Steve Kirsch's website -analysis of a winner (Edwards)

[mimitabby]

Any of you guys see this yet? This inventor dude analyzes poll results and uses a little common sense.
It's definitely worth reading if you don't want to see another GOP president.

http://www.skirsch.com/politics/president/comparison.htm

here's the first few paragraphs
Before the 2000 Presidential election, I published an analysis of George Bush which urged people not to vote for Bush because he would be a disaster as President since he had a track record of ignoring facts, ignoring science, and twisting the facts to support his misguided beliefs. Even though the evidence was there for everyone to see, most people don't look beyond the sound bites and nobody else predicted this. As everyone now knows, I was right on the money with my prediction.

I decided to do a similar in-depth analysis of the top 3 Democratic candidates for President for this election. You'll be surprised at what I found. I sure was. When I started the research, I was undecided. A month later it was obvious that the evidence consistently showed that was one very clear standout among the top 3 candidates.

My methodology was the same as I used in 2000, i.e., if you want to know the truth about these candidates, you have to look beyond the surface. You must look at the facts that they are not telling you. Those hidden facts paint a very consistent picture for each candidate.

[AndyA]

1. I think Edwards is the most electable, and will make the best President.

He also has less baggage than some of the others, and it will be more difficult for the reight wing spin machine to make their lies stick to him.

I even read somewhere that Edwards is #1 in Oklahoma among all candidates, from both parties. And Oklahoma is very red.

[mimitabby]

2. Yes, I've felt that for some time

but reading this analysis tells me that my gut feelings are on the money!

[rinsd]

3. LOL. that's indepth analysis?

He, much like the candidate he fancies, completely ignores the guy's Senate record.

one is particualy laughable

"Although Edwards did vote originally to authorize the Iraq war, he was opposed to the war but was "talked into" making that decision."

Was he talked into cosponsoring it? Was he talked into the oped he wrote touting it? Was he talked into voting against every amendment put up by Democrats to mitigate the impact?

[Cameron27]

8. They told him not to read the NIE docs too...

I guess he learned that in orientation to the Intel Committee.:eyes:

[PATRICK]

4. That was a backhand

in case you didn't see it. By saying you know the qualities and that the qualities are decided by the media you leave us with:

Edwards is the best(theoretical) just like Bush was the worst(proved)

Edwards will lose(theoretical) like Bush(proved) won, by media bites.

The only trouble you can't be proved correct unless Edwards becomes president and half your experience goes against that. Relative success is also harder to measure. People could always conjecture in the tests to come that Hillary or Obama or any of the others might have been better. Bush created a pretty clear basement.

But I came to the same conclusion about Edwards based on his life experience, with the real trouble being in that Senate term trying to hold the seat in a red state and trying to learn from established losers. The run for president in 2004 seemed a principled frustration just starting to learn, striving to get out of the traps of red state politics. Even Clark got outmaneuvered by accepting an inferior establishment Dem politics. Gore "came around" at the end of his campaign. Humphrey "came around" at the end of his. Edwards is laying his total life mission on the line from the get-go of this campaign. Phony, hero? People pick the terms too casually. I think we see a Humphrey model here. A sincere liberal with a bout of paying institutional dues that blinded him right in his learning stage. By comparison HHH was a sellout of the first order. By comparison JFK or RFK were insincere exploiters and immoralists. By comparison Gore was a late, slow convert to liberalism and populism. Let's strive to know- and like- our people, and back them FOR the stands and mandates they champion.

Usually what we are talking about is a good candidate, a good person. Their clear agenda then becomes genuinely important- NOT hypocrisy unless they are caught fudging. Anyone who focuses only on the single dislike says they can't fight the agenda or the person otherwise. That puts such a person in the company of the greats, and also the ones deserted by their own against their own interests.

[mimitabby]

5. good post, Patrick

[saracat]

6. John is not only the most electable, he is the right leader for this time in history!

We need a leader who represents the "people' and takes back he government from the lobbyists and the military industrial complex.This is NOT business as usual, and Edwards is the only major candidate who can end the corruption.

[mimitabby]

7. and I think the tide (for him) is finally turning

as people wake up and smell the roses.