Somebody tell me why Edwards isn't the perfect candidate.

[begley]

The guy is smart, cat-quick on his feet like the football player he was, not to mention great-looking.

He's that rare candidate who has strong liberal positions, yet possesses a Horatio Alger achievement mentality. The man knows what it's like to earn big money in the private sector. And it appears he did it for the right reasons; to personally see to it that justice got done.

He finished very strong toward the end of the '04 primaries, and could have clocked Bush in ways the slower and plodding Kerry could not. Being a Carolinian, he can make a dent in the GOP South in ways Hillary could not. His quick rise in politics gives you the impression of a man on a mission. The death of his son, I think contributes to his feeling of the invincibility of his causes, almost like a 'nothing can hurt me now' attitude.

Honestly, tell me how this guy loses. He's the total package. John Edwards will be the next president of the United States, and I can't believe I haven't seen more people say that.

[kansasblue]

1. not much government service

..or you could play that as a positive.

[ArkySue]

12. No foreign policy creds

And apparently wasn't sufficiently interested enough in the running of our country to register to vote til...when?? He's my age...who did he vote for in 72? 76? 80? 84? 88? 92? Anyone have an answer? I can tell you who I voted for in those elections. I registered to vote on my 18th birthday. When did he decide to?

[AmericanDream]

15. He voted for McGovern when he was in college

So calm down. And his roomie said that they used to debate Nixon-McGovern!


But he was a registered Independent back then. GASP!!

[Jai4WKC08]

97. Source please

The account I read about the interview with his college roommate said Edwards couldn't remember who he ended up voting for. I think that may have been ArkySue's point.

[Catchawave]

148. Your source please.....

:evilgrin: What account? I've read everything on earth printed about JRE, and don't remember such an "account" from a college roommate :hi:

Why would the son of a mill worker vote for Nixon? McGovern was my first presidential vote, and I was the wife of a marine capt serving in VN :shrug:

[Jai4WKC08]

160. If you insist...

I'm not real comfortable with the way this thread was set up--I think Arky Sue "bit" and I feel like I am too. But whatever. Fwiw, normally the first person to make a controversial statement has some sort of obligation to provide the source if requested. But I'll respond to your request.

I was able to google up a news article with the headline, "Easy smile hides iron will to win," by ROB CHRISTENSEN AND JOHN WAGNER, Staff Writers, The Charlotte Observer, September 7, 2003. This is the relevant excerpt:

His (Edwards') parents were lifelong Republicans, in part because of the corporate culture of the company headed by Roger Milliken, a major GOP donor who encouraged his executives and managers to become Republicans.

"John and I used to debate the Nixon-McGovern election," said Garner, his NCSU roommate. "I kind of went in the direction of protesting the war. John was more firmly seated in supporting our government. Part of that was the influence of his father."

Garner remembers that Edwards was undecided about whether to vote in 1972 for President Richard Nixon or whether to vote for the Democratic challenger, Sen. George McGovern.

Edwards says he does not remember how he voted. But he says he might have first registered as an independent. He says he thinks he changed his registration to Democrat by 1976.

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/politicians/edwards/eyeonedwards/story/1401790p-7371865c.html

The original link appears to have gone dead, perhaps temporarily. But I got it from the google cache at http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:5DJPPkIW_xIJ:www.newsobserver.com/politics/politicians/edwards/eyeonedwards/story/1401790p-7371865c.html+John+edwards+%22Nixon+McGovern+election%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

As for why... well, you won't like it. But the fact is, his dad was only a mill worker for a very short time. He was made a time-keeper, and then went into management.

[Catchawave]

199. Thanks Jai

It's an excellent article!

[AmericanDream]

169. Source

"Edwards's political identity hadn't evolved much since a preteen essay in which he described wanting to pursue a legal career to ``help protect innocent people from blind justice the best I can,'' words inspired by watching families struggle under the thumb of the mill owners. In college, he opposed the Vietnam War and Nixon. Edwards registered for the draft in 1971, received a high lottery number for induction, and was never called to serve. He said he ultimately voted for McGovern in 1972, and changed his registration to Democrat (from an Independent) by the mid-1970s."

This is from an article by Patrick Healy entitled "From mill town to the national stage" that ran in the Boston Globe in 2004. I'm sorry I copied the article in a word document and didn't bookmark the link. My bad.

[CarolNYC]

185. hmmmmm...

based on the two articles sourced here, it seems that by 2004 he'd remembered some things that he hadn't remembered in 2003....

BTW, here's the link to the article you source....
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/edwards/articles/2003/10/05/from_mill_town_to_the_national_stage/

They're pretty easy to find on google if you have a title and newspaper....

[AmericanDream]

194. Yeah, but I was too lazy to go search

[Triana]

17. GWB didn't have any foreign policy creds either

he'd never even been out of the country.

[paulk]

114. that proves the point n/t

[nickshepDEM]

52. He served on the Intelligence committee.

[Wetzelbill]

95. name a president in the last 30 years who has had any

Only Bush Sr. Hardly any president's have any. Edwards was on the Intelligence committee, so that puts him up on most candidates anyway. Our next president isn't likely to have much of a FP background.

[Clark2008]

115. It didn't matter then - it does now

9/11...oil...WWIII

[Hippo_Tron]

122. Cold War, Communism, Oil, WWIII...

The ability to handle foreign policy has mattered since the end of World War II and it will continue to matter. Clark's experience is definately a plus. But disqualifying other candidates for their lack of job experience related to foreign policy isn't necesarilly a good idea. Some people who haven't had jobs specifically related to foreign affairs are very knowledgable about them and are very qualified to be commander-in-chief.

[Clark2008]

197. Um - I didn't mention Clark, but OK.

That's just my user name.

I CAN have opinions about other candidates that don't have anything to do with how I feel about Wes Clark.

[guidod]

247. B**h didn't have any foreign policy cradentials

when he stole the election.

[Triana]

13. Uhhmm, GWB didn't have much either

except as a failure. I'd vote for Edwards in a heartbeat (again).

[Stinky The Clown]

36. GWB didn't win an election, either

He stole it. I agree with your point, though.

[Triana]

82. *snicker* Very true. He didn't. Ha. (n/t)

[barb162]

242. Beside that he can put his shoes under my bed any time

[Erika]

2. I love John and Elizabeth

They are the best thing the Dems have going for them!

[ultraist]

110. John & Elizabeth Edwards: The Dream Team

:kick:

[benny05]

265. They are the Dream Team

The entire family. Michele Bair at OAC blog found this pic and I think it is fitting here:

[saltpoint]

227. They are dazzling. I listen to Dubya trying to speak as much as a

sentence of English, and through his babble and Laura's Stepford cliches, it's almost too much to listen to.

A White House with John and Elizabeth Edwards would definitely be a huge improvement.

Good point, good post.

[tritsofme]

3. I never agreed with his selection for Kerry's VP

and nothing has changed for me since then.

He spent one term in the Senate, and spent half of it trying to run for president, and he probably couldn't have kept his NC seat if he wanted to.

I don't think he has the foreign policy gravitas for these times either.

[begley]

4. Perhaps seasoning could be his one weakness.

After all, he is a man in a hurry.

[Erika]

7. What kind of foreign policy gravitas did Bush have

Edwards is a decent and feeling human being. He was born in humble surroundings, and worked his way through law school. He had the horror of losing his son and he's seen his wife through a fight with breast cancer. He's 10 times the man that W is.

[ArkySue]

16. Bush had none either....

And you see where it's got us! Geebus people...he's a lightweight.

[Erika]

22. Yeah, W was. A complete frat brat light weight n/t

[tritsofme]

18. None

and he couldn't even win in peacetime 2000.

And with the media painting him as the greatest wartime president since Abe Lincoln, he got by with the skin of his teeth in 2004.

I hope we don't start using Bush to justify an Edwards candidacy, in any form.

[AmericanDream]

26. Edwards graduated from college & law school Summa cum laude -no comparison

[NCarolinawoman]

124. Where did you hear this?

I supported him for his Senate run back in '98 and I certainly would have read or heard of this somewhere and would have used it as a talking point. I have never once seen this in his biography, local paper, or anywhere else where he's been written up.

I grant you that he is certainly a lot smarter than Bush.

[AmericanDream]

157. Edwards - graduation record

It has been reported in numerous articles, especially in the profiles done by his hometown papers.

But for your benefit:

"The first in his family to go to college, Edwards worked his way through NC State and graduated summa cum laude with a bachelor of science degree in textile technology in 1974. He earned his law degree, also with honors, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill."

Source: http://www2.ncsu.edu/ncsu/univ_relations/news_services/press_releases/99_05/173.htm

And, from his website:

"A proud product of public schools, John became the first person in his family to attend college. He worked his way through North Carolina State University where he graduated with high honors in 1974, and then earned a law degree with honors in 1977 from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill."

Source: http://oneamericacommittee.com/about/john/

[Ecumenist]

31. Amen, Erika.

He something VERY rare... He has a heart and real compassion. More than that, he has the ability to utilise both of them to help others.

[Erika]

33. I guess you grow when you lose a child

That experience helps keep him in touch.

[Ecumenist]

34. Yes, I cannot see how that can do anything

but cause the growth of spirit and expansion of the heart. If he's survived these hard tests, it seems to me that he would understand the struggle of the common man

[beaconess]

102. I'm an Edwards fan, but be careful about using Bush to defend the

questions about Edwards' experience/gravitas. Responding to such questions by claiming that Bush didn't have any experiences leads to "yeah - and look where that got us."

[Catchawave]

54. He was on Gore's short list for VP in 2000 :)

How did that happen?

"foreign policy gravitas" ? Sure didn't hurt Bush!

[ginnyinWI]

5. only one term in office as Senator

I think the reason John Kerry beat him in the primaries was due to JE's lack of experience in government and especially in foreign policy. His message on the stump was and still is always about poverty and the two Americas--but voters realized that they needed more in a president. The right-wing radio hosts here wanted Edwards to win because they thought he'd be easier to beat than Kerry.

Is he polling well now? I'd be interested in knowing that. He hasn't been able to raise as much money lately as Russ Feingold, John Kerry, Mark Warner and Hillary Clinton have.

[Erika]

20. Let him put the request for funds out there and I will be there

Elizabeth has posted here. Life's experiences teach lessons you cannot obtain elsewhere. He lost his son and has seen his wife through cancer.

[Rosemary2205]

6. Great guy but he's too green

and the Carolinas are too red.

[Erika]

9. He's too green?

Ask that about Reagan, Clinton, Carter, and W being elected. He has the optimism and charisma that America needs.

[AmericanDream]

11. Clinton wasn't green - but hey, Lincoln was a one term congressman!

[Rosemary2205]

23. I could be wrong

I'm a huge Edwards fan all the way - who knows, maybe his being green will work to his advantage since pretty much everyone in the middle is fed up with DC in both parties.

[AmericanDream]

8. He IS going to be President - as Bill Maher said 2 years ago

In 2004, Bill Maher said that "I don't know about this time, but he IS going to be President one day."

I think there IS something about Edwards (his intelligence, personality, talents, life story) that just makes him probably the only national democrat who has a favorable rating of 45%! among Republicans and 63% among Independents (and 81% among democrats) - Americans like him and they are willing to listen to him. In my gut, I do feel he is going to be our next President - and my gut is usually right, but you never know...

[Erika]

10. I love the guy and his wife

They are great people who have faced tragedy and prevailed. He has an honesty about him that is hard to find in D.C. I equate him with Howard Dean.

He'll get my campaign donations.

[Triana]

19. I hope you're right!! :) (n/t)

[Awsi Dooger]

14. Edwards is terrific, but he doesn't sway a vital state

In a 50/50 race we'd still need Ohio, Florida or Virginia and it's hardly obvious how Edwards wins any of them. That's why I've switched support from Edwards and likability to oust an incumbent in 2004, to Warner (and Virginia) in 2008.

Of course, perhaps it's a flawed handicap and Edwards is the guy who can pull a 2-3 point national margin, in which case he can win all three of those states. But based on history after one party has held the White House exactly two straight terms, the next race is an armageddon tossup. I want more states in play and IMO that's Mark Warner.

I don't agree Edwards wouldn't have retained his senate seat in 2004, if that had been the priority. The opponent was mediocre and incumbency is huge, despite the tendencies of that seat which has flipped every cycle for decades. Edwards had a solid approval rating in North Carolina according to the election day polls. We lost all the southern open seats but Edwards as an incumbent would have pulled through.

[Erika]

21. Warner is a good guy but lacks charisma

John Edwards doesn't. He's loaded with it.

[AmericanDream]

24. And he has NO foreign policy experience - Edwards does

Edwards has co-chaired the U.S.-Russian tasforce, he was on the foreign affairs and senate intelligence committees. He has been to the African continent, India, Israel, Pakistan, Afghanistan, numerous European countries, and the list goes on... He might not have a fancy FA job on his resume - but he has been studying stuff on his own!

[Awsi Dooger]

25. I don't disagree with that

I've seen Warner come across as semi-charismatic at times, and bland as hell on other occasions. I'll be interested to see how that plays out during the campaign. I have a feeling Warner will start awkwardly in mid-2007 then warm up to a national race approaching the primaries. Obviously I'd prefer Edwards' looks and likability in Warner. But in terms of varying themes and short thought-provoking summations, I think Warner is superior to Edwards and the best we've had in a national candidate since Bill Clinton.

[AmericanDream]

27. Are you kidding me?

Warner stutters when asked questions - he has a stump speech and he delivers it well. He tanks totally in a Q&A.

[Erika]

30. Sad but true n/t

[Awsi Dooger]

35. I've seen that tendency in Warner

Like I indicated, I expect him to start slowly. I've also seen him sound terrific a few times, even in Q & A.

If Warner is as limited as you assess, he'll be out of it early and I'll switch back to Edwards. But handicapping is my strength so that's not going to happen.

[Erika]

28. I would say by the responses that the RWingers

are scared of Edwards. He's an upstanding father, husband, and a humanist. They are scared big time.

Edwards is also capable of getting the youth involved.

[Catchawave]

56. They already tried the "trial lawyer" smear

Which helped him win the NC Senate seat! Corporations feared him too :)

[blm]

96. Not on a national level with most corporate media aimed AT him and

squarely against him.

You don't know how any one will fare with half a billion dollars and most corporate news media set against them.

We know that the silver-tongued Clinton was even impeached for NOTHING because the corporate media helped to make it happen.

[Catchawave]

137. From Oct 2001....

Source: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0110.green.html

John Edwards, Esq.
Republicans believe that Americans will never elect a trial lawyer president. They're wrong.

By Joshua Green
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




On August 5th, NBC's Meet the Press featured someone and something we're likely to see much more of in years to come: Senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) squaring off against a nervous representative of the Bush administration.
The issue in this case was the so-called patients' bill of rights, and Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-G.A.) the Bush surrogate. Days earlier, the president had sweet-talked Norwood into a midnight deal that sharply restricted patients' right to sue their HMOs. Norwood, who for many years had advocated a much tougher bill, had essentially been suckered, and appeared acutely aware of this as he sat alongside Edwards, glumly resigned to defending a bad deal.

Tim Russert was on the attack, pressing Norwood about his recent yielding on patients' rights to sue in state courts: "Why did you abandon those views?" Norwood hemmed and hawed and finally was reduced to parroting the administration's line: "It is potentially possible that could ruin the employer-based health-care system in the country." Russert pressed him harder. "Do you believe that?" It turned out Norwood did not.

Russert then turned to Edwards, a trial lawyer by profession, who neatly summarized the deal's shortcomings. "Number one, this deal---which was written in the middle of the night, by the way---takes away rights that patients already have across the country," he explained. "Number two, it maintains the privileged special status that HMOs enjoy today. And, number three, it stacks the deck against patients when they're trying to hold HMOs accountable for what they do." Edwards also pointed out that a seemingly minor change in the bill's language had shifted accountability away from HMOs---something Norwood had failed to recognize and meekly agreed was "a mistake." ....cont'd

[blm]

196. And when did TRUTH start to matter to a newsmedia intent on protecting

the Bushboy?

Hey - I've been a longtime supporter of Edwards and I think he is a fine man who sincerely wants to improve this country for its people.

I also see the media and the GOP power for what it WILL DO, not what it should do.

[TheFarseer]

101. which state does Hillary sway?

that's unfair to assume you like Hillary, but I could ask that of almost any candidate with the exception of Warner. Edwards has a good chance to sway southern states like NC, VA, TN, FL

[Awsi Dooger]

103. Good point

I don't think she sways a state, either. She's not as low on my list as many DUers have her, primarily because I think she's already been Swift Boated, and she might help us with the vital voting block of white women. My problem with Hillary is I think it's still too early for a woman to get elected nationally.

I doubt Edwards can win North Carolina or Tennessee, not without a significant popular vote edge nationwide. Those states are maybe 10 points GOP leaning. He would have a good chance in Florida and perhaps Virginia. Arkansas wouldn't be impossible.

[mtnsnake]

231. When did Hillary have a chance to sway southern states like Edwards did

in 2004? Far as I know, she hasn't run yet for president or vice president like Edwards has.

Edwards has a good chance to sway southern states like NC, VA, TN, FL

If those are the only states he's got a good chance of swaying, then why bother? We need someone who can sway more southern states than that and still not lose any northern or western states that he had before. I'm not saying it's Hillary, either, btw. It's just that you singled her out to make your point about Edwards, and Hillary still hasn't run yet.

[Hippo_Tron]

119. We can't pin it all on one state

We need to find the guy who can win the 2-3 point or more national margin and win by 300 electoral votes or more. Warner looks great because he polls 10 points ahead of anybody in the GOP stronghold of Virginia. But once the GOP starts saying that Mark Warner lets scary black men out of jail or Mark Warner will make it easier for terrorists to blow up your kid's school, will he still be polling 10 points ahead in Virginia and how well will he be doing in the other swing states? Regional candidates might have worked in the old days, but they don't anymore. We need a strong national candidate and so far I'm not convinced that Warner, or Edwards for that matter, fit that description.

[Awsi Dooger]

123. I'm looking for the same candidate you are

The best I can come up with is Warner.

Our entire philosophy has been regional, as in the same 16 or 17 states. Warner may expand that base a state or two so I'm in his camp.

It's kind of like having the top draft pick and no one who is a certain Hall of Famer, notches above the rest.

[Capn Sunshine]

239. If you're that worried about a close vote- back Gore

he won all those states before and he can do it again.

[Awsi Dooger]

244. I could back Gore

He fits an open race well. I definitely prefer him to Hillary, Clark, Feingold, Bayh, Biden and just about anybody else, other than Warner. Between Gore and Kerry I'm not sure. Probably I'd prefer Gore, the less recent loser, even though Kerry debated much better and didn't blow a race he should have won, as Gore did. Kerry was always uphill against an incumbent. Gore against Edwards is also close but I take Edwards.

It still comes down to Ohio, Florida and Virginia so I prefer Warner, who has a distinct edge in the latter.

[Ecumenist]

29. I can't because he is

[Erika]

32. Yes?

[MatrixEscape]

37. Because ...

You are in a game that you may not yet understand.

It is only a two party system for a reason.

They play you like pawns on a chess board. Oh, but you get excited and react, don't you?

Is this entire, complex and multi-faceted World easily reduced down to two, opposing factions?

Why play that game and think you are doing something or on the "right side"?

Many DU'ers see that already. It is time to see the light of the duality that was created long ago. Life is really far more complex than two, consolidated parties. As long as you want to live in the carefully designed and proscribed struggle of black and white, you live in a fool's delusion that plays you like a calculated pawn in a game that you can only pretend to be a real and deciding factor in.

This IS an information war. That war is based on the use of the MIND, (a myth). If you cannot use your multi-million-year-old bio-computer to counteract that, then you fail for the species. This is going beyond your personal training, indoctrination, and beliefs. This is the deciding point about a few, dominant manipulators who know you better than you do yourself, (based on their meticulous studies).

The next step will be about transcending fear and social memes and going for your own gut, and then acting upon that as a way to show your trust of your inherit NATURE. That is the real and only law of the Universe. You have it already, but are you ready and able to act on that without succumbing to your current illusions and delusions?

For all time memorial, to sacrifice was to make holy, or to offer up. If you cannot do that, then you are only doomed to play the game that the Eilite has created and controls. They are counting on you NOT to make the choice to give up all the goods they have layed before you with the hope that you will sell your being and reality to them for a technological price.

Red pill or blue pill? There are good arguments for either. Your own nature will decide. I consider our Nature as the most important law, factor, and ultimate ground for the semblence of reality we are in now. Do you really need any other?

[Awsi Dooger]

39. I'm sure that was good

But I think I could read it a billion times without guessing John Edwards' candidacy was the topic

[MatrixEscape]

41. I agree!

[shenmue]

38. What's wrong with being from the North?

The idea that a candidate should have to be from the South is, frankly, prejudiced. A good candidate from anywhere ought to be welcomed. There's just as much anti-Northern sentiment out there, and it is just as unfair and hypocritical.

[begley]

43. What is....is.

Nobody said it was fair. Show me more than one northern winner the past 70 years.

[shenmue]

44. Then why should I vote for a non-Northerner?

If they don't respect me, why should I return the favor?

I think it's become okay to be biased against us. That's funny. We're predominantly liberal. You'll take our votes, but not our people.

That's really sad. I almost wish we could secede.

[begley]

62. It's not 'me' taking anything.

You're taking this personally as if I am making the decision for what these people do. We are talking about the behavior of the southern states in general elections. I am just making the point that Hillary would likely get hammered there, whereas Edwards would probably do better. Those people probably are biased against northerners to a large degree. Some of them are still fighting the Civil War. Of course it's prejudice and not right, but it's more the GOP voters who are like this, I supect. Not the Democrats down here.

[shenmue]

47. I can...

though they're not from our party.

The B***es. They're really from Connecticut.

[Hippo_Tron]

120. Okay... Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F Kennedy

[begley]

139. FDR won 72 years ago.

Not within the last 70. Why do you think I picked that number?

[Hippo_Tron]

161. He also was elected in 1936, 1940, and 1944

[begley]

162. Oh wait. I can't subtract. lol

60 years. My booboo

[femmedem]

192. A northerner (Kerry) won just a couple of years ago. n/t

[1932]

49. If you're talking symbolically, the north is where all the power is.

Democrats are supposed to represent people who don't have power. Having a candidate from the power centers screws up the message Democrats are trying to send, unless the candidate has some other element of their personality/biography that offsets being from Boston or NYC, and having gone to an Ivy League School. (And being married to one of the richest women in America isn't one of those things that offsets that perception.)

You can run anyone you want from anywhere in America for president, but I think it's important to think of the messages you send with your candidate. So if you want to run a Bostonian or a New Yorker, please let it be the child of a poor immigrant who, if they went to an Ivy League college, went on a scholarship and then did not go on to make millions from inheritance, or Wall Street.

[Hippo_Tron]

121. But nobody gave a shit when Franklin Roosevelt ran for President

Roosevelt was from a wealthy family and he was from New York. Yet he drew his entire support base from average working Americans. FDR's only opposition was from extremeists, diehard Republicans, and the power elite that you speak of.

But I guess not only have times changed, but there's a double standard. Bush is from Connecticut, was Ivy Leage educated, and didn't have to work a day of his life because of his father's money.

[1932]

186. FDR won his first campaign because he wasn't Hoover and he won the next 3

because nodody had ever seen a president more on the side of the american worker and against fascism and the economic royalists.

Also, the sunbelt is definitely a post-FDR era phenomenon. It's even post-JFK.

[gerrilea]

40. I agree...the Repugs are afraid of him and are trying to convince us that

Hillary would loose too, but a ticket with both of them on it might work,,,naw...forget I said that...

I do think John would bring back what I believed as a kid what the Democrats stood for...THE PEOPLE...

Fairness and justice and equity...

His inexperience with forgein affairs would make him the "clean slate" our country needs...with the rest of the world...

[tulsakatz]

42. I thought he should have been President........

.........in the last election!!

All of your reasons are good ones..........not to mention he has a lot of charisma!! There are very few politicians that possess all of those qualities.

And regarding the death of his son, I heard a story about that. Someone was interviewing him during the election and they told him, that if he runs for President, the campaign could get very ugly. Edwards started talking about when his son died and he had to go to the morgue to identify his body. After he finished this emotional story, he asked the interviewer 'can it get uglier than that?'

And the worst that Bush could dig up on him was that he lacked experience in international policy.........yeah, right! Like Bush had so much experience as Gov of Texas!!!

[blm]

45. Explain how he would have clocked Bush in ways Kerry didn't?

The debates I saw, Kerry DECISIVELY won - Kerry developed way better policy positions and solutions than Bush did.

I thought Edwards did OK against Cheney - but Cheney commanded the pace of the debate, as he usually does.

But, am definitely curious how you can claim that Edwards would have clocked Bush as Kerry could not - would Edwards have had a different DNC or Dem pundits or Dem party infrastructure than Kerry had to deal with in the general election?

I like Edwards alot, but why attack Kerry and claim for certain what would have happened? Share the details.

[1932]

50. I'm not saying that I totally subscribe to this, but it's persuasive:

After choosing a representative national sample of more than 700 people, political scientists conducted what is called a deliberative poll. They created a group of well-informed voters by giving them home computers and exposing them to the candidates' commercials and policy positions. These voters, using microphones with the computers, discussed the candidates and the issues in small groups that met online once a week, starting in January on the day of the Iowa caucuses.

Over the next five weeks, as Mr. Kerry built up momentum among both real-life primary voters and the control group in the experiment, Senator John Edwards enjoyed the biggest surge in the well-informed test group, which was won over by his personal traits as well as by his policies, notably his protectionism on trade. Besides appealing to the Democrats in the test group, Mr. Edwards did better among the group's independents and Republicans, and he emerged as the strongest candidate against Mr. Bush.

http://pcl.stanford.edu/press/2004/nyt-edwardswins.html

[blm]

53. And in other focus groups, Kerry did best. Truth is that Edwards never

had to face the mountain of negativity that he would have had to face as the nominee. For anyone to even claim that he could pull off with the exact same Dem infrastructure and media what Kerry could not is just absurd. ANY testing of Kerry and Bush's qualities in an unbiased survey would put Kerry miles ahead of Bush - but reality is a whole other story when you factor in the corporate media.

And I am sorry, but NO survey I have ever seen done from 2002 and on has ever factored in that there isn't a lawmaker alive today who has effected this nation's actual governance and the historic record more positively than Kerry has over the last 35 years. Have you? Ever see one that informs it's subjects that Kerry has a record that includes investigating and uncovering more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history? I haven't.

So, you were convinced by this particular survey and I am convinced by the congressional record.

[1932]

55. 700 people...all talking and thinking about the candidates...

...in a rigorous scientific study conducted by respected academics.

All I'm saying is that it is persuasive.

It's also a pretty good answer to the "What makes you think...?" question.

On Edit: googling some more about this issue, discovered that the people in the survey were given materials from the campaigns, and discussed the information on the candidates' web sites. So, if they didn't know about Kerry's legislative record, it was because Kerry didn't chose to write about it at his site or in his campaign materials. If he did chose to highlight it, it's possible that the voters cared more about other things, like (as the article suggests) their positions on trade/globalization.

[blm]

57. An academic survey told us that after viewing all speeches and debates

from all 4 of the nominees, Cheney came off as most knowledgeable and trustworthy, Bush was sincere, Kerry was lying, and Edwards too uninformed - I didn't take that as gospel, either.

Preferred outcomes have nothing to do with it, do they?

The fact is that both Edwards and Kerry met every person they possibly could in Iowa and spoke to that many for thousands of hours and Kerry came out ahead. The same happened in NH. The majority concluded Kerry had the most comprehensive answers and background.



Can you point to more than one area of national concern that Edwards outmatched Kerry in 2004 with a better policy position or plan? Sorry to be a stickler for details and accuracy, but, I think the party suffers when some derogatory statements are made against our own as the original poster did. Especially when there is no tangible proof offered.

[1932]

58. That was actually a computer analysis where words were given values

and then they measured how many times those words appeared in the speaches.

There was no deeper analaysis of, for example, what the sentences were saying in which those words appeared. Cheney could have strung together four multi-syllabic words in a sentence that made no sense, and he would have gone off the meter for smarts. (I'm not sure how 'smart' that study is -- designed by scienticians, yes, however, it might appear in USA Today, sure, but maybe not in an academic journal).

By the way, I think you remember the results inaccurately. Cheney's word choice was "smart", Kerry was "depressing", and Edwards slightly nudged out Bush for most "feminine" language.

And bush sounded feminine for a reason -- "gynecologists giving women their love" probably got him "smart" points and "feminine" points, btw.

Bush was trying to win the security mom vote, so the computer isn't telling you that he's a woman. It's telling you that he was executing his strategy effictively.

[1932]

60. To answer your question in the last paragraph:

Free Trade/Globalization.

According to that article I posted, voters liked Edwards better on free trade. This issue became a focus in the Wisconsin primary, where Kerry lost a lot of ground in the final days, and Edwards picked up a lot of ground -- which reflects what happened to the survey participants.

Kerry had voted for every trade bill there was. Edwards had voted for only two -- China and Jordan -- and against four or five. His litmus test for voting for trade bills was, generally, whether the other country had labor and environmental protections and he wouldn't vote for a trade bill that hurt NC workers. Given his biography, there was some resonance between those policies and his convictions, I'm guessing, which made Wisconsins and the people in that survey like him.

[blm]

65. Was there another issue? BTW - Edwards was only there for a few bills

and what is rarely noted is that Kerry was always for free and FAIR trade - belied by the fact that Kerry's amendment on NAFTA was supported by the unions but, unfortunately, not by Clinton. Kerry also worked for 10 years on Kyoto language, a fact that no survey I ever saw bothered to mention. Language that targeted fairer labor and environmental protections.

I guess that is why Edwards was able to join the ticket - Kerry's concerns were similar enough to his in some areas where Edwards could add his expertise.

[Catchawave]

67. Did ya hear the one about .....

When asked what he(JRE) would do differently during the campaign, his response was "not listen to Mary Beth Cahill" ?

A lot of Monday morning quarterbacking on the '04 campaign, but I think Kerry lost it with that "reporting for duty" salute at the Dem convention. It pissed off millions of VN vets and VN-era vets, who are still fighting that war. The Swifties were just icing on the cake for Rove, Inc. I live in the RW trenches with one of those "vets", I know what I'm talking about.

These same vets voted for Edwards over Kerry in the Virginia Primary, which Kerry won. HOWEVER, because REPUBLICANS voted for Kerry (stupid OPEN primary, and no Repugs were running)because they knew Bush could beat him. Politics and Republicans at their worse :cry:

[blm]

71. Absurd. GOPs voted for Kerry in Va cuz they knew Edwards could beat Bush?

Doesn't fly. Kerry was already headed to be the nominee by then, why would they bother?

And don't even pretend that Edwards not serving at all would have been an asset in comparison - RNC would have had a whole other tact in place and it's not like Edwards had some magic pull with the news media that Kerry did not. Hell, the media helped get silver-tongued Clinton impeached.

[Catchawave]

79. Read my cyber-lips....

There was NO Republican Primary in Virginia in '04. Open primary. The GOP noticed Edwards attracted brazillions more supporters in his *rock star* political swing through here. Primarily at Norfolk State U., but the state Dem leaders were already pulling $upport from our state by then to concentrate in Ohio and Florida :shrug:

Also, the DNC *told us* Kerry was heading to be the nominee by then? Are you familiar with www.jregrassroots.com ? I believe the "story" is in their archives :hi:

[blm]

87. I understood that already - to think the GOPs put out a concerted effort

at that point in the primaries to prevent Edwards from winning is still absurd. I lived in SC at the time and they have open primaries, too, so your point was not lost on me.

The DNC didn't tell us anything that Iowa and NH voters hadn't already said. If Edwards was GOING to win it, he would have won it.

[Catchawave]

91. The GOP DID put out a concentrated effort to

vote for *anybody but Edwards* in Virginia in the 2004 primaries. For some reason, I heard that through working for my friend's (OMG, a republican !!1!) local City Council run (WHICH he won that year). One meeting I went too, his *handlers* were already reaping the benefits of HUGH GOP donations...if they could get out the Kerry and Sharpton votes ?

This was the same time (VA-02) Thelma (lips firmly planted on Delay's ass) Drake beat our "fighting dem" David Ashe too...the GOP was sucessful "swiftboating" him on Kerry's coattails :cry:

Yes, Va Primary '04 was a Dem-off, but the Rovian voters were in force. :cry:

[blm]

93. I will assume that what you are saying is true - they targeted Edwards at

that point - It is easy to see their machinations as a way to try and attack Edwards' worth to the eventual ticket, as that was the only aspect of the ticket that the GOP could effect at that point. Goal - Keep Edwards numbers down to influence Kerry's choice of VP.

That's the only scenario that actually squares with the facts.

[durtee librul]

158. I have to jump in on this....

My neighbors are all elderly RW'ers to the core and they said that if the ticket had been reversed, they would have voted for Edwards/Kerry.

I believe them and have had several of them ask me if JRE was going to run again as they will gladly donate to him. They are done voting republican...or so they say. They don't have time for McCain, don't trust the gap toothed b***h, nor anyone else.

They said that since W ran on the 'restoring honesty and integrity' to the WH, they have had thier fill of his cronyism and ineffectiveness.

HOOORAH! These folks were dyed in the wool and I would safely bet several of them would qualify financially as Bush's 'base.'

[blm]

202. Kerry-Edwards won. Many people were NOT going to vote post 9-11

for a candidate with NO military background. Bush had the media protecting his nonservice and his image as a tough guy- Edwards wouldn't have had that advantage.

[benny05]

105. For the first 4 years, JRE had a 99% attendence record

And I remember when JRE was there to vote against cloture on the prescription bill and against it as well. I like Senator Kerry, but I thought it was rather unfortunate that he only stayed for the cloture vote, then he and Lieberman decided to return to Iowa and NH respectively to campaign for their caucus and primaries. And now, millions of people are getting screwed, and there isn't a safety net for those who land between 3600 to 5000 bucks of out of pocket expenses--which is the majority of seniors.

Some guy on the Kos this morning labelled Edwards as a commie after seeing him at some event last week. I've never seen so many bloggers since I posted the note about JRE's Op-Ed piece in WaPO that he was wrong about his vote on giving the administration the authority to exercise force on Iraq if necessary. The bloggers were pretty darned supportive of Edwards. Here was my response:

Perhaps the Senator is new to you. Your reaction is very provocative to say the least, if not extremist. It's been my own experience that the Senator has a sense of gravitas based on hard work, hard knocks, faith, a solid knowledge of the law both here and internationally, and a love of family.

As close he gets to being to that political "c" word is serving as co-chair with Jack Kemp on US-Russian Relations, appointed by peers at the Council on Foreign Relations, a very influential think-tank. In their report, they noted that Democracy is slipping away in Russia and that Putin needs to be engaged further by the G-8 because it is in our strategic interest to do so, if for any reason, Iran, which is one of our global threats.

Edwards has spoken at India and Dubai about possibilities with public-private sectors, and he is the closing keynote speaker at the German Marshall Fund's forum, Transatlantic Challenges in a Global Era in Brussels on this coming Sunday. None of those hardly suggest that he is pink politically.

BTW, the diary is thankfully gone. I don't know what happened to it, but it disappeared, so it's not worth the trouble of trying to find it.

Edwards has heard every criticism many folks have made about him. He listened. As you can see from my comments at DK, he is developing a lot more expertise about foreign policy. He was asked to be a plenary speaker at the latest American-Jewish Congress conference in early March, about the time he and Kemp released that CFR report.

What's better though, is that his listening skills are superb, and he has a way of bringing people to the table to discuss. He's been doing that with conferences at the Center for Poverty, Work, and Opportunity. And because so many are drawn to him personally after they have met him, I have no reason to doubt he would start the healing process that is so needed after having to put up with 5.5 years of adversarial relationships that Bush and Condi have presented as our foreign policy front.

I'm not concerned either about JRE being tough when he needs to. If he decides to run again, and wins the election, he will choose the best people around--in which some of them may be potential candidates some of you back at present.

Right now though, JRE, Kerry, and Clark are racing around to get Dems elected. That's great and that's what's needed --now!

[elperromagico]

180. How attentive to the issues do you think the average voter is?

Just wondering.

[1932]

187. Regardless, I think you're still better off running the guy people like

the most the more they think and talk about him. Why handicap yourself with anyone else?

[blm]

201. Walter Shapiro came to a different conclusion -he tagged the candidates

for a year and surprised himself that after spending all that time with each of them on the primary campaign trail, he said Kerry IS the one you end up liking most and want to have a beer with. He wrote about it in a book and an article in USAToday - but no broadcast media gave him the airtime to discuss his findings. If they had been super negative, you know they would've had him booked on every show for hours. Shapiro said he never expected the results based on his preconceived views going into the project.

The hospitality and service workers in Iowa were polled right before the primaries about the candidates and they said Kerry treated them the best and was nicest to them.

So, the MORE people learned about Kerry and the MORE time they spent with him, the more they liked him as a genuine person. Media wouldn't want you to know that, though. They want you to believe THEIR storyline.

[1932]

223. Then go with Walter Shapiro's opinion.

However, one man with access nobody has vs. 700 people with access that most voters would get by the time election day comes around -- I'd give some weight to what that 700 concludes.

By the way, I'd love to read his piece. Can you give me a link?

[blm]

234. Who selected the clips they were shown?

Shapiro's piece should come up in google. And wasn't the point that when people have the opportunity to get to know someone after more time seeing them and hearing them they come away with either a more favorable view or less?

So, the CHOSEN clips said one thing, and unlimited access said another.

Listen, I'm someone who likes Edwards alot - I just really detest how Kerry becomes the punching bag for some Edwards supporters and I will reply - tough, maybe, but always fair and honest.

[karynnj]

66. I know nothing about this study but,

I would question the input to the group. Who wrote the policy positions and who selected the commercials. I am not suggesting anyone intentionally would bias the results. Also, the online groups might have had some persuasive Edwards people.

The results of the primaries themselves show that people preferred Kerry.

[1932]

189. If you Google the study, I think you'll find the answers to those question

They used material produced by the campaigns, and they gave the participants access to experts in the policy areas about which they had questions. The goal was to produce good scholarship and not to spin out a result for a conservative media organization. And if you pick 700 people randomly, and you find a block of persuasive people on one candidate, it probably tells you more about the canidate than about accuracy of the study, don't you think?

[lwcon]

59. The ol' "Gravitas"

I like Edwards, and voted for him over favorite son Kerry in the MA primary.

But in the debate, he looked like a little kid next to Dick "Gravitas" Cheney.

If he's going up against the likes of McCain, Frist, or whatever form of evil incarnate the Repubs serve up, I'm not sure he's going to score on that all important "he looks presidential" meter.

My preference is for the new, improved, unchained Al Gore or for modern-day Diogenes Russ Fiengold.
___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[spooky3]

63. "gravitas" vs. intelligence, appeal and integrity

I'll take the latter substantive traits over the vague "gravitas" any day. I certainly did not perceive him as looking like a little kid in the debate with Cheney.

I believe Cheney has a 20% approval rating and has never been much higher than that. I don't know of approval ratings taken of all voters re: Edwards (since he was never VP) but I would bet that if people were asked some type of question comparing them directly, such as "if these two men were running for President in 2008, for whom would you vote?" Edwards would win in a landslide.

And, I believe Kerry was perceived by the general public as having "gravitas" in spades and I would bet his "gravitas" rating was higher than that of his opponent * (although granted, it is questionable that * actually won in 2004).

My point is that I'm not sure how much the average person views the "he looks presidential" as a function of gravitas, whatever that is. Kennedy "looked presidential" in the same way that Edwards does, IMHO.

[lwcon]

83. Again, Edwards had *my* vote

I agree that all that gravitas, etc. is a load of crap compared to policy, intelligence, common sense, and basic human decency -- except when it comes to swaying a public trained to vote in fear.

Likewise, I don't think Kerry's rather modest natural charisma made him a great choice to lead the ticket. Overally, he exceeded my expectations as a campaigner (and we'll all have to wonder how much vote fraud may have tipped the result).

I don't know if anyone agrees with me here, but my VP debate scorecard had Edwards with a sturdy lead on substance but that he was KOed on presidential style.

It sucks that the superficial things matter, but to a significant extent they do. And with that in mind, yeah, Edwards's young-Kennedy look is a plus. His mea culpa re: voting for the Iraq war is IMHO another plus. But I'd sure like to see him spend some time in Gravitas School if he's going to take on the big boys again.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[spooky3]

84. I agree with you on most points and am not arguing about

whether superficial things matter to many voters. There's no question about that, or maybe there is in some people's minds but I definitely agree with you. My only disagreement is that I didn't perceive him the same way as you did and I am curious as to what the average voter would perceive. Even if they agreed with me, obviously that doesn't make you wrong in how you see or saw him on this specific attribute. All I'm saying is that before I would coach him to change a style that clearly (maybe superficially) appeals to many voters, I'd make sure that a lot of people agreed about a perceived aspect of weakness in the style.

Another question is whether the conditions in 2008 will be significantly different such that the desired superficial style qualities that the swing voters want will be different from 2004.

[Fruticetum]

282. mine too

[begley]

68. I don't know that I can answer without pissing you off......

But since you asked, I'll give you my impression. Kerry was slow-footed in responding to the swifties. And you can't say the media hurt him on this because I don't believe they reported the ads until Kerry started responding to them (although the ads were being shown, of course). Perhaps Kerry was listening to his advisors on this, I don't know. But I feel like Edwards would have the instinct to call bullshit on lying attacks against him, and he would do it promptly.

As for the debates, Cheney is tough. He probably got the best of Lieberman in 2000, but Edwards got to Cheney. Pissed him off a couple of times. And he got the comment about Cheney's gay daughter in there deftly to where Cheney even thanked him for it. But Kerry used the same remark in a later debate, but was ham-handed about it, such that it allow Mrs. Cheney to squawk about it and rack up some points with her 'outrage'. To me, this is an example of Kerry not having the feel of what is appropriate. The gay comment had a shelf life of exactly one use. After that, it becomes offensive in the eyes of people. I think Kerry should have sensed that.

Because Edwards doesn't come off as bumbling as Kerry, I don't think he makes a blunder like 'I voted for the $187 billion before I voted against it'. Appearing 'nuanced' is not an advantage for a candidate trying to put forth a clear message. Edwards isn't like that. He just comes straight out and kicks your ass.

The final thing is the handlers. Kerry to me, looked like he was subservient to his handlers. And the handlers mishandled it. They spent the whole time trying to make Kerry look like a toughguy. The candidacy declaration in front of that ship didn't look right, the 'reporting for duty' thing was an embarrassment, the 'hunting' expedition looked phony. The campaign made Kerry, the true veteran, look like the military wannabe. He looked like a stiff trying to play a part. I just think Edwards would have the savvy to overrule advice that makes him look silly. He wouldn't need the stunts; nor would he agree to them.

I think the whole thing comes down to Edwards appearing to be much more of a people person and being comfortable in his own skin.

There. You asked.

[blm]

89. Most pundit also said Edwards was unconvincing at his convemtion speech

because he tried to act tough on terror and failed.

BTW - The Research Forum here at DU has the info that proves that the Kerry-Edwards campaign DID answer the swifts and did so in a timely way but the media mysteriously managed to avoid the events like the Firefighters Convention speech that August where Kerry targeted the swifts and their alliance with the WH.

[Awsi Dooger]

104. You need charisma, likability and a positive message to oust an incumbent

That's my base theory and I posted it repeatedly before the primaries. A proper resume is fine for an open race but to knock out an incumbent the handicapping factors have to be properly amended. We were ignorant of that point and paid the price. A war hero background meant squat. You needed to pull from the voters who had switched to the GOP based on 9/11 and fear. Only a likable candidate emphasizing positive themes was going to have any chance.

Reagan and Clinton have knocked out an incumbent in my lifetime. It wasn't exactly difficult to place Edwards alongside that group more than John Kerry. No one in our crop was ideal but no question Edwards came closest.

Now we've got to forget that gaffe and make sure we properly handicap 2008. The key point is it figures to be extremely close in the popular vote. So it's essential to put the most electoral votes in play, and that's Mark Warner.

Meanwhile, in 2006 we need some form of an cohesive positive message. The hidden factor is GOP strength in GOTV, building in sophistication since 2001. That's not being depicted in the generic congressional polls and unless we forge a much higher approval number for Democrats in general, our gains will be much less than projected and inspire thousands of Diebold threads again.

[skipos]

46. I wish Edwards was from a winnable red state

We need all the help we can get, and presidential candidates usually get an extra edge in their homestate. NC is too red for Edwards to win, which means we would very realistically be back to the Gore/Kerry collection of states.

For example, if Warner was on the ticket (I am not debating wether he should be right now) he would realistically win VA (13 electoral votes), if he could maintain Kerry's states he would only need 5 more electoral votes. It would be nice if the VP was from a winnable red state too.

[1932]

51. What we really need is a Californian on the ticket.

Kevin Phillips's American Theocracy has a section on the power of Texas. I can't remember the numbers off the top of my head, but, IIRC, there has been a Texan on the ticket (Dem or Rep, P or VP, winner or loser) in something like 9 of the last presidential elections and on the winning ticket in 4 of the last 6. It's a sign of TX's political power which derives from the oil industry. California is the liberal antidote to TX, but where are the Californians? Since CA moved decisively to the Liberal column, there hasn't been a Californian on the ticket.

Democrats need to harness the liberal power of CA and get Barbara Boxer on the ticket.

[spooky3]

78. Given the electoral college system, I am not sure I am tracking with

your argument. Since Dems are going to with California most of the time, regardless of whether the Dem on the ticket is from CA, there isn't really an electoral advantage to that choice, is there? It could be an advantage for the Republicans to put a Californian on their ticket, however. The 4 of 6 winning ticket statistic for Texas is misleading, as (a) it's a very small # from which to draw any conclusions and (b) 2 of those 4 were *, right? and many question whether * actually won either election.

I would certainly agree with you about the advantage of having a Californian on a ticket-- if we could get rid of the very unfair electoral college system, which essentially renders the votes of the majority of Americans moot, since if they live in heavily red or blue states, candidates have to ignore them and their issues, to focus on the swing and purple states. So many Californians and others currently stay home from the polls.

[Pithy Cherub]

94. California is not reliably blue. 1994

is when Democrats started to hold more power in this state. Two former presidents are republican. The current governor is a republican. California is a powerhouse that Democrats take for granted at their peril. we also have liberal swing voters here that can opt for Green candidates as well. It is a serious mistake to think California will be in the blue column especially if a candidate has no strong ties here.

[spooky3]

100. ok, now I follow you. thanks

[Awsi Dooger]

132. If we're fighting for California we're finished nationally

Here's the partisan chart, compared to the national average.

California:
'88: Bush (51.13 - 47.56) = + 4.15% Democratic
'92: Clinton (46.01 - 32.61) = + 7.84% Democratic
'96: Clinton (51.10 - 38.21) = + 4.36% Democratic
'00: Gore (53.45 - 41.65) = + 11.29% Democratic
'04: Kerry (54.31 - 44.36) = + 12.41% Democratic

[1932]

155. Republicans aren't putting TX'ans on the ticket becuase they're worried

about winning TX.

They're doing it to harness the political, cultural and economic support of a powerful state with powerful industries and a lot of cultural heft.

Maybe Democrats need to look at CA the same way.

[Catchawave]

48. JRE certainly has cross-over appeal

He's been rated higher by Republicans and Independents than Hillary in many polls, such as this one:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=275

[BooScout]

61. Perception of his experience....

Which has been that he doesn't have enough. He gained a good bit though now with the experience of a national campaign. I don't count him out and think that one day he may well be President.

[omega minimo]

64. The reasons you give are all very superficial

[begley]

70. True. And superficial wins.

Look what we got in the WH now.

Although I feel Edwards is far from superficial.

[omega minimo]

143. Superficial lies, cheats and steals

Not necessarily in that order

:thumbsdown:

[Tom Rinaldo]

69. I'm staying out of this one, lol

Any time I answer a direct invitation OP question like this one honestly, I get accused of being part of a gang trying to beat up on Edwards. I don't think he's the perfect candidate, we could do better, we could do worse. But we don't need to be saying negative stuff about any of the center left Democrats right now. They are all on our "A" Team. We have to work together for November.

[karynnj]

85. Me too - these threads do nothing but

encourage bashing - no matter who they are for. There are people here for each candidate and I see no reason to list all the reasons I prefer another candidate to Edwards as it is counterproductive.

[Jai4WKC08]

98. Not only "encourage bashing"

But in this case, the OP actually seems to ask for it. That makes me suspicious. I'm sorry I contributed my opinion above.

[karynnj]

167. I know - believe me I've done that on far to many other threads

With good intention - to correct things I saw as unfair, only to continue the war. The strange thing is everyone repeats the woret interrepretation of all the other candidates. To get to the level they did in the Democratic party, they have to be reasonably good. I'm sure if I had the opportunity to see a speech or rally from any, I would agree withmore than I disagreed with.

[AzDar]

72. Let's see...a self-made, intelligent, caring , politician (handsome, too)?

Sign me up!

[MethuenProgressive]

73. A proven loser is "the total package"???

Begley, if Wes Clark had been our VP candidate John Kerry would be our President today. Edwards brought nothing to the ticket, did nothing for the campaign, and few people outside his home state (where ever that was) even remember he was on the ticket.

[begley]

75. Blaming Edwards for Kerry's loss?

Interesting

[karynnj]

129. That's unfair

His comment logically implies that Clark may have won Kerry 60,000 more votes in Ohio. This is, of course, unprovable. Clark was an excellent surrogate - but it's not clear if he would have done better or worse as the VP nominee. The question would mainly be the convention speech and the debate with Cheney. Edwards did get a lot of credit for his stump speech - would Clark's convention speech be better or worse? Would he have held up better against Cheney?

Who knows? But these are valid questions. Also, Clark could (because he did) be a better defender of the Presidential nominee. A traditional role of the VP.

[MethuenProgressive]

191. Clark v. SwiftBoaters

It's not just the 60K in Ohio, it's the hundreds of thousands who had their opinions swayed by the SwiftLiers. No single Rove attack hurt Kerry more, and no single "if only" would've defended Kerry more than Veep candidate Gen. Wesley Clark. We needed a Man to stand up for our candidate, and all we had was Edwards.
---
And naught for nothing, these "if only"s and "what if"s shouldn't be sniffed at as "mere Monday morning quarterbacking". The Monday morning reviews of yesterday's game tapes are the best way for any team to learn, improve, and plan for future wins.

[guidod]

74. Who said he isn't?

[Vinca]

76. I love Edwards - he's one of the most decent individuals I know

and smart as they come. He wasn't a drag on the 2004 ticket - the media "disappeared" him early on and he was rarely covered. I would be honored to call him my president.

[Catchawave]

77. Sidebar:

Welcome to DU begley :hi:

Also, being a "smart, cat-quick on his feet, great looking football player" has great crossover appeal too ! And that's the Dem's Magic Button.

We can send this message in '06 AND '08. A no-brainer :D Also, Edwards walks the talk.

[alfredo]

80. He does a funny thing with his tongue. I like him a lot, but my

wife finds what he does with his tongue irritating. He wiggles it side to side. I won't even speculate why it bothers her so much.

I think it is a nervous habit.

[spooky3]

86. agreed--or he needs to apply super-strength Chapstick

more frequently.

[alfredo]

88. He did ge rid of the cyst on his lip. That might help by not

drawing attention to his mouth.

[flashdebadge]

81. Easy....because Kerry is.

[mtnsnake]

193. Yeah, that's why he's sitting in the White House

Maybe you forgot that he was our candidate in 2004, and he lost to a moron. Some perfect candidate!

[Vektor]

224. There ya go!

;-)

While I do like Edwards, Kerry's definitely *the one.*

[lojasmo]

90. IWR and Patriot act. Not only "Not perfect" He stinks, IMO EOM

[begley]

233. That's pretty rough.

on John. Lotsa good people did the same thing. You go with the info you got at the time. Sometimes you make mistakes and admit them.

[jenmito]

92. Because Wesley Clark is...

Wesley Clark actually did BETTER than Edwards but he got NO media attention. The media seemed to want a Kerry/Edwards race and they got it. Clark has all the qualities of Edwards plus wayyy more military experience which will be even more needed in '08 than in '04! And Edwards' short Senate voting record will be used against him which is why Senators almost never win.

[ultraist]

111. Edwards came in second in nearly every primary

Clark did not do better than Edwards.

I understand you are a Clark fan, but the facts are the facts: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/scorecard/

[Tom Rinaldo]

118. Agreed, with a very small but...

Clark certainly did not do better than Edwards. Edwards did better than Clark. But the chart you linked to is somewhat misleading also. Clark dropped out fairly early when in his mind he determined Kerry could not be stopped. So it goes to reason that Edwards, who stayed in the race much longer, strung up a lot more seconds mostly by running in a lot more races, and against a smaller field in most of them.

Having said that I do not mean to take credit away from Edwards for how well he in fact actually did.

[FrenchieCat]

128. Clark did place 2nd in North Dakota, Arizona, and New Mexico

...in the mini Tuesday following New Hampshire...where he had beaten Edwards also. Clark also beat Edwards in Oklahoma...with Edwards coming in 2nd to Clark's first.

Remember that Clark was not in Iowa....and got zero publicity out of that....going into New Hampshire. Edwards had the flashbulbs in his face....2nd only to John Kerry......Yet Wes Clark still managed to come ahead of Edwards in New Hampshire....

Of all of the contests that they had ....Tennessee and Virginia were the deciding factors that Edwards ahead of Clark (which is why Clark stopped campaigning after those two states).....and much of that was due to the momentum for Edwards that started out in Iowa... affording JOhn Edwards losta publicity....which led to his win in South Carolina (his home state) and more Free publicity right prior to the Tennessee and Virginia primaries.

I also remember bitterly that South Carolina was being called for Edwards all over the National News on the day of the vote, after 1% of the vote......all the while, folks in other states being contested were still going to the polls to vote......and Wes Clark go absolutely no publicity.

So in fact, considering who got the bulk of the publicity after the first primary.....Edwards should have outdone Clark by much more....point of fact, they came fairly even until the last 2 contests that Clark was involved in; Tennessee and Virginia. By then Judy Woodruff was telling viewers to stop donating to the Clark campaign....and he only received publicity in those 2 states for a speeding ticket gotten by his caravan....and nothing else at all.

So comparing Edwards to Clark considering the publicity blowing behind Edwards back is to grossly underestimate the fact that Clark still managed to beat Edwards in New Hampshire, Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Oaklahoma.....without any publicity at all versus Edwards face all over the tube!

[jenmito]

133. You took the words right out of my fingers!

I'm now angry again with all the memories about how Clark got NO recognition! :mad:

[jenmito]

130. While Clark was in the race he did better...

Clark didn't run in Iowa or lots of other places. Clark's mistake was getting in too late and not running in Iowa. But where he DID run, he beat Edwards in NH, NM, OK, AZ, and ND. He got no credit for edging out Edwards in NH. I don't think he was even mentioned. Clark was creaming EVERYONE in NH until Kerry won in Iowa, at which time people started jumping onto Kerry's bandwagon. If you consider that Clark had so little time to campaign anywhere but a few states, he did great. Edwards DID beat Clark in more states because, IMO, Edwards was visible from the first state and it quickly turned into Kerry v. Edwards. I think Clark was sadly under-covered and he dropped out when he thought he saw the writing on the wall. (He must've missed where I wrote to stay in the race so I could vote for him in NY).

[TheFarseer]

99. Amen brother

he's my first choice. Pair him with Clark or someone with some foreign policy chops and it's a very strong ticket.

[Auntie Bush]

106. Edwards (although I like him) isn't the perfect choice because

Wes Clark is MUCH better and will get many more cross over votes...Rethugs love strong military leaders and that's just what we need these days. Here's how to answer your question. Ask yourself..."Who would make a better/more realistic Commander-In-Chief? Clark or Edwards? Which of the two men would the military look up to? As much as I like Edwards and all he stands for...I can't see any thing he has to offer that Clark can't beat. Clark has world wide respect and I think he could return our prestige back to a pre bush* standard. That's not saying Edwards can't...but Clark could do it better...better than any person out there.

[McCamy Taylor]

107. Edwards 2008; He will be my next president. (Unless E-vote fraud

is used to defeat him in the primary)

[skeeters2525]

108. He Was Not Good

He disappeared in the election. Maybe that was a plan. And Kerry didn't fight back enough, but Edwards was MIA as well. He should have mopped the floor with Cheney. Instead he looked like he wanted to shake Cheney's wanker.

Great Guy. Great Ideas. But he better grow a pair. Hillary is tougher.

[bee]

109. Edwards is great looking? ick. ick. ick. ick. ick.

guess Im just not into the choir boy look. ewwww.

[FrenchieCat]

112. Because he Co-Sponsored the IWR, he's not in the running in my book....

What I have always found Ironic was that John Edwards, who co-sponsored the lieberman IWR resolution that gave Bush a blank check, hasn't yet bothered to "talk" about the war's cost, and how it has taken a toll on our Federal budget and how the many programs for the poor were cut due to the war that he was for before being against it.

I will say that I'm glad that he is focused on solving the problems of the poor, and hopes that he continues on that as his pet project. However, with all of the money in the treasury kitty gone....due to the war he supported until recently enough....I just don't see the populist charm adding up to anything major....which seems to differ from what others here seem to see.....meaning, I don't see the result of his "talk" about poverty, as of yet.

What I do see are direct results of Edwards' mistake (Since he apologized in November of 2005, guess he's in the clear and will not be held responsible) for voting and strongly supporting the war initially.......(he gets a "pass" from so many.....due to his 3 years late apology).

In my mind, his initial bad judgement on Iraq (many Senators voted NO.....including Graham, Levin, and others who sat on the same committee as was Edwards) rules him out of the running, for me anyways. This war is still going on, and its affect much felt....regardless that Edwards conveniently "saw" the errors of his way three full years after the fact.

So, to reward Edwards with the presidency after his showing such lack of insight when it truly counted (which was a real important test that he failed with flying colors) is just not anything I'm willing to do, no matter how cute he might be, nor how much his wife might be loved.

BTW, what's his current stance on Iran and Iraq , anyway? Just curious.

PS. I will give Edwards' PR department an A+ in suceeding in making him look more liberal than John Kerry, when he is less so....

Also, unlike John Kerry who is made to answer for his IWR vote everytime it is convenient by his critics, Edwards, who fully supported George Bush's geopolitical vision for an invasion of Iraq from the onset is never called to account because he "apologized" in November of 2005 for a war that was voted on in October of 2002.

The Selective fading memories of those alleged "anti-Iraq War" Democrats are John Edwards greatest PR assets!

[ultraist]

116. Edwards has stated, "I was wrong" re: IWR

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623.html

The Right Way in Iraq

By John Edwards

Sunday, November 13, 2005; Page B07

I was wrong.

Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.

It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price. more...

****


Clark was not opposed to the war from the beginning. In fact he waivered on his position.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0339,schanberg,47244,1.html

Clark's Changing Tune on Iraq
General Wobbled and Weaved as His Candidacy Neared

[FrenchieCat]

125. You know....I didn't mention Clark's name....and we can have that argument

about Wes Clark another time, because my post wasn't meant to become an Edwards vs. Clark hijack. I disagree with you and those who interpret's Clark's stance as "changing"....cause it never did. But you know very well that this is my position about Clark....who is not who I posted about here.

I also know your position on Edwards...that all is forgiven, and even if he didn't have the wherewithall to understand at the time what he was voting for......(which I think he did).......that his apology now merits him the highest office in the land.....which I don't believe he deserves.

So, I do have my opinions on Edwards....and this was what I posted.

The point of fact in reference to John Edwards is that a convenient November 2005 (after the polls turn) apology for an October 2002 vote does not reward John Edwards with MY vote for the leadership of our country....for being so wrong, for so long on an issue SO important.

He can have your vote......I was just stating that he won't get mine. Do you understand that? :shrug:

Edited to add...that since making this post, I have gone upthread and clarified the Clark versus Edwards Primary stats....but again, this thread ain't about Wes Clark.

[Catchawave]

149. The generals speaking out against Rumsfeld are

having the same problem with credibility, because they didn't speak out at the right time ?

I think we all need to move on from the past :grouphug:

[Tom Rinaldo]

156. We need to be talking about Iran. That's the future. n/t

[benny05]

165. I'm with you, Catchawave

:hug:

[FrenchieCat]

168. Yes, forget the war....why don't we? I mean......is it over yet?

But General Clark and I agree with you. If you don't like it, say something...then better than later!

General Clark on meet the Press - August 28, 2005 -- Asked about the responsibility of Generals within the ranks. (just replace Generals for Senators, and Bush for Rumsfeld)
http://securingamerica.com/meetthepress/2005-08-28

GEN. CLARK: Two points. First, when generals are given senior command positions and they've had their entire lives and professional education in the military, they're expected to have a body of professional knowledge and character that lets them stand up for what they believe. So we have a principle of civilian supremacy. No one doubts that the secretary of defense is ultimately in charge. He's going to make the right decision or he's going to make the right decision as he sees it. It's up to the generals. If they feel he's making the wrong decision, they fight it. If they feel it's that significant, then they retire or resign from their position. Nobody's done that. So whatever the thrashing around was, they are complicit in that decision, in those decisions. Whether they turn out to have been bad or not, that was military advice.

Now, we've all been in positions where we've disagreed with our bosses, and it turns out, you know, bosses normally don't like that, so it's a pretty unpleasant thing, and you've got to have people of character in uniform at high positions, and then you've got to trust the process. In this case, I don't think the answers that came out of that process were good.

[Clark2008]

198. Many Edwards people, apparently, have to mention Clark

when we voice our opinion about Edwards - alone - and never even mention Clark in our opinion.

Why is that?

[Clark2008]

113. No foreign policy experience

Bilderberger
Too "fluffy" to swing "iffy" GOP male voters in the South and mid-West.
Couldn't help Kerry carry any Southern or mid-Western states.
His only creds are in subjects in which Dems beat Republicans anyway: ie poverty.
No national security creds

[Catchawave]

150. LOL...n/t

[DuaneBidoux]

117. No military or International experience. Very little domestic experience

He is however damn good when he campaigns--I dare say Bill Clinton's equal in that regard.

[saltpoint]

126. As many on DU have pointed out, John Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards

are the same person. Or, near enough to say that they are a dynamite team.

I personally feel that Elizabeth Edwards is astonishingly talented and could probably do more good as the nation's First Lady in 30 minutes than Laura Bush has done in 6 years.

As for John, he meets the qualifications for the office per our Constitution, so I'm tired of the Republicans moaning about his "experience." Limbaugh leans on that issue, as if Limbaugh had any experience as a serious journalist. Edwards meets the qualifications by letter and far exceeds them by spirit.

Would this be a wildly improved state of affairs for our country if Edwards were elected? You bet it would.

[Catchawave]

136. As always, lovely statement OC

:hi:

[saltpoint]

142. Hey there, Catchawave. Always a pleasure to see you on these boards.

:hi:


:dem:

[Catchawave]

146. Thanks sweetie .... you help me focus

and it helps me "try" and live up to my sig line !

[saltpoint]

147. all the same back to you, good person, and now let's go out there

and turn the U.S. House of Representatives a real dark blue.

[Catchawave]

154. Workin' it....

http://www.philkellam.com/home.cfm?CFID=621582&CFTOKEN=83489596

Also the Senate:

http://www.webbforsenate.com/

Whew!

[saltpoint]

159. Yes! Good for you, good for blue!

[AmericanDream]

140. No they are not

I think you are just getting carried away. Elizabeth Edwards is no Hillary Clinton. And by that I mean that she is not an equal partner in Edwards' politics - in fact, in their latest podcast, Edwards strongly disagreed with a statement about immigration by Elizabeth. The reporters who have intimately covered Edwards, some from his hometown, point out that Edwards has a very lawyerly style of politics - meaning that like most trial lawyers, he is a "lone wolf" (at work, not socially or personally) who likes to exchange ideas but plans out everything himself. He has a close group of friends (most lawyers) and he discusses a lot of stuff with them and elizabeth as a group, but as one guy who has studied his legal years and his political years very closesly pointed out, "Edwards likes to do things from top to bottom himself - when he was a lawyer, he was the one who developed strategy, prepared the arguments, designed the rhetoric, and did everything from nuts to bolts."

Before he ran for President, he went alone to his beach house for a week to plan out everything and prepare his main themes and think about the campaign. I think its a good trait - it is time to have someone in the White House who can think independently and who actually gives thinking through stuff as much importance.

I don't believe that First Ladies can do much... and outperforming Laura Bush is as low a bar as anyone ever set.

However, I agree with you: I think the best potential first ladies would be Susan Bayh and Elizabeth Edwards - they have very good personalities and are also talented. But unfortunately for susan bayh, Sen. Bayh is a dud. Lastly, like I said, as far as I'm concerned, first ladies are a non-factor. Hillary for all her brilliance and great talents could not accomplish much either - the fact is that it is not an elected office and so there is little good to be done.

[saltpoint]

145. Well, damn it, I'm OLD, and we OLD people get carried away at the

drop of a hat.

First Ladies. Traditionally the nation has not asked much of them, and that needs to change. I see a time very soon when the spouse of the president, whether man or woman, plays a huge role in the public perception of national well-being. A very heightened role, and sooner rather than later.

Edwards was counted out in Iowa in 2004 because he had no name recognition and no money.

He finished 2nd behind Kerry at 32%.

On a shoe-string budget.

Not bad.

I don't think he should be counted out at all.

[Walt Disney]

127. How does he lose? Well, he lost the nomination to Kerry, didn't he?

[begley]

144. I got the feeling people had wished the ticket were reversed

when they saw them together. I felt like Edwards was the astute one who was forced to playact as a #2 man and watch, shackled, as Kerry made his missteps.

I would also say to your post, 'that was then this is now'. Kerry lost an election. That immediately weakens him. Edwards was coming on strong in the primaries at the end. He's the up-and-comer.

[Walt Disney]

205. Well, I can't argue with you there, but I would say that Edwards has

also lost an election.

I believe the next candidate will come from outside of Washington. I know, Edwards is officially an outsider now, but most people will not see him that way.

[benny05]

267. In 2005 I talked to several people

While I was in a neutral country on vacation. Half of them were Republicans, and said they couldn't vote for Kerry, but if JRE were at the top of the ticket, they would have supported it. I found those comments unfortunate as I liked the 2004 ticket, but that's what I heard.

[NCarolinawoman]

131. He would never win his home state. Too many are ticked off at him.

I'm not just talking about Republicans. The Blue-Dog dems who helped put him into the Senate are mad at him, and many of the Yellow-Dog Dems are angry with him as well; but I imagine that they would most likely vote for him in a General Election. I have no idea what the Independents would do. Biden or Warner and possibly Clark (who is relatively unknown here) would probably have a better chance in North Carolina. Ex Governor Hunt, who is still very popular here and has a lot of influence, has been buddying up to Warner lately. The local paper said that Hunt treated Warner "like royalty" when he recently came to the state.

I honestly don't know how well John Edwards would do even in his own NC primaries (actually a caucus). He got 25% in a recent online straw poll at the NC DNC website. This enabled him to win, but 3/4 of the Dems wanted someone else. I may be wrong, but I am under the impression that Warner of Va. and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin are still very popular in their own states. John Edwards is not. It's hard to get a feeling for these things if you don't live in the same area.

[liberalpragmatist]

135. Why are the Dems mad at him?

I remember seeing a poll around February of '04 that had Edwards polling way ahead of Burr in a Senate matchup (he'd already dropped out though).

I'm guessing maybe NC Dems think he cost them that Senate seat because he chose to run for President instead? I'd think Erskine Bowles had more to do with that.

You have to admit that he had the decency to announce relatively early that he wasn't running for reelection, unlike, say, George Allen, who's asking Virginians to reelect him but just so he can go run for President instead.

[NCarolinawoman]

172. There are many reasons NCarolinians are ticked off at John Edwards.

Back in the spring of '03, he said he would lead the way in the fight against offshore drilling in North Carolina. This was, and still is, a VERY BIG ISSUE! When the vote came up in June, John Edwards never bothered to show up. His reasoning was that, "he knew the bill was going to lose anyway". He was right. It did lose, but my Democratic Governor, Congresspeople, and even Liddy Dole, kept the fight against this going right to the bitter end. Then it came out that John Edwards didn't show up on the Senate floor because he chose to attend a fundraiser in Tennessee for his Presidential run. The most astonishing thing for me and for other people in the state was that we had NO IDEA he was going to run for President! This was his first term and it never occurred to us that this would happen. HE NEVER TOLD US!

In the fall of this same year, Hurricane Isabel hit the North East corner of the state. This is one of the poorer sections of our state and there was about a billion dollars worth of damage. On the news you would see people crying with coffins floating around in their yards. Governor Easley and Liddy Dole (sorry to mention her name again) flew to the area in a helicoptor. Even my Congressman from Central N.C. went to the area. The news media kept wondering where John Edwards was. As it turned out, he was attending some fundraiser up North. He finally left there, and showed up for about 45 minutes in Raleigh to hand out doughnuts to the relief workers at the Hurricane Command zone. (The Hurricane barely grazed the central part of the state). Then John Edwards was off again to more fundraisers; this time in California. He never even took the time to visit the hurricane ravaged area.

I guess the other thing that most stands out for me was his vote for the Iraq War Resolution. A peace group in Raleigh went to talk to him, but instead of speaking with their Senator, John Edwards had Federal Marshalls greet them outside his office. These pacifists hoped that he would hear them out and receive their petition; because they said, afterall, they had voted for him.

Okay, that is enough about all this. I just wanted to explain why there is a great deal of cynicism among many North Carolinians in regards to our former Senator. I was a supporter of his and was thrilled when he won his Senate seat. I just wanted him to work his heart out for the people of North Carolina during his VERY FIRST TERM as our Senator. We had put our trust in him, and now many of us feel used.

[AmericanDream]

138. You are wrong

The recent poll in NC (for President) has Edwards leading on the democratic side, whereas, for Feingold, Hillary is the lead contender in Wisconsin, with Feingold second and Edwards third.

Like I said, these online straw polls that you are talking about mean nothing (for any candidate), the polls that matter are the ones that are statewide. Online activists might not like Edwards much, but he still leads in NC statewide polls.

You are just totally talking out of experience here... I don't know how you can speak on behalf of all of North Carolina. Maybe where you live, such is the situation... but clearly, there are different viewpoints that prevail in different sectors of NC>

And, I believe Edwards won the NC caucus last time, even though it was useless by that time.

[saltpoint]

174. I know he won the South Carolina primary, interestingly one of the

states trying to move its primary date up to the week after New Hampshire for 08.

Also a tidbit: John Kerry announced his 04 candidacy in South Carolina amid a heavy military contingent.

[AmericanDream]

176. Yeah, and he won NC too.

[Awsi Dooger]

151. I wouldn't call Wes Clark a relative unknown on DU

Not unless winning every preference poll by landslide qualifies as unknown.

I agree Edwards wouldn't win North Carolina. Same reason as Gore losing Tennessee. The favorite son bounce is not enough to make up for the approximate 10 point GOP tilt in the state.

[saltpoint]

177. Hi, Awsi Dooger. My solution to that problem for any Democrat at

all would be for us to round up the Republicans and institutionalize them. In all 50 states.

Ok, ok, I realize there are serious legal impediments to that proposal.

But the idea has enormous appeal.

[Awsi Dooger]

178. Just for a few days

We'll let them have absentee and most of early voting, then a round up maybe on Friday prior. I've never seen a specific rule against that. Maybe it's pending.

[saltpoint]

181. LOL! We'll call it a weekend off for far-right fundies and Bushbots.

We could get Katherine Harris at minimum wage to serve as 'greeter' -- like the greeters at WalMart -- as the Republican voters enter the facility.

I think that would make them feel at home.

[ultraist]

170. North Carolinians LOVE John Edwards

I don't know what you are basing your opinion on, but all of the NC Democrats and some Republicans I know, love John Edwards.

He was polling as beating Bush in NC before the GE and recently again polled as beating Bush in NC.

He won the last primary by a landslide in NC (yes, it was too late in the game to really matter, but it goes to show North Carolinians' loyalty to their native son).

Many of Edwards' personal friends are involved with the State party---I think you are very mistaken about the insider power players being "ticked off" at John Edwards.

I'm in Raleigh, are you? Perhaps you are not really seeing what goes on in the State Party headquarters.

[Adelante]

188. A "landslide" in NC is stretching it, I think

Hardly anybody voted. There were about 18,000 votes period. There were over 2 million Democrats who could have voted. Yeah, he won, that's true. But no part of 18,000 votes, not even the half of them he won, could be termed a landslide, never mind pass a test of loyalty to John Edwards. After all, it was his state of residence and he was running for the highest office in the land and 9,000 people voted for him? Come on.

[ultraist]

215. Edwards won a very big percentage of the vote

Of course, the turnout wasn't very large, because our primary didn't make any difference.

The landslide describes the large margin in which he won by.

It's absurd to say North Carolinian Democrats don't like Edwards. People are extremely proud of Edwards for making it to the national stage and still support him.

I was in the Kerry-Edwards campaign headquarters nearly every day. I talked to thousands of NC Dems and believe me you, it wasn't Kerry that they were that excited about. It was Edwards, the VP from THEIR state.

[Adelante]

217. I don't doubt your word

I didn't say North Carolinian Dems don't like Edwards. I don't live there. I wouldn't know. I just wouldn't back my argument with "landslide" in your place, when it translates to less than 1% of the possible vote. Relating it to Kerry doesn't work, either. This was Edwards's resident state, not Kerry's.

[Clark2008]

200. That's odd: all my family and friends in NC call him "Senator Gone."

They didn't think he represented them very well - and they're all Democrats.

They're in Raleigh, too, fwiw.

[ultraist]

216. Gone when he was campaigning for the Kerry-Edwards ticket?

Gone, now, when he is out there fighting every day to raise the minimum wage, support working people, and speak for those in poverty?

Gone when?

[rpannier]

134. BECAUSE...

He's a lawyer.
Don't you listen to Chris Matthews and faux news?????

[MrSlayer]

141. No foreign policy credibility, very little experience.

Doesn't flip any states. Let's face it, he wouldn't have even retained his senate seat if he ran for it again. Edwards is a good guy but is not Presidential material.

[Late Slip]

153. He's now got name recog. and people know who he is, but can he beat Gore?

I think he would do much better in '08 because people got to know him in '04, and that counts for a lot. His biggest competition would be Gore, and he could definitely bring in TN if he were to run. What about a Gore/Edwards ticket? I like the feel of that.

[MrSlayer]

164. I'd vote for it with no problem.

But I'd like to see Gore/Clark or Clark/Edwards or Anyone/Clark or Clark/anyone. Heh.

[begley]

152. Edwards is the only one who could beat Condoleeza Rice.

If I might take this debate one further.

First, Condi: I think she will be insulated from Bush's Iraq fiasco because she's 'nice', articulate, intelligent, and calm; in short, her make-up is antithetical to Bush's. I think she is viewed as the little dictator's surrogate mommy, who is there to clean up his messy spills, but also as one that endures his destructive whims only because that's her job, that if freed from this nannyship, would be cleared to steer the country in a more sensible course.
I think she would get a sizeable hunk of the black vote and the female vote, and for that reason, would topple Hillary, because Condi would also get the RW vote in a battle of women.
I think Condi would take Kerry by similarly capturing a large part of the black vote, plus even more female votes than she would against Hillary. The good 'ol boys in the south, though they would grit their teeth at the prospect of voting for a black woman, probably hate northeastern libruls even more.
Which brings us to Edwards. Condi still wins the same votes among blacks and women that she would with Kerry, but now the GOP southern rednecks hear Edwards' drawl and feel they have one of their own in there, and they won't have to pick a black woman after all. Halleluja!
I would also add that Condi is unlikely to run. And in that event, ANY Democrat nominee could beat any one of the GOP idiots in a walk. But Edwards is the ONLY one who beats all comers, no matter what.

[FrenchieCat]

166. Counting on racism of a potential candidate that has said she's not

running, to speculate an Edwards' win kinda of a long shot strategy IMO. I think you're stretching all that we have to imagine in order for John Edwards to come out on top.

All of that, and he still co-Sponsored that horrible IWR bill that passed and is known as the Iraq War. (I know...he's sorry).

[begley]

183. Who said Im counting on a strategy of any such kind?

Im saying flat out that Edwards beats anybody. Period.

[benny05]

264. Hey there

He is sincere; he said he was "dead wrong" about his vote to authorize the President to use force against Iraq if necessary. Wish you could believe him. He means it; he didn't say it just to be popular. He's not in the Senate anymore.

[mtnsnake]

163. Edwards is the perfect orator, not the perfect candidate

He's good, but for someone you say "could have clocked Bush in ways the slower and plodding Kerry could not", he sure was pretty quiet compared to how he was during the primaries. Personally, I don't think he was quite the asset on our ticket that we all thought he would be. He wasn't bad, but he wasn't the same effective John Edwards who we saw surprise everyone in the primaries, IMO.

[imlost]

171. No thank you! IWR n/t

[sampsonblk]

173. IWR - Its his turn to see MY back

I am NOT letting that one go.

[saltpoint]

175. If Elizabeth's health is not an issue, is there anybody here who thinks

John Edwards will not run?

And if he runs will not be a strong contender in Iowa?

[Awsi Dooger]

179. He'll run and be a major player

Too talented not to be. My early prediction: he'll finish second again, in terms of the nomination. To either Hillary or Warner. No VP slot this time.

[saltpoint]

182. Interesting scenario. I know that Warner has some fans. It feels to me

as if the field will be crowded and that it will probably get real interesting real fast.

The Indianapolis on-line sources claim that Sen. Bayh is raising enough money to almost match Sen. Clinton. That's a lot of cash. I wouldn't have figured him for such a big fundraiser.

The Iowa caucuses are going to be thrilling for Democrats there.

[depakid]

184. Lack of experience for starters

Poor judgment on previous votes in the Senate (like the Bankruptcy bill, for example).

Contradictory activities- like taking a position on Wallstreet with Fortress Investment Group and then promptly embarking on a nationwide tour emphasizing poverty and the "two Americas."

Edwards seems to like to have things both ways, and that doesn't exactly inspire a great degree of confidence.

[CornField]

190. I think Edwards is more than just a great 'candidate'

He's personable, genuine, and has that 'something-something' just like Clinton had... that ability to zone out the rest of the world and just talk to and listen to people.

He was my choice for President in 2004 and, given the field as it stands today, he would be my choice again. The thing is, I hope he doesn't run. He is a very effective spokesperson for the world's poor, especially our own right here in the U.S. He and his group One America have done so much to help in the hurricane afflicted areas.

For whatever reasons, people seem to have the believe that liberals aren't for the people anymore. When we have folks like John and Elizabeth Edwards out there, it only serves us all better. And, from speaking to him, I know he is doing something he truly believes in, that it isn't just for show or something to pass the time before his next big political campaign. He has a good heart. We need many more Democratic men and women out there in the world showing off their good hearts.

[AmericanDream]

195. Why do you not want him to run then?

[zann725]

203. On the "up" side, he's quite charismatic. That always "big' in the Polls.

And he's bright, and passionate about issues...plenty.

But there's an "insincerity" somewhere DEEP there...something behind the smile...that on a gut level keeps setting off my "beware" alarms LOUDLY.

Regardlesss of his sympathy for the "working man," my "gut" tells me Edwards is "R.N.C."-through & through.

My apologies for Edwards fans...truly. Just MY opinion.

[GreenArrow]

212. it aint just your opinion

the guy simply screams p-h-o-n-e-y.

[NoPasaran]

204. Doesn't walk on water

Sorry, but I can only support a true progressive who walks on water, supports impeaching Bush, and voted against the IWR.

[begley]

206. Whom would that be?

[Catchawave]

208. I'm guessing Feingold :)

Edwards/Feingold would make a damn near perfect ticket :loveya:

[NoPasaran]

209. LOL! I was trying to set an impossibly high standard

But you're right, Russ comes pretty damn close!

[Catchawave]

210. He can walk on "frozen" water in WI :)

He's a good man too :hi:

[NoPasaran]

211. Yes, he was down here last week

Raising money for my congressional candidate, John Courage. I was impressed.

[begley]

214. I like it.

:)

[Tiggeroshii]

207. He should have won SC when he ran last

...he didn't even win his own state.

[AmericanDream]

218. Excuse me, but he did. He won both SC and NC.

[Tiggeroshii]

222. How do you figure? n/t

[saltpoint]

226. In the 2004 primary campaigns, John Edwards won both the North and

South Carolina primaries. He was very close to Gen. Clark in NH and in Clark's win in Oklahoma, Edwards placed a strong second.

He polled well in many places and was ultimately chosen by John Kerry as the VP nominee.

There's every indication that he will seek the nomination in 08 and strong polling support for that decision. In many early polls he finishes second only to Sen. Clinton.

[Tiggeroshii]

228. I meant

He ran in the general election and didn't manage to get North or South Carolina. Remember, he we still running as a candidate in 2004. It's as shame he didn't even win his own state in the general presidential election, considering that was a lot of the reason why Kerry picked him.

[saltpoint]

229. Edwards ran consistently second to Kerry in the primaries apart from the

info upthread on the states he won. He and Clark were within a point of each other in New Hampshire and Oklahoma. For the general election, there was more demographic pickup for Kerry if he chose Edwards than if he'd chosen Gephardt. Gore didn't win his home state either in 2000. Neither did McGovern in 72. Carter, Clinton, and Kennedy did.

Here are some analyses for you on why Kerry may have chosen John Edwards:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/22/politics/main625452.shtml

http://www.alternet.org/election04/19112/

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=7236

http://www.hillnews.com/news/061704/edwards.aspx


The electorate is not a fixed entity. There are many variables in play. One is the kind of Democrat who now works in the primaries. In 1968 Robert Kennedy, a pro-Union liberal Roman Catholic won the Indiana primary. A pro-Union liberal Roman Catholic would likely not win the Indiana Primary in 2008.

Hurricane Katrina wiped out more than just the 9th Ward in New Orleans. She exposed the widespread poverty in the United States and exposed the apparent callous disregard the Bush administration has for the poor. Edwards' One America Committee is going great guns on the issue of one America with economic democracy and not two, where most are poor or in a struggling middle class and a few rich folks count their oil profits.

Richard Nixon's southern strategy is more to blame for Kerry-Edwards' thinner sums in the South in 04 than either their own campaign, or the Bush-Cheney campaign.

And don't forget, there remains a possibility that Ohio's totals were tampered with by Sec. of State Kenneth Blackwell. I personally believe Bush-Cheney cheated and Kerry-Edwards won in Ohio, and with those electoral votes, they won the 2004 election.

[benny05]

268. In the Primary, he did

But the Dem 2004 campaign thought the south would not be a winner. JRE should have been allowed to campaign more. He's in the pocket with NC as a winner now.

[GreenArrow]

213. yeah, he's perfect alright

kind of like a Ken doll is perfect. Yet, like a Ken doll, Edwards lacks a certain, how shall we say, heft .

[begley]

232. What's 'heft'?

You say he lacks heft because he is good-looking, not physically large? What?

[GreenArrow]

235. heft = weight, solidity, heaviness

In other words, I think he's a lightweight, and about as substantive and plastic as Ken. I find him to be extremely superficial. Good looking? I suppose that's in the eye of the beholder; I find him rather insipid but I can see why some people find him attractive in his bland, milky, plastic way. He's very manufactured looking.

[begley]

237. He has accomplishments.

Just because he is good-looking doesn't diminish what he has done. He played college football, graduated very high in his law class, was a highly successful attorney, and advanced very quickly in politics. He has endured personal tragedy. What exactly should he have done to be 'substantive?' How is a guy like Kerry or Cheney or whoever 'substantive' and Edwards not?

[AmericanDream]

243. Jealous?

lol... Your post reads of some very deep superficiality of thinking... no wonder you can't see the depth of Edwards. This is not a personal attack, but quite frankly, your criticism of him not only lacks substance but it is based entirely on a perception of looks. And, leave the job of judging Edwards' attractiveness to the females, please.


btw... don't ever say that Edwards is bland to anyone who has ever met him... they'll laugh at ya. Even the republicans bow to the guy's charisma and charm... and even his greatest foes are intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that. You don't like him fine, but your characterization of him shows that you haven't even spent any time listening or reading about him. You are totally ignorant of his policies or his personality... and you know that.

All I ever see you do in Edwards threads is come and give a one liner about his looks or how he "seems" like a lightweight to you... no meaningful, substantiated, or stimulating insight ever from you. Why don't you learn more about him so that at least you will have some knowledge to base your pre-conceived notions on?

[GreenArrow]

274. charisma:

It's not the standard by which I judge a candidate's value. We've been told for I don't know how many years now about how charismatic George W. Bush is. I don't doubt it's true, but his "charm" doesn't work on me. I don't doubt that John Edwards possesses a considerable amount of charm. But what's charm to some is smarm to others. I ain't buyin' what either one of those guys is selling. Charisma by its very nature is a superficial thing, working almost magically to attract and influence through a variety of mechanisms, physical attractiveness being only one of them, and one that if useful, is not entirely necessary. History is replete with examples of "ugly" or plain looking people blessed with charismatic powers and the ability to hold sway over large numbers of people.

But all that aside, don't you see the tiniest bit of irony in the fact that whenever an Edwards topic comes up, there are any number of posts extolling his looks and charisma? Given his limited time in office, his lack of any substantive legislative accomplishments, his losing performance in the 2004 election, his pro-IWR vote, what are we left with in his favor other than that his looks and charm are his main selling points. Judging by looks and persona aren't superficial when they work in someone's favor, I suppose, and make no mistake that people with conventional good looks and a positive persona know how to use those things to their advantage. I would expect no less from any successful politician, but neither would I assume where any politician is concerned that what I see is what I get -- there is always a mask.

As for making substantive posts, etc, all I can say is that going back to the primaries, through the general election two years ago, and looking forward to 2008, there have been countless threads about John Edwards, many of which I've posted on, and not always with a "one liner". I'm pretty much done with "substantive" posts so far as John Edwards is concerned; sometimes it just comes down to whether you like the guy or not, and I find the guy disingenuous. His belated apologies notwithstanding, his IWR vote was an immediate dis-qualifier. Nevertheless, I accept that he could win should he choose to run; he'll just do it without my vote, which is not a big deal for him, since I live in a red state anyway. And if he does win, his domestic policies are likely to be better than what we've endured for the last six years; his foreign policy will no doubt be in keeping with US foreign policy over the last 50 years at least, but without the overt aggression and unilateralism of the current regime. He is a safe, pro-status quo candidate, as will be anyone who has a legitimate chance of being elected.

Finally, no, I don't take your post as a personal attack; you have always been polite and reasonable in our exchanges, no matter that we disagree, and I respect and appreciate that.

[Placebo]

219. He's a loser.

He needs to just fade away.

[Clarkie1]

220. Edwards is not the perfect candidate.

In this day and age, we need a president with broad, extensive, real-world experience in international affairs.

Someone who is a lawyer is never the "perfect candiate" because some people always have a strong bias against that profession.

A current or ex-senator is never the "perfect candidate" because their record can be used against them.

There is no perfect candidate, and I like Edwards. But since you asked, there's 3 strikes against him.

[Zorra]

221. Working class roots, defender of regular folks against big corporations,

self-made fortune from work as successful trial lawyer, relatively young, intelligent wife, excellent voting record, strong, long term Democratic background -

Yeah, he would be an excellent Democratic candidate, it's hard not to like the guy.

Reminds me of a trial lawyer hero in a John Grisham novel.

[Libby2]

225. I like him.

I like him a lot.

[OzarkDem]

230. He's great, he's fine n/t

[childslibrarian]

236. I think so too.

That's why the press makes a point of ignoring him (and Wes Clark). He could win and they want to shill someone (Kerry, Hilary) who they can take down in a timely fashion.

[Zookeeper]

238. I supported Edwards in the early days before the nomination...

heard him speak, voted for him at my caucus and had his sign in my yard.

However, having been part of a losing ticket is a big disadvantage (IMHO).

If the party and the media wasn't so quick to embrace the candidate who has the first strong showing, I think Edwards could have been the nominee in '04.

[sandrakae]

240. He is a one term Senator. He is not qualified.

[saltpoint]

241. Abraham Lincoln was a 1-term Congressman. He did alright.

Legally, John Edwards qualifies to run for president.

He carries no disqualifying variables. Length of public service, or public service at all, is not a legal requirement, and its value as a personally disqualifying variable is strictly individual.

As I say, Lincoln's 1-term as a Congressman and a trial lawyer comes almost up to the level of Edwards' term in the U.S. Senate and work as a trial lawyer.

[saltpoint]

252. The Constitution's exact provisions are here:

* * * * *

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

* * * * *

[Capn Sunshine]

245. Because he doesn't have a speedo shot OR a sweater pic

I think that sums it all up.
//endsnark

[FrenchieCat]

246. Yep....but he does have the "Sweaty" but my hair is still beautiful pic...

And the famous Hairspray video http://slate.msn.com/id/2108216/slideshow/2108085/entry/2108087/speed/100

Give me a populist candidate wearing Speedos and a sweater....as long as he skips the hairspray!--FrenchieCat

[Clarkie1]

248. OMG! I had never seen that video!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Edit: Seriously though, I do have a lot of respect for the work Edwards is doing on poverty issues. It's a great contribution, and I hope his best ideas will will get serious consideration someday.

[FrenchieCat]

258. Yeah....right after he cuts the pentagon budget!

[AmericanDream]

251. You asked for it.... Edwards + Sweater

(no, no speedos here... )

[ultraist]

266. No speedos and no paycheck from Faux news

n/t

[saltpoint]

249. Just before the 2004 Iowa caucuses, the Des Moines REGISTER

endorsed John Edwards. Below is a piece from THE NATION on Edwards' ascent in that caucus from the weeks just before the vote.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=1173

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

[SeaNap05]

250. Edwards Needs Media

I'm from NC and would love to get a chance to work with him if he runs. He needs exposure. He needs to be on the Sunday morning shows. He needs to be on FOX and CNN. As he travels the US talking about poverty he needs to get in every local paper on the places that he visits. This is what he needs the most. The American People want to Know John. I believe they really do. He will need to reintroduce himself all over until the primaries. It is strong in the South and is surprising strong in the Mid-West. This would be his major battle with Hillary.

I think he is hanging in there. Just keep chatting him up here. Hell he may even make a post here. That would be nice.

[Neil Lisst]

253. He's OK, but here's why he's not the perfect candidate:

1. He's from the south, and there is no southern state he can carry, not even his own.

2. He's short.

3. He's got that gigantic mole on his lip he won't get removed.

4. He's a former trial lawyer.

5. He's never really accomplished anything in public service.

6. He lacks gravitas.

[AmericanDream]

254. 2 and 3 are wrong

Edwards got his mole removed 2 weeks after the election when it was detected to have cancerous traits.. And, he is 6 feet tall - I don't know in which world that is considered short.

[Neil Lisst]

255. no, he isn't 6 feet, any more than George Bush is

I've got photos of Edwards with my sons, taken 18 months ago, and he ain't 6 feet tall. He might be 5'10.

[AmericanDream]

263. and his medical records lie?

He has a runner's hump ... his medical records since high school show him to be 6 feet tall as stated in various news profiles.

Just because you have a picture of him with your sons doesn't prove anything... he could be standing with his knees bent a little or standing with emphasis on one feet or doing several things that make him look shorter than he is...

If only all of us could rely on what things "seem" like, rather than what they really "are" ... sorry, you can't have it.

[Neil Lisst]

269. just like Bush, he lies about his height

here, use a real source
Biography for
John Edwards (VI)

Birth name
John Reid Edwards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Height
5' 11" (1.80 m)
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1685647/bio

[AmericanDream]

270. Imdb is your "real" source? Gimme a break & I'm not taking his word either

I'm taking the word of the NC News & Observer that did a 3 piece profile on him from his childhood and they looked at records from his high school (and also his college transcripts) and they mentioned that he could not get a football scholarship at clemson because he was 6 feet, 180 lbs making him significantly smaller than other football players and reducing his chances of getting the scholarship.

And, similarly, same has been reported by his senate records... he's fabricating it all? gosh.

Please get a grip.

[Neil Lisst]

271. Believe what you want to, but I've met the man. He's short.

I'm charmed by your certitude, however.

[AmericanDream]

272. Likewise. To each his own.

[Awsi Dooger]

273. I think Edwards is 5-10 or 5-11

In 2003 I remember posting a thread with estimated heights of all our candidates, based on still frames during joint debate appearances. I think I pegged Edwards at 5-11. He was definitely taller than Dean and (obviously) Kucinich and Clark and Lieberman. I think he might have been a bit shorter than Gephardt.

[saltpoint]

256. I don't know, Neil. I think he did have the mole removed. Not sure.

And again, Lincoln was a trial lawyer & went on to some great things. Edwards fought big corporations for the little guy, and that's the thing that would stick on the lawyer part.

Who carries which states in the South depends, IMO, on who's on both tickets. If McCain or Romney wind up on the GOP ticket, I say Edwards takes both Carolinas, maybe Florida, and outside chance at Arkansas. If he were to run with Warner, then also Virginia, and if with Clark, then Arkansas is in the bag.

I think all your points are considerations, but also I think they're debatable.

[Neil Lisst]

257. I'm glad he got the mole removed. It always bugged me.

As for Lincoln, this ain't 1860, and Lincoln wasn't an ambulance chaser.

I like JE, but I don't think he can win it all. Right now I have it

Clinton
Kerry
Gore

as 1-2-3 seeds in the race of the nomination.

Edwards would be 4, Clark might be 5.

Bayh? Don't see it. Mark Warner? Don't see it. Feingold? Snowball's chance in hell.

[saltpoint]

259. You've got a thoughtful scenario with that. Sen. Clinton has the big

bucks (oddly, Evan Bayh is in second place in fund-raising. Don't ask me how.)

I would love to take a little time and drive around Iowa a while and ask some party operatives about the candidates' chances. I was way off in 2004, believing at first that Gephardt would win. When he seemed to be dropping some in the polls, I then thought Dean would win.

Good thing I didn't bet any money, huh. Kerry and Edwards both surprised me, so I am at the point now where I just don't count anybody out.

I think it's a real chance that 3, 4 or 5 people will finish ahead of Senator Clinton in a closely-cropped vote total in Iowa in 08.

I don't see anybody breaking out of the pack to landslide others, and there is half a chance that we'd get to the convention with no one candidate having enough delegates for a first-ballot win.

Some party folks I am in touch with think if that happens, Gore would emerge as the consensus candidate, possibly with either Kerry or Edwards as veep. I think any combination of those three in that situation would cause Republican heads to explode nationwide.

[Neil Lisst]

260. the 2004 race was like an avalanche which broke JFK's way in January

He benefitted from the anti-Dean movement. The Clintons were pressing Clark, but he unwisely chose not to jump into Iowa. Edwards garnered all the non-Kerry, non-Dean people who didn't want to help Kerry or Dean and didn't want to "waste" their vote.

When the Marine Kerry pulled out of the river showed up, that's when the race broke for Kerry.

[depakid]

261. Actually, it had much more to do with the troops on the ground

in Iowa (along with its archaic 19th Century caucus system), but nevertheless, I agree with you about Edwards.

[Neil Lisst]

262. the Iowa Caucus system is what I alluded to when explaining why

Edwards benefitted by those who didn't want to back Kerry or Dean, so threw their support behind Edwards to stop votes from going to Kerry or Dean.

[begley]

275. Rebuttals for all six of your points.

1. Bill Clinton
2. George Bush
3. Who cares?
4. That's bad?
5. He's a former trial lawyer
6. George Bush

[saltpoint]

276. There's also a possibility, perhaps greater in 08 than in '00 or '04,

that no one candidate will reach the convention with enough delegates for a 1st-ballot victory.

Say that Sen. Clinton is upset in Iowa and New Hampshire, but climbs back into contention in later primaries, but is still short of the minimum delegates for nomination.

Say that Gore, once and for all, declines a role on the ticket to devote all his energies to the environment.

Say that Kerry arrives with a handful of delegates but also not enough for a 1st-ballot win.

Same for Edwards, Clark, Feingold, Bayh, and so forth.

A consensus candidate will have to be selected if delegates pledged to each candidate remain fiercely loyal. Delegates, even after they're released from their own candidate's slate, may not be predicatibly for one or another alternative.

So a consensus candidate would have to be culled from either outside the list of potentials (less likely but possible) or chosen among those already in contention (more likely).

Deals would be struck, of course, but it may come down to "Who is your second choice, if your first choice can't be at the top of the ticket?"

I think John Edwards might profit from a scenario like that.

[saltpoint]

277. OK, here's the count from the neighborhood, plus a straggler or two.

I'm leaving out all the Republicans or people who seem to be Republicans. You might say I'm Diebolding them out of the count. Some of them I just don't know that well.

Among non-Republicans, the across-the-street people (2 grown-ups in the household) are for either Gore or Kerry if they run, and will take Edwards or Feingold otherwise.

Three doors down east, two grown-ups and one soon-to-be registered teenager, 1 for Gore, 1 for Kerry, 1 for Edwards.

The house kittywampus to the SE is fiercely and actively Democratic, part of the county party operation. Two more grown-ups there, both for Kerry/Edwards by preference, with no preferred order, but they're for any Democrat who walks down the street if Kerry/Edwards aren't on the ballot.

Kittywampus SW is undecided and will support anybody who's a Democrat. Three registered voters here. One straggler there likes Richardson but is registerd to vote in another state.

Directly west, 1 grown-up, and he's not registered to vote anymore but likes Carter. I've told him I thought Carter probably wouldn't run this next time. He didn't care if he did or not.

That's about it for now, begley. The trend is Democratic, with Edwards doing reasonably well, at least among households I can throw a baseball to from my house.

[begley]

278. Thanks for the sample.

That's pretty good for Edwards considering how little I hear about him.

[saltpoint]

280. I think the party will see an increased profile of Edwards as the summer

goes on, and as the 06 elections come nearer. He'll likely be out on the campaign trail helping Democrats in House races. I think you'll see Kerry, Edwards, Gore -- the whole bunch.

And by the way, welcome to DU.

This thread on John Edwards has gotten a huge response. Congrats. Hope to bump into on DU again.

[PaDem]

279. Because..............

he couldn't beat Kerry in the primary cycle, he's a "trial lawyer", he didn't help the 2004 ticket an ounce in one single state, he's "inexperienced" and he's yesterdays news.

All that said I like Edwards a lot.

[joeprogressive]

281. I don't have time to read 100+ posts so this was probably already stated

I love Edwards, don't get me wrong but here is the problem; right or wrong, the only people more unpopular than oil tycoons in America right now are trial lawyers. That is the baggage he can't unload. He could get away with it as VP and move into presidency after a few terms.

[mbair]

283. no can do - babe

In fact I just made a video making the case for Edwards as the standard bearer of the party in '08. It's up on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7r6PF-aHI4.

Hope you like it.