitulating senators, please.

[FreedomFry]

66. Hope you're not implying what it sounds like.

Sounds like you bought into the Republican lie machine. A "flip-flopper?" Hardly. "Beholden to trial lawyer special interests?" He went to court for the little guy.

Edwards would make a great presidential candidate in '08. The real problem -- and this will be a major problem for ANY Democrat running -- is how the media treats him during the campaign. Remember, it was the media that killed Howard Dean.

[lojasmo]

109. I'm implying that Kerry/Edwards were succeptable to a R/W/media smear

And Edwards is still succeptable to said tactics. i.e. lots of "nuanced" votes in the senate, is a trial lawyer, beholden to corporate donors. etc. etc.

[safi0]

183. I don't know if Edwards could win

I think that he could beat Frist, but I don't think he could beat McCain, I think with McCain the Repubs. could ride the no defense experience card all the way to the WH. I'm not really that familiar with Jeb Bush and his strengths and weaknesses.

But if Edwards were to get the nomination I think he has to make a good VP pick. When I say that, that means don't pick anyone from the Northeast. Because of all the Northeast Senators I don't think any would be more successful in the Midwest or South than the Kerry/Edwards ticket, which while they still won' the majority of the industrial Midwest it was still considered somewhat of a dissapointment. I think if Edwards were to become the candidate the ideal VP pick would be my Senator Russ Feingold. I don't know how successful Russ would be in the South, but I think with him on the ticket we could win the entire industrial Midwest with the exception of Indianaand when I say that I mean: Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Illinois, Iowa, and maybe Missouri.

[DistressedAmerican]

19. Because he is a loser! Want to get our asses kicked again?

He had his shot. He sucked. Let him go, please!

[DemDogs]

71. Distressed again? Edwards is our winner in 2008

He is the one the Rs didn't want to see at the head of the ticket in 2004 because he ate right into what Bush pretended to be -- the common guy who stood up for the people he knew best, honorable and principled. If the story line hadn't been Mr. Likeable (Edwards) against Mr. Electable (Kerry) from the press, Edwards could have proven what everyone who heard him knows: he could have won this for us. In 2008, he will.
In the ideal matchups, we don't just win some southern and southwest states, we sweep.
My Dream match-up? Edwards vs. Guiliani.

[FrenchieCat]

77. I'm not in agreement with the following imagery:

the common guy who stood up for the people he knew best, honorable and principled.

I don't know about that. With the fist in the air, the glib "lookee, I'm a movie star" smile, the twin outfits with Kerry, the 36 million in the bank, the photo-oped kids to the point of embarassement and the weak sounding "attack dog" rethoric, I don't think so.

[AP]

88. Yet, many many others loved it.

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

and:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P04/tally.phtml


I'd rather have someone you, Frenchie, didn't like but many voters did like -- and liked more as they learned more about him -- over someone you like but whom voters didn't like so much.

[Awsi Dooger]

98. We shouldn't have needed numbers to figure out the basics of 2004

Each party was locked in at 45% low. Edwards stood a MUCH greater chance than Kerry or anyone else on our side to sway that elusive 5%. Actually it looks more like 4.5%, because examining the critical states screams we were in the once-a-century mode of being able to lose the popular vote by a full 1% and still capture 1600 PA.

That's why I despise the primary process; it allows for conventional wisdom to dominate and that's almost always bland tunnelvision, remarkably flawed. It will never happen, but I really wish we had a master visionary atop the party, a one-vote-only nominating process.

[DemDogs]

101. Awesome information, AP, on Edwards' wide appeal

These results suggest a strong appeal of Edwards among Independents and Republicans.

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

and:

<http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P04/tally.phtml>

Thanks. The reason we need Edwards to be the frontrunner/nominee is that no one else we have can do this. He speaks to our core values and doesn't turn off the other side. Bring on 2008!

[ChiciB1]

123. Great Point!

I don't think Edwards is as lite as some think. More lite than I, but I think he has some grit in there.

I saw him in person and he really can get the crowd pumped! And just one more thing... he really believes in himself and that's a GOOD starting place for ANYONE!

[AP]

152. I'll eat my hat the next time Americans elect a Poindexter or Encyclo-

pedia Brown President.

There won't be many more Woodrow Wilsons elected president of the US.

And I don't think that's a bad thing.

If you're complicated on the inside and you want to be president, you better look really uncomplicated on the outside.

I think that's what Edwards does well.

[VOX]

201. Terrific analysis, AP...

Thanks. :thumbsup:

[DemDogs]

95. Earnest and connecting is what you are describing

That's why he's our winner. Your complaints seem to be that he wore dark suits, that he has the misfortune of being nice looking, that he is the story of the American Dream (having come up BY HIMSELF from nothing), that his children are nice looking, too (and I thought he did a good job of not dragging them around. Of course they came to the announcement, the convention, and debate, but you didn't see them everywhere), his older daughter was terrific on the campaign trail, and he said last Sunday that he wanted to attack more (on Swift Boats response for example) and the campaign made a different and wrong choice.
Think about what you have said, and I think you'll conclude most of your criticism was all actually some of the reasons why he NEEDS to be our 2008 candidate.

[Texas_Kat]

147. Then he'll have to get somebody to write him a new speech.

Repeating "I'm the son of a mill worker" is going to begin looking like a personal problem if he uses it again in 2008.

[mandyky]

20. Because he was a one term Senator and lacks experience, plus

he was part of the losing team.

I remember a DUer postingan email he got from Edwards regarding the IWR, so anyone with strong feelings against the war probably doesn't care for Edwards much.

I liked Edwards' 2 Americas message but I feel he is tainted by Kerry conceding the day after...

[sendero]

23. Aw never mind..

.... folks who like Edwards should work hard for him. I think he's a good man.

[mandyky]

42. Missed you original post, but agree with what is there now

I was not belittling Edwards at all, I was just suggesting reasons Edwards may not be polling as a front runner. And yes, people who like Edwards should work hard for him. I think Edwards is a good man too. But as past races have shown it is hard for Senators to get elected. Maybe Edwards should run for Gov of NC and then run for Prez... He's young.

[Crunchy Frog]

45. I agree with you.

People should support whomever they believe is best, despite naysayers. I know alot of people really believe in him, and they should feel comfortable supporting him.

I know my guy Clark has alot of naysayers too.

[janx]

22. Because it's only 2005!

That's why! ;-)

[Padraig18]

24. Who says he's not?

:shrug:

[NewJeffCT]

25. The media has made Hilary the frontrunner

According to the media, Hilary is the 1000 pound gorilla in the race. They're basically ignoring anybody else.

[no name no slogan]

103. Yeah, Liebermann was the media's front runner in 2005

And we all know how far Joementum carried him... :crazy:

[robbedvoter]

26. I know! I know!

AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF
UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ
(Senate - October 10, 2002)
http://www.senate.gov/~edwards/statements/20021010_iraq...
I'm here to speak in support of the resolution before us, which I cosponsored. I believe we must vote for this resolution not because we want war, but because the national security of our country requires action."

ADVERTISEMENT
http://edwards.senate.gov/press/2001/oct26-pr.html
October 26, 2001
WASHINGTON-The Senate on Thursday passed a sweeping antiterrorism bill
that expanded the wiretapping and electronic surveillance authority of
the FBI and imposed stronger penalties for harboring or bankrolling
terrorists.
"This will strengthen our nation's ability to prevent future terrorist
attacks," said Senator John Edwards, who worked on the legislation as a
member of the Judiciary Committee and the Select Committee on
Intelligence.

[Auntie Bush]

32. The Media will make it all Hillary vs. Condi 24/7

No one else will matter. They have already picked our candidates.
:puke:

[erpowers]

27. Ideas

I think a large amount of Democrats are looking for a Democrat who is less moderate and more willing to stand up for Democratic ideas. I think Democrats are beginning to believe that we cannot put up any more Republican lite candidates. Now Democrats are looking for strong Democrats willing to stand up and fight.

[Catchawave]

28. That would be Va. Gov Mark Warner....

...he's a fiesty one, and a southern dem gov in a red state too!

[ThorsHammer]

51. Clark-Warner anyone?

[Clark2008]

60. That's my dream ticket, as well!!

Clark/Warner 2008!

:bounce:

(On edit: actually, my dream ticket would be Clark/Olbermann, but, as that would put me in a perpetual state of euphoria for four to eight years, it might be a bit much! LOL!)

[ThorsHammer]

105. I don't see how that ticket could lose

An experienced Democratic governor of a Southern state, who IIRC is also a fiscal conservative, and a Southern 4 star general who was in charge of a large multinational organization. Neither man seems to have any glaring vulnerabilities that Rove and friends could attack either. If one of these 2 men didn't pan out, my wildcard would be Bill Richardson. He'd likely be able to win NM and AZ, and may be able to pull in FL and CO as well.

[yellozebra]

163. Love Warner - had the pleasure of Meeting him Nov 2nd.

Before the night turned into a nightmare.

[cestpaspossible]

34. Why should he be?

Is obviously the more relevant question.

[safi0]

36. Warner may run into same problem as Edwards

I know that he's contemplating a run against Allen in 2006, and if he does and wins he won't have this problem, but if he loses well as we know his political career will be pretty much over. But if he decides not to run his problem will be the same as Edwards in that he hasn't done anything recently.

I mentioned my misgivings about Edwards a few weeks ago. On the surface hes a great candidate: hes handsome, fiery, and extremely articulate. Problem is going into 2008 he will have gone 4 years without any gov. experience, his only experience was a one term senator and he is largely considered a dissapointment as VP.

I think that my Senator Russ Feingold should definetely be on whatever ticket we run in 2008 whether its at the top of the ticket or as VP.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ArtVandaley]

55. Exactly. Case closed

I saw him speak and I was very unimpressed. All glitz, no substance.

[DemDogs]

69. Ask Kerry why he put no resources in NC or the South

You are being unrealistic. Edwards did carry his own state when he was at the top of the ticket as a Senator

[benny05]

107. He also carried it in the primaries

NC Caucus voted for JRE, despite his suspension of his presidental campaign. Kerry got some bad advice in not campaigning in the south period. That's why JRE says (along with Dean) we have to compete everywhere.

[MAlibdem]

38. Not an effective Veep nominee

He lost/tied to Cheney in the one debate they had. Unacceptable. As a trial lawyer, he should have had the rhetorical prowess to undress Cheney, tie him up, and castrate him. Metaphorically speaking, of couse.

[DemDogs]

73. Edwards ruffled Cheney, no one expected that

The media were ready to call Edwards unready and inexperienced, but after the VP debate it was impossible. For you naysayers, remember he debated one of the most experienced Washington pols with hundreds of debates behind him (he had a dog and pony debate show he took around the country against Dems). He couldn't get Edwards and what's more he took to lying about him to try to score points. Cheney wouldn't agree to any debate format that would allow him to be a victim of Edwards' rhetorical skills -- they aren't that stupid. Edwards did a phenomenal job with the tools he was given, and I guarantee Cheney doesn't want to see him again.

[JHBowden]

39. Cheney toasted him in the debate.

I don't think Edwards has it together intellectually, unlike Clinton, Gore, or Kerry.

Granted, Bush is as smart as a box of rocks, but Dems will expect more in our primary.

[bmbmd]

59. Cheney smacked him around in the debate.

Made his forehead sweat like Nixon.

[DemDogs]

Double post -- sorry

[DemDogs]

100. Edwards cool for the whole debate -- Cheney wringing his hands

This is one of the nuttiest posts I have seen on DU. It is a total fabrication. Listen, you are wrong not to like Edwards, but if you don't, you don't. But when we start lying about our own guys, it's time to get off the caffeine (or whatever). Edwards was completely in control of himself in that debate, he put Cheney on the defensive and Cheney never did it to him. Edwards didn't even take the bait on the Cheney lie, which was cleared up immediately.

Get a grip on the truth before you post.

[usregimechange]

194. What? I thought he did great in the VP debate.

[VOX]

68. Whoa!! What are you talking about? **Republicans** thought Cheney won...

And of course they would. But undecideds and Democrats believed that Edwards won. Cheney was on his best "warm and fuzzy" behavior, but in no way did he "toast" Edwards in the debate. That is utterly false.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54335-2003Feb10?language=printer
CNN
Wednesday, October 6, 2004 Posted: 8:24 AM EDT (1224 GMT)
Polls declare different victors in VP debate
Cheney, Edwards debate wide-ranging issues

CLEVELAND, Ohio (CNN) -- Early polls indicated differing reactions to Tuesday night's debate between Vice President Dick Cheney and Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. John Edwards.

An ABC News snap poll showed Cheney the winner, aided by a more-Republican audience, while a CBS News poll among undecided voters showed the opposite.

Cheney and Edwards engaged in a frequently pointed, though civil, discussion on Iraq, the war on terror, Afghanistan, same-sex marriage and malpractice liability caps.

<snip>
According to an ABC poll, 43 percent of registered voters said Cheney won, 35 percent gave the win to Edwards, and 19 percent called it a tie. Thirty-eight percent of the viewers were Republicans, 31 percent Democrats, the rest independents. The phone survey was conducted among a random sample of 509 registered voters who watched the debate.

CBS News' poll specifically focused on uncommitted voters and found 41 percent deemed Edwards the winner, 28 percent chose Cheney, and 31 percent said it was a tie. CBS based its poll on a "nationally representative sample of 178 debate watchers ... who are either undecided about who to vote for or who have a preference but say they could still change their minds."

Each side claimed victory immediately after the face-off. Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry's campaign manager, said she thought Edwards won.
<snip>

[AP]

89. Not a single poll or serious non-whore pundit thought Cheney won

that debate.

[Obviousman]

40. He couldn't help carry one state

that kerry could

[AP]

90. Wisconsin. Minnesota. He probably helped make Iowa and Ohio close.

They loved him in those four states during the primary. He did most of his campaigning in those states during the last 2 months of the GE.

[Acryliccalico]

41. I believe that Edwards is the Man

He needs to be talked about more. :kick:

[Digit]

46. His interview w/Stephanopolus

He said how he had wanted to fight the accusations from the RW, but the decision was made not to. He did not agree.
Furthermore, he said right now he is taking care of his wife.
He truly is our man should he decide to run in '08.

[WI_DEM]

47. I think there is a growing perception, whether it is fair or not, is

open for debate, that he really didn't add much to the Democratic ticket. As a one-term Senator he had a bit of a stature gap. He failed to carry his homestate, or to really help in any other southern state (Kerry/Edwards did worst in the south as a whole than Gore/Lieberman did). It was felt he might help in the middlewest, but we won the states we were expected to win in that battleground--and infact lost one which we should have won--Iowa. Of course as the VP candidate he can't be solely blamed for this. But it is hard to see where he added any real strength to the ticket. I guess the best that could be said is that he didn't cost the ticket any votes.

[AP]

91. Not a single person whose opinion I respect has said that.

The only people who say that are DU'ers who were vocal supporters of other Democrats during the primary.

[saltpoint]

49. Edwards' chances in the Iowa primary are pretty good.

He placed second last time, ahead of Gov. Dean and home-region favorite Gephardt.

I think when John and Elizabeth put their heads together, they will do great things.

Either Clark or Edwards is the frontrunner at this point in the game. Third is Bayh.

Just one take on the view.

[spooky3]

50. does anyone have news on how Elizabeth is progressing? Best wishes

to her.

[saltpoint]

52. Hi, spooky3.

Edwards himself said on Sunday that Elizabeth was doing well and responding well to her treatment. They are optimistic about her chances and her overall health, which is wonderful, wonderful news.

I join you in best wishes to her.

[spooky3]

56. thanks so much for this very good news, Old Crusoe.

[saltpoint]

61. Sure thing, spooky3, and --

-- good wishes to you.

[Vinca]

53. I haven't decided if I would support him in 2008, but

I have to say, he's one of the most decent human beings to walk the planet. I really love the guy, but I don't think - at this point - he could win at the top of the ticket. To tell the truth, I don't know who could. Everyone's talking about Hillary, but I don't see it happening. She might run, but she can't win.

[Placebo]

54. Because Hillary is.

And Edwards has no credentials to be a viable candidate in 2008. One-term senator and failed VP candidate? Please.

Hillary '08

[Padraig18]

58. The only place Hillary is the 'front runner' is in the MSM

:eyes:

[Placebo]

62. No...

everyone I know in the real world wants her to run, and the polls seem to reflect that at this point.

[Padraig18]

65. I know of no one in the real world who wants her to run.

:shrug:

[HughBeaumont]

112. In the Republimedia she is.

And if ANY thinking person falls for it, we're in for a long, dark and very sad Republican rule. Stop kidding yourselves, Hillary slobberers: she wouldn't turn ONE red state and would likely turn Wisconsin and PA red. We do NOT need DLC "bridge builders". Hillary is bad news. End the political monarchies already.

[bmbmd]

57. Because if Kerry had chosen Gephart

He would be eating beef and lobster in France tonight. Gep, as bland as he is, could have delivered Ohio and Missouri.

[AP]

92. ...he would have disappointed the 50% of Dems who wanted Edwards...

...on the ticket, and he would have been fighting both the swift boat ads AND Democrats wondering if he had good decision making skills.

With the exception of OH and maybe NM, Kerry was never going to win any state that he didn't win without being a completely different candidate. No VP was going to make a difference that Edwards couldn't have made, not even Gep in MO. And Edwards was probably part of the reason that Kerry won WI and was as close as he was in OH.

[Awsi Dooger]

97. That's nonsense

A VP nominee is worth 3.5 to 4 points in his HOME state only. And the 3.5 to 4 points kicks in only if that state has not been represented on the ticket recently. It looks like Edwards was worth exactly that in North Carolina, about 3.7 points, based on North Carolina in '00 and '04 in relation to the national presidential margin in each case.

Since we lost Florida by roughly 5 points, the conventional wisdom that a Graham or Nelson could have tipped Florida was almost certainly wrong. Conversely, it's almost certain a bigtime VP nominee from Ohio would have been enough, i.e. a John Glenn minus 20 years.

There is no evidence of a regional pull from the VP, and certainly not enough VP hoopla to rescue a state we lost as decisively as Missouri. Ohio you can argue, but I'm not buying it. It's still a 3-4 point GOP state at base instinct. We chopped that in half due to a pathetic state economy. Dick Gephardt wasn't worth 120,000 votes there.

[elsiesummers]

151. Edwards is ticket top material Edwards/Gephardt would have won.

I do agree with you that Gephardt wast the best choice for veep in terms of strategy and the electoral college.

I'm less than convinced that Kerry could have won with Gep either, but he would have had a better shot.

The moment Kerry was picked as the nominee, we were in trouble - in my opinion. I say this as someone who likes/liked Kerry but supported Edwards for the primary. I thought Kerry did a great job in the debates - but he didn't bring anything extra electorally and he wasn't a charismatic figure and he bought into the Bush framework and made the Kerry campaign about the WOT - which was a strategic mistake.

One of the problems that the Edwards campaign had during the primary was that people thought "he would make a good VP" and the Edwards arguement was that he could bring NC and win at the top of the ticket but not in the #2 position.

I still think this was true and not just a strategic arguement. I still think that Edwards is a top of the ticket candidate (Bill Clinton minus the baggage).

I think the nominee will be Hillary. Edwards is in a strong position compared to other candidates, but unless Rudy Giulliani takes Hillary out in 2006, I don't see how anyone beats Hillary.

None of the above relates to my personal preferences of candidates - it's just how I see it strategically. I think Hillary, if she wins in 2006, is unstoppable.

[Cuban_Liberal]

72. I don't think there *is* a front runner, at this early stage.

:)

[Tinoire]

74. I like many things about Edwards but he voted for the war. Sorry Edwards

Sorry John, you blew it. Begged you not to but you did. And as honest as you are about not having been misled, as honest shall I be about not forgiving you for that vote. I'll admire your refreshing honesty that you weren't fooled but I can't reward you.

Still, sadly... I would vote for you over any liar or imposter.

[youngred]

75. Because he didn't save the ticket

because he (like all Kerry's other resources) was badly managed and because he doesn't have a platform from which to speak right now since he gave up his Senate seat

[AP]

93. Is that why Lieberman wasn't the frontrunner in '02? Oh wait. He was.

Edwards probably will be the frontrunner. The only question is whether anyone else is talking about things that are more important than the things Edwards will be talkign about.

[youngred]

118. 3 years is a long time

We'll see what happens. I'm not trashing Edwards, I'm merely pointing out that he was poorly used by the Kerry campaign (as were many of Kerry's resources) and that he gave up his Senate seat and currently doesn't have a platform to speak from. In the meantime I'm more worried about getting back the congress (like the Dems weren't in 02).

[Clarkie1]

76. Besides the fact that there is no front-runner for 08'

Why should he be?

[Jane Eyre]

79. Out of the spotlight

Unless he jumps back into the political fray in some meaningful way, he doesn't have a platform to jump from if he wants in the presidential pool.

The NC governor's race is in 2008 too, so that won't work as a platform for 2008. 2012 maybe. Same with the next Senate seat opening. Running for a Congressional seat is a bit of a step down, but that would seem to be the best option should David Price choose not to run in 2006.

Another thing on the statewide front is that his campaign manager and confidante Ed Turlington just lost the race for the chairmanship of the state Democratic party. Edwards backed him in that race, even made phone calls to State Executive Committee members on his behalf. That was seen by some as a bid by John Edwards to take over the machinery of the NC Democratic party which would help him in future bids for higher office. It didn't work.

Yes, he has the think-tank gig but it ain't the same as actually being in the arena.

John Edwards has a heck of a lot of political potential. Unfortunately, he may have peaked too soon. Well, he's young and there is still time but he needs to find a way to get back into the political spotlight soon.

[DemDogs]

96. Turlington was not his campaign manager, he was Bradley's

They are close, but the NC papers are saying that Turlington was Governor Easley's guy. That was Easley's bid not Edwards.

Running for Price's seat is a ridiculous idea, even in Price wanted to step down.

Edwards has a more powerful platform than any of these candidates: his Center on Poverty, Work, and Opportunity which will energize people around an issue he cares about obviously (his Two Americas speech has been praised on both sides of the political aisle and across religious groups as well. And he has said it isn't a think tank, he wants ideas and projects across the country that work, and he will work on laws across the country to raise minimum wage (I think he said that in NH at CSpan speech).

[Digit]

80. He has more support than you realize.

I admire him and his family alot.
I like his values and he is a true fighter.
We need someone with his charmisma!

[ZootSuitGringo]

111. Actually, it is my belief that

Edwards has less support than you believe.

You using "I" doesn't quite cut it in demonstrating the Edwards "hidden" support factor.

[marcologico]

81. Substitute Hillary for Dean and right now '08 looks like '04:

Hillary, press-annointed centrist front runner, will wash out in the first primary (but won't scream); Clark or Edwards will battle for veep, and the surprise winner will be guess who, again?

Of course things could change...

[Clarkie1]

83. I cannot believe this party would be stupid enough to nominate

a liberal, elitist northeastern senator again.

At least I hope not.

[marcologico]

129. Liberal yes, elitist, well that's a matter of perception.

Personally I don't see it, but it is a target for criticism, which is why his veep pick is important.

[CTLawGuy]

134. I hope we nominate someone whose

message is something more than "I served in Vietnam."

[marcologico]

142. That was one message, sure, but his acceptance speech was an hour.

There were lots of messages that night. The one I remember is "integrity, integrity, integrity." It's easy to remember because he has it and it's pretty rare.

[CTLawGuy]

148. let's try

"mom, apple pie, and baseball..." as a message.

that might win us some elections :eyes:

[marcologico]

159. Yeah he covered that too. Incidentally Edwards gave a great speech

the night before IMHO. I heard it on the radio and it was impressive. I think he was a good VP pick. Gep I think might have sunk the ticket.

[ginnyinWI]

84. I would like to see him run for governor of his state first. n/t

[Throd]

85. 'Cuz he is Dan Quayle

A "not ready for prime-time" empty suit. Gephardt for Veep probably would have delivered Ohio, as a previous poster pointed out.

[GaYellowDawg]

87. That is INCREDIBLY fucking stupid.

To compare the author of "Four Trials" to an imbecile who couldn't spell "potato" is freeper-level stupid.

[VOX]

199. You gotta be kidding, right? No one could post something that dumb...

and actually be serious!

[RadiDem]

86. Cause he's a war mongerer !

[borg5575]

94. Exactly

If we nominate someone who supported the war, we will lose.

Boxer all the way!

[PeaceProgProsp]

104. I'd be surprised if Boxer's votes and statements about Iraq weren't same

as Edwards.

If Kucinich can say that Edwards was a good guy, and if Edwards's economic message is precisely on target, then Edwards far exceeds my progressive litmus test for Democratic presidential candidates.

[lojasmo]

110. be surprised then. They were NOT the same. EOM

[John_H]

113. I just don't see how he can keep his juice in the party for 4 years.

I'd love to hear it, though, if someone can explain how, with no constituancy or organization a la DFA, that Edwards can mount a serious challenge for the nomination.

[DuaneBidoux]

115. I'm truly wondering if a Senator can ever win.

And of course, remember now, he's no longer even a Senator. He is in a weak position, which I think is sad, because I feel certain that if Edwards had been debating Bush head to head the election wouldn't have been close enough to steal. He does have the charisma and looks, and we simply have to face up to the fact as a party that this matters in our Hollywood age.

[McCamy Taylor]

117. He IS the front runner.

:dem:

[derby378]

119. I like him, but...

...too conciliatory, too supportive of the Iraqi invasion. All apologies due to Elizabeth, but John really needs to find his own voice. And further experience can help him do that.

If he comes out against renewing the AWB, it'll give him brownie points in the southern states, too.

[goodhue]

120. Some say John Edwards is the Dem front runner for 08

eom

[iamthebandfanman]

121. im starting to think he should be

i had a talk with a couple republicans who arent happy with things in the country but voted for Shrub again and they told me they woulda voted democrat had it been an edwards/kerry ticket over the kerry/edwards one.
they just didnt care much for kerry.
go fig.

[ChiciB1]

122. I LOVE John Edwards...

and I LOVE his wife even more. That's some lady!! Every time I saw her speaking to a crowd she really "connected!"

Edwards may be more to the right than I, but he will get my vote any day!

I've been extremely disappointed with Hillary lately... and for that matter Bill too! I just don't think I could "do" Hillary!

[PresidentObama]

124. I like Edwards, But Kerry more.

[cobaindrain]

125. he is the frontrunner, along with Bayh

possibly a southern gov will enter the race, but I look forwards to a much less crowded field in 2008.

[Clarkie1]

126. saying something doesn't make it so; look for a very crowded field n/t

[cobaindrain]

130. then it will be crowded with a slew of pretenders

there are only 3-4 real candidates for 08, if lieberman, clark, kucinich and shaprton want to waste air fighting over .001% of the vote again, be my guest.

[Clarkie1]

146. Saying something doesn't make it so; you have no facts.

Try again when you have some.

[ArkySue]

127. Surely you jest!

Why should he be the front runner? He couldn't even best Kerry for the nomination. and Kerry lost to the WORST PRESIDENT EVER!!! A one term, mediocre, former Senator that supported the IWR and the Patriot Act, and has NO foreign policy gravitas? Hell, he didn't even bother to register and vote til he got some grandiose idea that he wanted to run for office in his 40's. I'm his age and I registered to vote and have done so in every election since because I cared about my country and I actually did pay attention in Civics class. Please, spare me.

[DemDogs]

135. Silliness

Another post made up by a "good Dem". Don't we have enough of that on the other side?
Edwards registered when you did (he's older, so probably before you did). He voted regularly, except like some people missed some votes on bond issues and some down ballot races. He didn't miss the same votes you remember making.
He was a Democratic donor when he decided to do the country a favor an unseat Lauch Faircloth.
And as for paying attention in Civics class? What the heck are you talking about it? He is one of the smartest we have on our side, graduating at the top of his class from college and law school, while working to put himself through. Apparently he paid some attention.

As for losing in the primaries. He did. But he came from no where, stayed within the spending limits, didn't loan (and then pay back) his presidential campaign the money to blow Dean out of the water in Iowa, played clean when others were funding attack ads under the table. And he had more momentum in the last days of Iowa than any other candidate.

[trillian]

128. Because he's an empty suit.!

Only experience he has is being "part time" senator for one term. Two years after being elected he started his run for president leaving the people of NC to fend for themselves. He wasn't in Washington for critical votes. He was out on the campaign trail instead of being home after the hurricanes.

The people of NC know who he is and he would not have re-elected him. To make matters worse, he never gave up his seat in the senate even though he had no plans to run for re-election. If he had, Erskine Bowles could have been appointed to finish out his term and would have gotten a boost and we could have at least retained the seat.

So, we have an attorney who did about 2 honest years work in the Senate before going out on the Presidential campaign trail. He has no FP or NS experience. He co-authored the Patriot Act. He voted for IWR and he added nothing to the Kerry campaign. Didn't even bring in his own county far less his own state.

And you wonder, why he isn't a front running for 2008?

I wonder why his name is being mentioned at at all.

[rfkrfk]

143. Edwards had a rough time

You could not have expected Edwards to waste his time
on things like debating, voting, committee work.
First term Senators often have a rough time, because of little experience.

Compare to, shrub, and his handlers.
They had it easy.
Cheats his way into public office {valuable eXperience at cheating}
mismanages various state agencies {X, theft}
gets budgets passed by a hostile state legislature {X, bribery}
operates their party’s political machine {X, conspiracy, politics}
shakes down visiting dignitaries {X, diplomacy}
gets job in Washinton, by cheating

[tx_dem41]

133. Because its early in 2005...

..and there is no frontrunner, naturally.

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[w4rma]

139. Who says he isn't the "frontrunner"? (nt)

[ZootSuitGringo]

141. Well the media would like Edwards to be the frontrunner

AFTER Hillary.

We should not forget that it's the media that tells us what to do and how to think. They say Hillary, so it's Hillary. They say Edwards next, so it's Edwards next.

Although I don't like polls anymore than pundit pap, here is a relatively recent poll. Doesn't show Edwards as the frontrunner.

And, in fact, with all of the press that Edwards gets, General Clark, who gets little, if any (many times he is not even mentioned in articles as a possible candidate--RNC Wishful thinking) and yet he is still placing on 4 points behind Edwards.

That's why Clark is the candidate to beat. When you get hardly any press coverage and still manage to be in the top four, it's very meaningful indeed. The next contender only gets 3%.

http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm
"I know it is early, but if the Democratic primary for president were held today, which of the following would you support for the Democratic nomination for president? . . . " N=399 registered voters who consider themselves Democrats or lean Democratic, plus independent and undeclared voters who say they generally vote in Democratic primaries; MoE ± 4.9%
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton 33
Senator John Kerry 19
Senator John Edwards 15
Retired General Wesley Clark 11
Governor Bill Richardson 3
Senator Evan Bayh 2
Senator Russ Feingold 1
Governor Tom Vilsack 1
Governor Mark Warner -
Other (vol.) 3
Don't vote in primaries (vol.) 3
Unsure 9

HERE IS THE MEDIA TELLING US THAT HILLARY IS OUR CANDIDATE. THEY ARE SO GOOD AT IT!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-02-09-hillary-poll_x.htm
Sen. Clinton is early presidential favorite among Dems
By Kathy Kiely, USA TODAY, and Michael De Dora, Jr., Gannett News

Three years before state contests begin to choose nominees for the next presidential election, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York is the early favorite among Democrats.

[AP]

173. You honestly believe Clark gets no press and Edwards gets tons?

Clark is on TV every other day. Edwards has been on TV exactly three times in the last four months -- once on Larry King, once on Charlie Rose, and once with Stephanopolis.

[Sopianae]

175. A few TV appearances cannot make up for the exposure Edwards got

as our VP candidate. Every time someone talks about the 2004 elections, Edwards gets mentioned. Most of the time someone talks about the 2008 elections, Edwards gets mentioned. OTOH, Clark is frequently left out of articles that discuss potential candidates for 2008. Several polls left his name out. As if they have already got the memo "to make him disappear" I certainly hope it won't work this time.

[AP]

178. Clark is on TV every other day. He gets more time to talk to America...

...then even John Kerry.

If he's not converting that into popularity, don't blame it on the fact that people see Edwards's name more because a lot of people still haven't peeled off their Kerry-Edwards bumper stickers.

By the way, here's the first page of the Wes Clark Group:

Transcripts of Clark and Perle on Wolf Blitzer
trillian
Fri Feb-25-05 05:03 PM

...

News Alert: Wes Clark in DC : March 8, 2005
Dread Pirate ...
Fri Feb-25-05 04:24 PM

...

CNN Transcript: Wes Clark on "American Morning"
Totally Commi...
Thu Feb-24-05 03:51 PM

...

WES CLARK IN ERIE, PA 2-22-05
BillORightsMa...
Wed Feb-23-05 09:59 PM
12

...

Wes coming up on CNN
ChrisPhx
Tue Feb-22-05 07:24 AM

...

Clark mentioned on Air America radio today
Clarkie1
Mon Feb-21-05 05:35 AM

...

Stephanie Miller is Using Highlights of General Clark's CNN Appearance...
Totally Commi...
Tue Feb-15-05 12:24 PM

...

MEDIA ALERT!!!
ICantBelieve
Mon Feb-14-05 09:03 PM

...

Caller To C-Span Mentions Our General
Dinger
Mon Feb-14-05 11:54 AM
...

Media Alert: Clark on FOX 5PM EST today 2/10/05
WesDem
Thu Feb-10-05 09:10 PM

[FrenchieCat]

182. You made the point yourself, perhaps without realizing it,

Edwards appeared on Larry King (highest rated CNN show), ABC Sunday morning show and Charlie Rose. Any of those shows has larger audiences then the cable rounds that Clark regularily makes. He is only appearing on CNN, MSNBC and Fox. That is not the same type of exposure, don't you know?

When that is coupled with the fact that Edwards is always mentioned as a 2008 contender, and Clark is normally omitted by pundits, and even in many of the polls, there you have it.

It's not just the quantity of exposure, it's also the quality that counts.

You don't need to be in denial about this. You should just be happy for your man instead.

Whatever exposure Clark gets, I am happy for it. Because he is the type of individual that obviously doesn't need much to still make an impact.

[AP]

188. Liebermann was treated like a legitimate contender...

...because he was the last person on a Democratic ticket.

OBVIOUSLY Edwards is going to be treated like a contender, as will be Kerry. That's just obvious. That's the media not being incredibly stupid

Your argument about ratings is very unsatisfying. Edwards has literally been on TV three times in four months. That's it. Clark is on TV every other day. Clark is not being ignored by the media.

[FrenchieCat]

193. Clark's on TV every other day

Because he has a lot of relevant and important comments to share about the world's situation, obviously.

Since Clark worked on the last written agreement with N. Korea (under Clinton), was Nato Supreme Allied Commander of Europe, has recently been to the Middle East at the Arab State conference, is on the Board of International Crisis Group and is writing OpEds about Kosovo, Internationalhttp://www.crisisweb.org/home/index.cfm?id=3247&l=1 , and Darfur, http://www.icg.org/home/index.cfm?id=2848&l=1 and can have in-depth discussions about the situations in Iraq, Iran and Syria, guess that his comments are valuable.

On the other hand, Edwards' appearances are usually about talking about himself, his family, and the elections.

I guess that in these America, when you have wisdom about current events to share, you might appear on TV every other day.

Ironically, with all of the relevant knowledge that Clark has, it's Edwards that the pundits continue to yak about.

Guess for the pundits, it's business as usual.

On edit: Take solace AP, looks like you'll be able to keep this Edwards thread floating. Life is chockfull of little miracles.

[AP]

195. Usually, talking about issues that matter to people should raise your

profile, and talking about things that don't tends to bore people.

If Clark is on TV every other day talking about things that matter, then I really have no idea why Clark supporters are always complaining about Edwards getting so much more attention, when Edwards is rarely on TV, and when he is, they don't talk about him in terms of the issues for which he stands.

And, BTW, if my only intention here were to keep this thread afloat, there are dozens of incredibly stupid post to which I could be responding with my two cents, and, you may have noticed, I'm not doing that.

[FrenchieCat]

203. You really do have an idea....

It just doesn't fit in the scheme of things for Edwards.

You know very well that Edwards got critical very positive press right when he needed it. He was the guy who could talk owls out of trees; the second coming of Clinton, etc, etc, ect....

You can act like Edwards wasn't fawned over by the media right when voters where voting, but he was.

You are a smart gal, AP....and you know very well that Edwards was pushed both as the number 2 man during the primaries, and as VP afterwards.

To deny the reality of what occurred would be disingenious on your part.

[AP]

206. Edwards should have gotten good press in the week after Iowa, but...

...Dean's scream got the press. When they started talking nice about Edwards, it was only to say that he should be the VP to John Kerry. Even Jay Leno pulled that one.

My interpretation is that it was (1) because they knew he could have beaten Bush from the top of the ticket (do you need the link to the Deliberative Poll study again?) and (2) because the last time someone attacked Edwards in a campaign, it lifted him 10% points.

Furthermore, Mediatenor.org had plenty of stats on who and how the press was talking about people. Edwards got little press and none about his positions on the issues. It was all about his personality. That is no way to get nominated, especially when you look at the Deliberative Poll and see that the more people thought about Edwards on the issues, the more they liked him.

[Sopianae]

184. It's great that he's been on TV a lot

but that cannot change the fact that the PUNDITS won't even mention him as a possible candidate. People can't vote for him in polls if he is not listed as a possible candidate. As if it was already conventional wisdom that he shouldn't/wouldn't run.

At least this time around - if he decides to run - he'll have much more time to get ready, organize, get enough exposure and name recognition (that's half the battle) and so on. He's been very active and I am sure he will keep it up. But he can't change the media's attitude toward him. They invite him as an expert on international and military issues but openly marginalize him when it comes to presidential politics.

Btw, I don't have cable so I hardly ever see him. I guess, I am not alone.

[AP]

197. In January 2001, who were the pundits treating as likely canidates...

....and did it have one iota of influence on who ended up being the nominee or on the fortunes of any candidate?

[Sopianae]

202. Of course, it did.

Why do you think Lieberman was hanging on so long? He started out with very high name recognition. Without that advantage he would have been gone much earlier. He took a lot of votes from Clark (who started out with much lower name recognition) in NH. And NO I am NOT saying that's the reason Clark got 3rd in NH. I am only saying that exposure and name recognition matter.

Our nominee was able to overcome the initial roadblocks (and later successfully "ride the waves" of the media.) It doesn't mean that the pundits opinion did not matter. It only means that sometimes you can overcome the conventional wisdom perpetuated by the pundits and sometimes you can't. IF Clark decides to run, I am sure he WILL be able to overcome it this time. Simply because he has MUCH more TIME to do it.

[AP]

205. LIeberman was "hanging on" because voters knew him because he had

been on the ticket, and not because the pundits should have been ignoring him or whatever you imagine they should or shouldn't have been doing.

And, seriously, who was and wasn't in Jan '01 polls had nothing to do with who got nominated in 2004. So even if Lieberman had been, it was obviously not worth much.

By the way, NH was almost a month after Clark had been practically tied with Dean at the top of most polls. People forget that Clark was becoming a solid second and closing in on Dean by the end of December '03. He may have started with a disadvantage, but he had almost made it up completely before falling back.

And the bottom line: Clark gets a LOT of time in the media to talk about what he thinks about the world. He's gettting that time in Jan 05, and Clark people should be happy about that and it's pretty strange to hear them complain that it isn't enough. It's more than anybody else right now.

[Sopianae]

207. I didn't say the pundits should have ignored Lieberman

I only said that exposure and name recognition matters. I stand by it.

Again, Clark is on CABLE TV most of the time. It's great but not enough. He should be acknowledged as a *potential* candidate for 2008. And before you start how early it is, let me say that we Clark supporters learned that you cannot start early enough. Also, you cannot let the media get away with ANYTHING.

[AP]

209. I'll state one more time: not being called a likely presidential candidate

in 2005 is going to have zero effect on how far you're going to make it in 2008.

Nobody who made it far in 2004 depended on being called a likely candidate in 2001. Edwards wasn't called a likely candidate by the pundits anywhere where anyone was really listening until after the GQ or Vanity Fair article in January 2002 or 2003, IIRC. And even then, he never polled over 10% for all of 2003, and was usually getting abouty 4% in national polls.

It wasn't until he did well in Iowa that anyone really started to pay attention, and that was after waiting a week for the press to finish talking about Dean's scream first.

As for the face time, which is a separate matter, not even John Kerry, who got the nomination in 2004, had as much face time on TV in January 2001 that Clark gets today.

If you want people to talk about him as presidential candidate more today, you'd probably be jeopardizing all his time on CNN and Fox. They probably wouldn't like to be seen as promoting a guy who's running for president as a democrat. So, if you're a Clark supporter, you're probably looking at the best possible world: he's on TV constantly with great access to the public imagination.

If you want all that time to be clearly perceived as face time for a Dem candidate, well, you're just not going to be able to have your cake and eat it all too. Like I said, he wouldn't be getting all that time if he were clearly running for president. You're much better off with it this way, and I dont' think any sensible person would expect more from the media.

[benny05]

144. For what it is Worth, the OAC Blog lists the DU

as one of the primary sites to visit because many of us do post here, and are still support the issues JRE is putting out for public view, such as poverty. He wants ideas how to solve this gosh-awful problem and get more healthcare for kids. If JRE is not the frontrunner at the moment, at least he is ACTIVE in getting the law scholars and others to present ideas how to tackle these problems. Hey--Give John R Edwards some credit..

http://www.oneamericacommittee.com

[skippythwndrdog]

145. Because he couldn't even win his home state.

Duh.

[ZootSuitGringo]

149. Not even his home county.

That's where he lives!

[AP]

153. He liveD in a county that has never gone Dem. It's rich and white.

However, EE noted that a working class Republican county in NC that hadn't gone Dem in years did go dem this time, and it was because of Edwards's economic message.

[Crunchy Frog]

157. Well, from what I've read

that county did go for the Democratic governer so I guess it's only some Democrats that they don't vote for.:shrug:

[AP]

160. It's not unusual that counties always vote for Republican federal cand-...

...idates, and for Democratic state and local candidates.

Those FL counties that everyone thought were flipped because of high Dem reg and an inverse vote against Kerry (66% dem reg, 66% for Bush) -- well, that's how they've been voting for over 40 years!

It's funny to have to point things out like this to people who think they know so much about politics.

[wiley]

150. He's the Bob Dole of the Democratic Party

Okay, why do the Edwards partisans have to start this now when we are about to lose SS, Medicaid, medicare and the Supreme Court. Get a larger grip on life.

:nopity:

[Crunchy Frog]

158. To be fair,

all the other partisans are doing the same thing. I agree, it's too early to be seriously pushing one candidate or another, although I still like to push Wes Clark.;)

[benny05]

161. Have you met John Edwards?

I have, and he is NO Bob Dole.

[CarolNYC]

169. My Mom did...

and my sister-in-law did...at one of those back porch things. He even held one of my twin nieces to pose for a picture. He didn't impress my mom or my sister-in-law one way or the other. But I guess he seemed scary to the other twin, who told her sister afterward that she was proud of her for being so brave as to let him hold her...or maybe she was just being shy that day. :)

My sister saw him speak at a rally and thought he did a good job of firing up the crowd.

None of them has met Bob Dole so I don't think they could make a fair comparison. ;)

[Guaranteed]

154. His IWR vote seriously hobbles him.

We've already learned this. Do we forget so easily?

[AP]

171. Most prominent anti-war Dems, '68-72 voted yes on the Gulf of Tonkin Res

if they were senators in '64.

If Democrats were so forgiving about VIETNAM back then, you'd think that that DU'ers could open their minds a little about Edwards today.

Here's the roll call:

[Radical Activist]

179. Edwards opposed the $87 Billion appropriation to Iraq before Dean

He also spoke about nuclear non-proliferation issues in his stump speech. Kucinich is the only other candidate I heard do that. Edwards was actually pretty good with peace issues despite his mistake with the IWR.

[AP]

189. Dean actually supported the 87 bill appropriation.

[Radical Activist]

191. Only at first

Then he took a principled stand against it and said he had always opposed it from the beginning. I still can't believe no journalist called him on that.

[AP]

192. He said at one of the debates that he was for it.

And he explained why. He wasn't in the campaign much longer after that.

I don't remember him stepping back from that position subsequent to the debate.

[googly]

168. It is hard to overcome the "loser" label, same reason why Gore

was not the front runner in 2004.

[AP]

172. Gore would have been the frontrunner if he decided to run in '04, and

he promptly would have dropped to the middle of the pack. It's not because he couldn't shake the loser lable. It's because he always was a mediocre candidate.

In his absence, LIEBERMAN was the early front runner. Now, if there's anyone who shouldn't be a front runner according to your theory, it's Lieberman. But he, indeed, was the front runner.

I think it's INEVITABLE that Edwards will be the frontrunner if he decides to run. People are going to pay attention to him earlier than they did for the 2004 election, and if he can deliver, he'll be the nominee. If someone else can make a better argument (and get over the hurdle of Edwards's head start) that person will be the nominee.

If you read this study -- http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/march04-poll.html -- I think it suggests that the more people talk about and think about Edwards, the better he does...

[robbedvoter]

190. because Gore actually fought the theft, not just spread rumors that

he would have liked to do it. No comparison.

[Uzybone]

176. Did he even win his own district?

the man brought nothing to our ticket in 04. He has yet to show anything more.

[AP]

177. A mill town in NC that hadn't gone Democratic in years went Democratic...

...this year.

Perhaps if the top of the ticket had been running on Edwards's message, more places like that one would have gone Democratic for the first time.

[AuntiBush]

180. He isn't totally "ruled-out" yet, is he?

I get the feeling he might run solo!?! I like how he gave-it to Cheney! Major :thumbsup: on that debate! Had he been the front-runner, we would have won! Then again, w/all the over-whelming VOTER FRAUD, Gandhi couldn't have won!

[Seabiscuit]

185. We need someone completely new who opposes the war, etc.

None of those who ran in 2004 have a ghost's chance in hell in 2008. The party blew it big time.

[RealLifeNM]

186. Because he was a bad choice to begin with

All style, zero substance!!!!

[VOX]

200. I see that you've been properly rewarded for your efforts...

RIP.

[PaDem]

187. He's a political neophyte......

who will be out of politics for 4 years in 2008. He's a "liberal trial attorney"......in other words easy to villify. I like John, but I won't support him in a primary. We MUST support a candidate with vision but more importantly one who cannot be easily painted into a corner by the neocons.

[independentchristian]

196. If 2008 is a fair and impartial nomination process...

...there's no way he can lose the nomination based on personal appeal and skills.

Now, if the Democrats choose to coronate a candidate like they did for Kerry this past election, then he doesn't have a chance, because anyone who focuses on work and poverty and the real people in this country scares both parties.