Kerry Supporter Looking For Reasons To Back Edwards (or Whomever, Actually)

[DrFunkenstein]

In my time of mourning, it is a little difficult to find much enthusiasm for the other candidates in the field. I truly believed that Kerry would have likely made the greatest President in more than a generation, pointing the way forward for our young century with the power of his ideas.

Now that he has decided to become a leading progressive force in the Senate, I am suddenly left without a carpet beneath my feet.

I am in no particular rush to find a new candidate to back - in fact, I feel somewhat luxurious in no longer having my heart compel me to advocacy. But I remain a political animal by nature, and take a sharp interest in the future of our nation and the larger world.

I'm not going to give you the full run down of my thoughts, but here is a snapshot:

1. Clinton has landed on the wrong side of my moral fence one too many times. Unlike Kerry's genuinely pained vote for the IWR, Clinton never blinked as she tried to cultivate her "tough" image (I have serious reservations about the political use of the word "tough"). Frankly, I fear what she will do as President to make sure she is not perceived as a "girlie man." I won't go into her record on corporate reform (nor the way she motivates half of the country to vote against her faster than a gay marriage referendum).

2. Obama genuinely intrigues me in a way I haven't felt in a long way. Like Jon Stewart (note icon above), he has a way of speaking about the issues that cuts through years and years of media-speak bullcrappery. Although I've yet to witness much depth to his policy ideas, he at least touches many of the key buttons closest to my heart. Race seems only to be an asset for him, the way it gives a weird legitimacy to Oprah, but I do hope that he does directly address economic conditions in too many black urban neighborhoods.

My biggest fear with Obama - as it remains with all Dem candidates - is what will become of their candidacy should there be another terrorist attack between now and November 2008. You can't imagine my internal moral somersaults just saying that out loud, considering the lives that would be inevitably lost vs. a political horse race, but I fear that someone with more gravitas might need to go up against one of those so-called "tough" Republicans.

3. Edwards.

I have been largely dismissive of John Edwards in general, because I've felt him to be A) still a political novice, and B) something of a Johnny-One-Note. However, in briefly looking him over in the past weeks, I realized that I may have been hasty in my dismissiveness. As much as the New Orleans announcement seemed like he was just playing that one note again, I have to give him some credit for sticking to his guns (remarkable how easily you can paint consistency as a boon or hobgoblin). I thought his foreign policy ideas were flimsy in 2004, but I have to admit that I have not looked very deeply.

----

I guess I am trying to ask supporters of the various candidates to provide me with some hard policy stances that will compel me to throw my weight behind their run. I am specifically NOT asking for "oh, he will play well to this group" or "only he can get the fundraising to take on the GOP machine" and all that sort of jive.

Of course, I am more than willing to look at the campaigns of the less visible candidates, as well, but I'm mainly looking to understand - at this point - if I am going to lean towards Edwards or Obama (or find Clinton less distasteful).

BTW - Thank you all for your being such a fantastic community, where I can actually go and find intelligent and civil discourse after asking these sort of questions.

[rox63]

1. As another searching Kerrycrat

I'm with you, DrFunkenstein. So folks, please tell us what about your candidate inspires you. And try not to bash other candidates in the process

[SoFlaJet]

2. At this time isn't it more of a "feel thing"?

I have the best vibe to a John Edwards than I do towards anybody else who hs thrown their hat into the ring on our side.I too was a Kerry guy and am disappointed at what was done to him-he deserved much better.So right now for me it's John Edwards but if Al Gore decides to jump into the ring I'm all for Gore

[saltpoint]

3. I thought Kerry might run this time also, Dr.F, but guessed

wrong.

I'm drawn to Edwards and Kucinich. In fact that's a very attractive ticket to me. Kucinich frightens the herd. He's got just a hell of a lot of heart to go with a hell of a lot of intelligence and perception, but I'm just fearful that many Americans are not tuned to hear the truth if it isn't coming from the mouth of a "socially certified" physical type. If Reagan spoke, a lot of peole drooled and swooned, even if what was coming out of his mouth was codswallop. And that's what DID come out of his mouth. He was imbecilic LONG before the Alzheimer's diagnosis.

Kucinich is a true servant and my admiration for him is virtually unlimited.

I like John Edwards also. My vote for the Kerry-Edwards ticket was already a vote for Edwards in the sense that if the President is unable to serve, or dies in office, the Vice President becomes President. Kerry passed up on Gephardt (don't tell the New York POST) and chose Edwards. I trust Kerry's judgment.

Also Edwards deflects praise and uses direct, understandable language to elevate those around him. His wife does the same thing. When rightwing nutcase psychotic Laura Ingraham (sp?) was diagnosed with breast cancer, Elizabeth Edwards posted on these boards that Laura is owed the same compassion as a human being no matter her political views. I believe there is a lot of love and compassion in the original wiring of John and Elizabeth Edwards and I would have no problem living in their America, as opposed to ANY Republican's America.

Just my 2-cents' worth.

Go, Democrats.

[JNelson6563]

24. Very nicely done

Well said. We could use more such positive posts.

Julie

[saltpoint]

31. Thanks, JNelson6563. You don't do bad yourself on these boards.

Good spirit --which is vivid and visible in your posts-- can help lift the boats for a lot of people in the waters around us.

And in 2008, the White House is going BLUE!

[sandnsea]

4. I'm holding off completely

Except on Hillary. I don't even know that Richardson or Dodd might catch on, or Clark might enter the race. I'm just on a wait and see. Who energizes people, who gets the 'connectedness' of it all, who wants to truly put people and the planet first. The only one I have real confidence in at this second is Clark, but then I'm still uneasy about where he stands on war considering the Reagan years.

Oregon also has Smith running in 2008, so I'm sort of thinking I might skip the presidential primary and just focus on getting him OUT.

[LittleClarkie]

5. Personally I'm waiting to see who else jumps in

Edwards is a possibility. Well hell, they all are until I've had a chance to research them all.

But I'm inclined toward both Clark or Gore, and neither have announced.

[FrenchieCat]

6. As there are many reasons why I support Clark...who hasn't announced

yet, I will point you to one of the reasons why I support Wes; his record as an individual doing what he could when he could even when it wasn't popular: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/FrenchieCat/86

[flpoljunkie]

30. Thanks, frenchieCat! Deepens my respect for Clark to know he pushed for Rwanda intervention.

From your journal link: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/FrenchieCat/8...

The United States, however, wouldn't invade Rwanda, although Clark pushed his mentor, General John Shalikashvili, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, to push for an intervention. Shalikashvili declined after Clark told him twenty thousand troops would be required, and as Clark says now, "I watched as we stood by as eight hundred thousand people were hacked to death by machete."

http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2...

[mnhtnbb]

7. I have surprised myself by being drawn to Edwards when

I was such a diehard Deaniac in 04.

I think the guy has a good heart and is years ahead of the crowd
on trying to do something regarding poverty in this country.
It's not a flashy cause--and look at the flaming that has happened on these boards because he happens to be a rich man.

His interest in poverty reminds me of Bobby Kennedy. His desire
to get people doing something NOW for their communities reminds me of Jack Kennedy.

I agree that his weakness is foreign policy. I'm not put off by
his hard line stance on Iran--not yet. I think he's smart enough
to fill his weak areas with strong people and won't be running a cronyism administration filling important jobs with people lacking skills (the way Bush has).

I think his wife is a gem--and she is loved in NC. I think her military family background is an asset.

He has indicated universal health care is a top concern and I like that. He's anti-big Pharma and insurance cos (unlike Hillary) and I expect he's willing to battle for what's right--not what's just expedient.

He's also trying to draw attention to energy and the need for development of alternative sources.

Personally, if Gore got in the race, I would flip to him because he's hands down the best qualified and was right up front on Iraq. But I really don't think Al has the fire in his belly for another run at the Presidency--whereas Edwards does.

So..there you are. Edwards for now, unless Gore gets in.

[soswolf]

8. many reasons...

I'm an Edwards guy.

For the record, I'm from NC. Not everyone from here is for him, but he gets my vote any day. He made a career of taking regular citizens who got the shaft from big business, and giving them a fighting chance in court.

After that, he took on the Jesse Helms machine in NC, and won a Senate seat, coming out of nowhere. No, he didn't get Helms' seat, but he did run against a well-oiled Republican machine, and won.
He speaks with clarity, and has the right ideas about what this country needs.

Coming up as the son of a millworker, going to public schools and a state college, becoming a very successful attorney and Senator, I think he's seen more of how Americans of all kinds live than most of the other candidates.

[Bluerthanblue]

9. I'm lost too- and not particularly liking

the feeling.

Or the choices I'm seeing.


I'm wanting to be able to be enthusiastically behind 'my' candidate - (I was able to be for JK- and the disappointment runs deep) and don't intend to saddle up with anyone 'lightly'.

I am leaning towards Obama over the others so far, waiting on Gore, open to learning more about Clark, not opposed to voting for Edwards, and probably most aligned politically with Kucinich.

I'm leary of "polls" - we seem to put FAR too much emphasis on them, and I believe they have become little more than another 'tool' used to manipulate the voters- (people by nature, don't like to be in the minority- and allow 'polls' to influence their decisions even unconsciously IMO).

I'm looking forward to hearing your answers to Dr.Funkenstien and others-


thanks-
blu

[NewYorkerfromMass]

10. Chris Dodd

He's good with the unions. Much longer pedigree than Edwards. A good speaker IMO.
No war medals though.

Biden. A lot like Kerry, however- an awful lot NOT like Kerry. Very sensible with foreign affairs, but a real turn-off in oh so many ways.

Clinton- already 8 years in the WH- no other candidate can say that. (Is that fair?)
Won't have to worry about being backstabbed by the Clintonistas.
No war medals.

Obama- too young.

Edwards- too nice.

Kucinich- no comment.

[karynnj]

27. I really agree with your analysis

Like you did, I'll ignore Clark and Gore as they have no declared.

If I were polled tomorrow, I would say Dodd. I need to know more about him because I haven't yet really looked at his record. In addition to the things mentioned, I have been impressed with him in the SFRC, which I've watched over the last 2 years. He has been on that committee for over 22 years as he outranks Kerry. His Senate speech on the torture bill was excellent, and as Kerry was, he is unequivical on "NO TORTURE". I caught some comments from him on abuses in the credit card industry from the banking committee, which he chairs.

Your summary of Biden suffices and elegantly says what needs to be said.

I can rule out supporting Clinton completely in the primaries. The media and the powers in the party got their way in eliminating the best statesmman, who has led on every issue since 2004. To all those who parrot the CW that Kerry was too mistake prone - look at Hillary vs Kerry since 2006. Kerry left out one word in a joke written for him. Hillary since September:

- Told the NY Daily News that torture would be "appropriate" in a specific case that was described after she voted against the torture bill. This let McCain pretend his bill really did outlaw terror - which it doesn't - get on the "moral" side.

- Said that Bush is irreponsible if he doesn't clean up his mess in Iraq before he leaves office. In 2006, Hillary criticized the fact that Kerry set a deadline, implying his deadline which was based on time frames the military and the Iraqis spoke of, was arbitray. But 2009 is arbitrary with regards to Iraq.

- The "bad and evil" man comment is more of a botched joke than Kerry's. Kerry's committment to the troops is well documented and extends back decades. If only Kerry and the people currently announced ran, he would - joke included - likely win more of the Democratic vets than the others - just as he did in 2004. I doubt Hillary was intending to reference Bill, but there is more reason to think that was the case than to misuse logic in the case of Kerry's statement. The result is that it brings up the whole Bill mess - which is a very real liability.

Those are reasons that I think she (not Kerry, who actually had very few gaffes while under a spotlight in 2004-2006) will be gaffe prone. More importantly, I can not support her because, unlike in 1992, because the Clintons are too unethical. This goes beyond, my anger that she stabbed John Kerry in the back. (I think the "HeyJohn" think that very likely came from them was far worse - it was amoral and it was done as Kerry was working his heart out to get Democratic victories.) Another reason is that people associated with them sat on their hands in 2004 - hoping for 2008. Knowing who Bush was this was amoral. They could have tried an alternative, back Kerry 100%, knowing that he would likely have a very tough time with fixing Bush's mess and would gat blamed for it. Hillary could then challange him in the primaries. Instead they gave us Bush. Kerry deserved a unified party behind him - it was important to win.

I differ on Edwards and Obama. Because Edwards ran in 2004, Obama is newer, but when you really look at their resumes - his experience excedes Edwards, except Edwards ran a national race. Here is an attempt to compare their careers:

Legislative:
Edwards - a 6 year Senate term where 2 years were also spent running for higher office
Obama - in Senate since Jan 2005, 8 (??) years in the Illnois Senate
If anything, this gives a slight advantage to Obama.

In terms of record, Obama's is far more progressive. (Edwards' record is at major variance with his current issues. He was hawkish while in the Senate (and now sounds that way on Iran), he had a mediocre environmental record (LCV in the 60s and from when I looked at his votes in 2004, I didn't like several), and he voted for the 2001 bankrutcy bill (obviously before he adopted poverty as an issue.)

Activism:
Obama - was an on the ground advocate for 3 years when he was out of law school and he was a civil rights lawyer.
Edwards - since 2004, he has positioned himself as being an activist. (Though even as a sitting Senator, Kerry was far more convincing working to build grassroots for the party. Edwards had no substantial history as an activist before he ran for office. (Every high powered person joins charity boards - I assume (but don't know) that he did this - I'm not saying he was a bad citizen, just that he was not an activist.)

Law: They were both lawyers, but their experience is extemely different.
Edwards : Trial lawyer, who did help people who were hurt by companies.
Obama: Civil Rights lawyer and a University of Chicago Law proffesor and expert in constitutional law.
(just as in 2004, where I was more impressed with Kerry being a prosecutor and public servant, I see Obama's experience here as leading to the level of depth I want in a President.

Until last week, I saw no reason to consider anyone other than Senator Kerry. I feel that there is no hurry to find a candidate now. I had thought that, if people ultimately reject Hillary, Kerry could win because with the world in a mess, his foreign policy expertise would once debates started would let him emerge as the best anti-Hillary. The question is whether Dodd could get enough money and media to play this role. What seems clear is that the media is usurping the primaries and is trying to chose our candidate for us.

I realize this incoherent. I tried to clean it up and make it more logical - but I realize that it refects where I am now. I think that Dodd is my favorite. If the media and the powers that be restrict our choices to Clinton, Obama or Edwards, my choice is Obama. (Most of the Kerry money people went to Obama. I haven't heard where (if anywhere) his campaign people are going.)

All I know is that the best person win the Presidency in Nov 2008. He will be celbrating his re-election to the Senate from Massachusetts.

[IndianaGreen]

11. I am sorry that Kerry chose not to run

I hope that a future Democratic President sees fit to invite Kerry into his/her Administration as Secretary of State. Kerry seems to be the most suitable candidate to heal the many wounds the Bush regime has caused to our international standing.

[geek tragedy]

12. No need to hurry in making up your mind.

The primary process will force them to take stands on issues they don't want to take stands on.

[IndianaGreen]

13. That's an excellent point you are making.

There is plenty of time to shop around, and there is nothing that says one cannot contribute to more of one candidate.

[cadmium]

14. I'm not in a hurry. Right now I am

thinking about 2 people that I could think of supporting, Clark and Gore, who have not even gotten in the race. I have seen Obama do well on a couple of Sunday AM shows. If I were a big donor I would feel more pressure but alas I am not so I'm in no hurry. I can only speak for myself and making up my mind about who not to support is where I am at right now.

[PresidentObama]

15. I'm backing Clark or Gore, BUT.....

I'd gladly support Obama or Edwards if Clark and Gore don't run!

Chris Dodd is also an impressive candidate, but I don't think he'll make it far.

[blm]

16. I'm with the two of you - Clark or Gore and if they don't run, Obama or Edwards.

I REFUSE to support any more Cover up Democratic administrations.

[citizensoldierlou]

17. Still mourning with you

Also still trying to figure out who can even stand in the same room with John Kerry's shoes.

My only possibilities right now are Clark, Gore, or Edwards. Which is kind of funny since two out of those three haven't even announced they're running.

[ray of light]

18. I like this thread. So respectful and heartfelt.

(Actually reminds me of Kerry himself in many ways.)

As to myself, I'm still undecided. I really hate that it's only January 2007 and these battles are happening. I think it's wrong for our country to pull this type of crap. I think they should not be campaigning until January 2008 and Obama, Hillary, Dodd, Kucinich, etc would be better off skipping the campaign trail and getting busy in Congress where our tax dollars are being sent (into their pocketbooks mind you!).

While in the past, I've been on the fence between Kerry (1) and Gore (1 1/2) and Clark (2), Kerry opting to not run doesn't change my feeling that we need to worry about the present and let that aspect of the future take care of itself. Right now, each bill in Congress and each small committee hearing makes a bigger difference than who said what in Iowa for the 08 election. We've got work to do now so that my kids, your kids, our grandparents and parents can have a better future and can retrieve some of the hope that the last 6 years have drained from our souls (and our wallets!).

08 is 08.

07 means focusing now and doing things like calling Congress, signing petitions, speaking to friends and family to get them involved, etc... and of course--Bringing the troops home NOW instead of in 09! ( http://www.setadeadline.com ) Ending torture. Until then, Edwards, Hillary, Clarke, and Obama are just handsome and/or pretty little faces.

[Tatiana]

19. Well, I think you should go for Gore or Clark (in that order).

Of course, this may be a moot point because neither have announced that they will challenge for the Dem nomination.

As a Kerry supporter, I'd assume you value things like:

Transparency in government
Education
Environment
Reigning in the military ind. complex
National security
Protecting our civil liberties
Civil rights for ALL citizens
Taking care of our veterans
A national health care plan
A sensible energy policy
A fair tax code, where corporations are not rewarded for outsourcing and maintenance of "offshore" entities

Gore is a no-brainer, but Clark is the only possible front-runner I know of that advocates a single-payer national health care system. He isn't afraid to stand up to corporate or special interests and has a true sense of duty and service to his country (much like Kerry). Like Kerry, he could be living a lavish life in the corporate world, but he's dedicated his time and effort towards helping elect other Democrats (especially in so-called "red" states) and framing issues such as "gay rights" in terms that appeal to everyone, defying right-wing attempts to use them as wedge issues.

[Lady President]

20. Great post

I was a true supporter of Kerry-- Kerry Before Iowa. I'm trying to find a candidate that will inspire me the same way Kerry did.

I strongly supported Edwards for VP in 2004. My concern with him in 2004 was lack of experience, and I still feel the same way.

Obama is brilliant, but I wish he had more time in the Senate. I'm also afraid of the hidden racism that lingers in this country.

As a woman, I want Clinton to do well because she has the power to show a generation of young women that they can become President.

I find the three front-runners to be charismatic, intelligent, and capable. I'm looking forward to the responses you receive. Of course, like Kerry early on, there might be someone polling in the single digits who will impress me when I learn more about him...

[mloutre]

21. Well, there is Mr. Edwards, but then again...

...there is Mrs. Edwards, too.

In all fairness, I spent more face time with her in '04 than I did with him -- not that we're talking about hey-pals-let's-go-hang-out time or anything -- but E'beth did make a strong positive impression on me then.

Too bad she isn't the one running for president. If she was the real candidate and he was just the arm candy, then I'd be all over that ticket like green on grass.

[TheDonkey]

22. Obama or Biden

I know Biden is not well liked on DU but the many has a consistent Democratic voting record, is an excellent speaker, and doesn't let people take him down. He'd make a strong candidate but has a long ways to go. I think he'll surprise some people during the debates.

Obama I like because he's fresh and new. Really gives me and others I know a sense of hope. I am concerned about his lack of campaign experience, running for pres is VERY hard and Obama will have to be extremely skilled to handle it.

[Apollo11]

23. Don't ignore Al Gore !

Al Gore is without a doubt the best qualified person for the job, in terms of his experience, knowledge, intelligence and judgement.

There is no hurry for Gore to enter the race for 2008. He is doing a great job raising public awareness about the climate crisis (he spoke to 10 000 people in Boise last week!). Hopefully he might even get on stage at the Oscar ceremony!

Gore is also busy working on his next book "The Assault on Reason" - to be published in May.
See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/16/AR2006091600877.html

The theme of this book - why we need better decision-making in government - is very timely in relation to next year's Presidential election (whether he runs or not).

Depending on how things pan out, and the reaction to his book, Gore can consider his situation over the summer and announce his decision (or if you prefer - "change his mind") sometime in the fall.

Read Rolling Stone magazine: WHY GORE SHOULD RUN -- AND HOW HE CAN WIN
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13248532/why_gore_should_run__and_how_he_can_win

Don't forget that Bill Clinton did not start his campaign until October 1991. But Al Gore already has nationwide respect and name recognition that other wannabees can only wish for!

Let's all find ways to show our support for Al Gore! :)

In Gore We Trust
www.algore.com
www.algore.org
www.draftgore.com - Sign the petition!
www.draftgore2008.org
www.patriotsforgore.com

[JNelson6563]

25. Bravo!

Excellent post! Agreed with every word, therefore, it was brilliant! ;-) :toast:

[Apollo11]

28. Patience is the key

If I were Al Gore, I would not jump into this race until November 4th - exactly 365 days before election day.

It would still give him 10 whole weeks to campaign around the country before the first primaries.

Look at Clinton in 1992, Kerry in 2004 - neither made much of an impact until the primaries kicked-off.

I predict that the race for the Dem nomination will remain open through the fall.

Edwards and Hillary are both in this fight until the end. I'm not sure about Obama.

[crispini]

26. I'm an Al Gore supporter giving some thought to my fallback choice.

Not decided yet, but I may take a hard look at Richardson because of his governorship PLUS the foreign policy experience. Also I think the fact he comes from a different area of the country might mean he has some interesting new ways of looking at things.

[flpoljunkie]

29. Have read a number of Kerry's big fundraisers in NY, CA and FL are going with Obama.

Have read no articles about any of his big fundraisers going with Clinton or anyone else, altho I cannot say they have not.

Gore would be sweet revenge for 2000 and the nightmare of the last eight years. I think Obama as VP would make an unbeatable ticket, altho I very much respect Wes Clark, who, supposedly will be making his decision in the next couple of weeks. I can't seem to get my head around Edwards as President; there is something missing there-- perhaps a lack of gravitas, his seeming opportunistic positions on poverty and Iraq, his speaking at a recent AIPAC conference? Am not exactly sure why I am reluctant to support Edwards, but perhaps I have just listed why.

[TayTay]

32. Apparently Dr., the Edwards people are still whacking Kerry

I just saw another thread that says that whatever Edwards is going through doesn't have to be explained because, gee, Kerry is doing something worse/else/same.

I am far less inclined to support John Edwards when I read stuff like this. It's shameful. It says that the Edwards people can't defend their candidate and have to go after someone who isn't running and who actually rescued Edwards from obscurity by making him the VP candidate last time. If this continues, I would seriously ask you to remember it. It does not speak well of this candidate.

[Apollo11]

33. Don't blame John Edwards

for everything posted on DU and other online forums and blogs.

He is only responsible for what gets posted at www.johnedwards.com

One Edwards supporter is not the same as "the Edwards people".

Just like when I criticize Kerry -- please don't blame Al Gore!