Republican Strategist: "Edwards scares me the most"

[PresidentObama]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ir5Ee2CE-8Q

We all know the Republicans would be delighted with Hillary because she's so polarizing and rallies their base.

Interesting to hear a Republican say they don't fear her nor Obama, but fear Edwards.

I thought it was worth posting....

Even though it's only one strategists opinion, and doesn't mean anything more than a grain of salt.

But I think back to the last Republican debate to when that undecided Republican voter said she'll possibly vote for John Edwards, it makes me think Senator Edwards could win independent and moderate Republican voters. And compete and win in the south and midwest.

[melody]

1. Edwards definitely is the person who would most upset the RW applecart

He's actually a man from working class beginnings. He knows what it is to live on a working person's wage.

[Kikosexy2]

32. As once reported...

Edwards would be a safer bet: white, southern, male...America is not ready for an African American president...racial prejudices still runs deep unfortunately...women in high positions are soooo threatening and a turn off to most men...America is still sexist as well... and Hil is the ultimate Bitch Queen Repubes love to kick around for shits & giggles...

[KittyWampus]

45. Not really, he'd be destroyed by the numerous positions he's totally switched positions on

He is one of the weakest candidates for that reason.

It's too bad he just doesn't run on his actual record as a moderate-center Democrat.

[melody]

52. he is the most truly "roots relevant" candidate by a long margin

That's why I'm voting for him -- that and his experience. He's the only viable candidate with somewhat liberal roots.

That said, I'm going to support ANY Democrat come the general election.

[rAVES]

89. DK was Poor!

[melody]

93. And, as I said, he's not an Alpha primate and thus has no chance

Not while the great majority of the population thinks like primates.

[saracat]

2. They are terrified of Edwards.They would like to see Hillary.That is why they promote her!

[Occam Bandage]

25. The Republicans have been "promoting" Hillary?

You must not have watched their debates. Or seen any of their ads. Or followed politics for the last 16 years.

[saracat]

48. Haven't noticed the Fox based "love fest"? Even Hannity has fawned over Hillary as has Bill O

As for the GOP Debates, they single her out because they add to the "inevitability factor". And I certainly have not only followed politics but have been active for waaay more than 16 years.

[Occam Bandage]

49. So, Republicans attack Clinton because they want her to win.

Also, Republicans praise Clinton because they want her to win.

When all you can think about is a nail, I'd bet everyone looks like they're carrying a hammer.

[saracat]

54. I didn't say they want her to win.They think she is the easiest to beat in the General.That being

said, she is the closest to their ideals in that she doesn't stand up to corporations, (Nice payday to a NY Developer, while there are no air controllers) and thinks lobbyist are "real"' people too! so she is the least offensive to them in reality! With Hill, they either get a Repuke or a wanna be.Win Win for the GOP!

[Occam Bandage]

56. I meant the nomination as well.

Again: you take praise as evidence they want her to win the nomination, and you take attacks as evidence they want her to win the nomination.

Is there any way that the Republicans could refer to the Democratic frontrunner that is not, in your eyes, an attempt to bolster her?

[TexasBushwhacker]

110. She is the easiest Democratic candidate to swift boat

They will dig up lots of irrelevant things - White Water, Bill's affairs, Vince Foster, travelgate, etc. etc. etc. She has strong supporters, but she's unlikely to convince many fence sitters to come over to our side.

The GOP will attack her the most, in hopes that the Democrats will rally 'round. They did the same thing by attacking John Kerry instead of Dean or any of the other Democratic candidates. They will attack the candidate they think they can beat. That's why they aren't attacking John Edwards.

[Occam Bandage]

114. Swiftboating is, by the nature of the term, irrelevant to the candidate's history.

That was the lesson of John Kerry--if they cannot find actual dirt on you, they will simply make up dirt about you. No candidate is "easier" or "harder" to Swift Boat. The fact that they successfully torpedoed the military service of a war hero should tell you that.

[surfermaw]

95. The republicans are giving money to one of our candidates

We sh9ould be very sure if they are and to which of our candidates repubican money is being pumped into the campaigne.

[kenfrequed]

102. Oh no...

The off switch is set, Hillary has been getting the Fox news soft touch.

Meanwhile they have obsessed over Edwards hair, Obamas flag pin, and any other negative story they can manage.

I confess that during the clinton era the right wing was awash with Clinton effigy burning but the comparable silence is palpable.

[demnan]

3. Edwards is the front-running white male

I like Edwards, but I think he benefits from not being a black or a woman and in some circles that's still an issue, whether people want to admit it or not.

[PresidentObama]

9. It's no where near his fault, but I believe in many ways--you're right.

[RiverStone]

4. Yes, he scares them the most!

He is proof why...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2446588&mesg_id=2446588

[wyldwolf]

5. "We all know the Republicans would be delighted with Hillary." No we don't.

[PresidentObama]

7. Have you been living under a rock?

[wyldwolf]

do you often make things up?

[PresidentObama]

12. Hold a poll in ANY forum, political and non-political asking if Hillary is polarizing...

The answer will be yes....

Ask Republicans if she rallies their base.

The answer would be yes.

How did I *make* things up.

If you choose to ignore reality, that's your own problem!!

[wyldwolf]

15. ha ha! So holding an internet poll is your proof? Show me real stats on it.

Better yet, since you're the expert, make this case once and for all.

[PresidentObama]

16. I'm not talking about internet polls. Hold any poll. Anywhere.

I don't care if it's Salt Lake City, Utah or Boston, Mass.

She's polarizing.

And to suggest otherwise is showing you lack a good sense of reality.

[wyldwolf]

18. ok, show me an example of any poll taken anywhere that supports your statement

[PresidentObama]

22. Here you go. Want proof in "stats", I'll be happy to provide:

According to the latest Gallup poll, 50 percent of the country has an unfavorable view of Sen. Clinton. Neither John Kerry nor Al Gore achieved such a high negative rating in the Gallup poll during their failed presidential bids. In other polls, her unfavorable ratings are as much as 12 points higher than those of any other candidate running in either party

http://www.slate.com/id/2169159/

Forty-eight percent of Independent voters also said that they would choose another candidate over Clinton, the poll, which surveyed 2,223 potential voters, states.

Fifty-six percent of men said that they would not vote for Clinton, while 45 percent of women said that she would not be their pick. In addition, 69 percent of those 62 and older said that they would not vote for Clinton.
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/fifty-percent-of-americans-would-not-vote-for-clinton-2007-03-27.html

In head-to-head matchups against more likely Republican nominees, Mrs. Clinton trails former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani slightly; has slight leads on Sen. John McCain and former Sen. Fred Thompson, and a larger lead over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. In each of these matchups, Mr. Rasmussen said, Mrs. Clinton gets between 46 and 49 percent of the vote.

This suggests that though Mrs. Clinton has a solid base of support, there is a ceiling on it, and that ceiling is south of a majority. In a Zogby poll Oct. 20, half of the respondents said they'd never vote for Hillary Clinton, up from 46 percent in March.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07308/830711-373.stm

Want more? Typing this stuff into google gets TONS of results.

Or still ignoring reality? ;)

[wyldwolf]

29. "We all know the Republicans would be delighted with Hillary." Where's the beef?

According to the latest Gallup poll, 50 percent of the country has an unfavorable view of Sen. Clinton.

June 27 is the latest? Where does this show Republicans would be delighted with Hillary?

Forty-eight percent of Independent voters also said that they would choose another candidate over Clinton, the poll, which surveyed 2,223 potential voters, states.

March 27? Where does this show Republicans would be delighted with Hillary?

In a Zogby poll Oct. 20, half of the respondents said they'd never vote for Hillary Clinton, up from 46 percent in March.

October 20? Where does this show Republicans would be delighted with Hillary?

[PresidentObama]

34. This has been a clear pattern between polling in 2006 through now, that's she polarizing.

It's not something new, nor old.

And oh, I think Republicans would be MORE than delighted to face a candidate who splits the nation in half with fifty percent saying they WON'T vote for her. Not only that, but a Clinton too. They must be jumping for joy.

[wyldwolf]

38. It has also been established that any nominee in the GE will be/has been polarizing

:shrug:

But what does that have to do with Repubicans being "delighted" to face her?

Recent polls show Clinton winning in head to head match-ups:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3767570
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102862/Democratic-Candidates-Look-Good-Latest-2008-Trial-Heats.aspx
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3693718

Not that any of those matter. \\

You simply cannot make the case you're trying to. The stats aren't there. No poll has been taken asking it.

[PresidentObama]

42. I don't have to make the case, it's made itself.

Fifty percent won't vote for her.

Obama and Edwards often defeat Republicans in polls by bigger margins than her. She's often showed losing to Republicans in those polls.

Her negatives are higher than John Kerry's and Al Gore's were in their "failed" Presidential bids.

She not only rallies the Republican base, but doesn't fair too well among independents as compared to her other two rivals. And she even splits the Democratic party.

How you can say she ISN'T polarizing is defying logic.

How is she NOT polarizing is the real question.

[wyldwolf]

51. only in your mind. Let's go to the score card

Fifty percent won't vote for her.

Unless her opponent is a Republican:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

Obama and Edwards often defeat Republicans in polls by bigger margins than her. She's often showed losing to Republicans in those polls.

Except in all those polls where that isn't true:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

Her negatives are higher than John Kerry's and Al Gore's were in their "failed" Presidential bids.

Yet, she still beats Republicans by larger margins than Edwards and Obama

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

She not only rallies the Republican base

A "progressive"* fantasy not grounded in established fact...

And she even splits the Democratic party.

More Democrats support her than her rivals. Seems they are the ones who split the Dem party. :shrug:

[Selatius]

23. If you're talking about unfavorability ratings, Hillary scored highest according to Rasmussen.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

They list her fav/unfav rating as 44%/55%. Edwards comes in behind her at 43%/47%. Obama has the lowest unfavorable rating at 44%.

[PresidentObama]

24. You mean the same Rasmussen that Hillary supporters cite as evidence of her "huge" lead?

Guess it'll be hard to dispute it, huh? Especially when you push any poll from Rasmussen as the gospel.

For more fun facts about how polarizing Hillary is based on the numbers, see my post above.

[wyldwolf]

30. we're not talking about unfavorability ratings

[PresidentObama]

35. Why not?

[wyldwolf]

40. because that isn't the subject this discussion is about. Remember "delighted?"

:shrug:



Recent polls show Clinton winning in head to head match-ups:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3767570
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102862/Democratic-Candidates-Look-Good-Latest-2008-Trial-Heats.aspx
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3693718

Not that any of those matter. \\

You simply cannot make the case you're trying to (Republicans would be delighted with Hillary.) The stats aren't there. No poll has been taken asking it.

[PresidentObama]

46. Since you're posting head-to-head match-ups, here's something to chew on:

"On the Democratic side, Edwards performs best against each of the leading Republicans. In addition to beating Huckabee by 25 percent and McCain by 8 percent, the North Carolina Democrat beats Romney by 22 percentage points (59 percent to 37 percent) and Giuliani by 9 percentage points (53 percent to 44 percent).

While the survey shows McCain and Edwards performing best in their respective fields, both candidates continue to significantly trail their parties' front-runners significantly. In the national horse race numbers released Monday, McCain trails Giuliani by 11 percentage points, and Edwards is behind Clinton by 26 percentage points.

"Edwards is the only Democrat who beats all four Republicans, and McCain is the only Republican who beats any of the three Democrats," Holland said. "Some might argue this shows that they are the most electable candidates in their respective parties."

http://cnn.com/ticker

[wyldwolf]

53. And here's something for you to chew on

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

[PresidentObama]

57. And?

The RCP average shows Edwards beating Romney by +18% compared to Hillary's +10%

Edwards beats Thompson by +11% compared to Hillary leading by +8%

Edwards whips McCain's ass by almost +6% compared to Hillary's +2%

And the only poll result showing a Democratic top tier candidate losing on that RCP link you just provided was Hillary losing to McCain by two points in the CNN poll.

[wyldwolf]

59. you're cherry picking

Romney, Thompson, and Mccain will not be the GOP nominee. But, again, the point is moot.

You simply cannot prove your case that "Republicans would be delighted with Hillary."

[PresidentObama]

61. They wouldn't be delighted by a candidate who fifty percent of America won't vote for?

I've made my point, you're just ignoring it.

I could have 9398433 polls showing fifty percent of America won't vote for her, have head to head match-up's from every pollster imaginable showing her trailing or tieing with Republicans, and you'd still claim I haven't proved anything.

You CHOOSE to not face reality. That's your choice, not mine.

I've proven my point.

[wyldwolf]

63. not is she beats them in head to head match-ups.

:)

[PresidentObama]

66. Beating Republicans doesn't mean you're not polarizing.

The pattern of her trailing, tieing, and barely beating Republicans in these head-to-head match-ups is what makes her polarizing.

If she wins by 51%, she'd be polarizing. Even with the victory.

And in an election when we're trying to gain more seats in the Congress, I don't think we can risk running someone who fifty percent of the country WON'T vote for.

Seems to risky too me, especially when we have two great candidates in Obama and Edwards who beat Republicans by bigger margins and have smaller negatives.

[wyldwolf]

70. being polarizing doesn't mean Republicans would be "delighted" with you, either.

The pattern of her trailing, tieing, and barely beating Republicans in these head-to-head match-ups is what makes her polarizing.

What pattern? Oh, you mean the same pattern other Dems have?

I don't think we can risk running someone who fifty percent of the country WON'T vote for.

Unless she's running against a Republican.

[PresidentObama]

74. AGAIN, Republicans wouldn't be delighted with the most polarizing candidate?

Especially the one with the BIGGEST negatives?

And the candidate who fifty percent of America won't vote for?

You simply aren't answering my point here.

Talking in circles isn't getting you anywhere. I make the same point, you have nothing to combat it with, and the process continues again.

So I'm going to just stop it right here, let you make you're "point", probably will include a personal attack or an attack on my candidate, and be done with it.

I've made my point. Made it QUITE clear. Given examples, evidence, argument, etc.

And you've given....??

[wyldwolf]

76. not if she's beating them in head to heads. And AGAIN... as polling has shown...

... ALL GE candidates garner high negativity ratings.

[tinrobot]

37. Any discussion of Hillary on DU is polarizing

Just read the threads, you don't need a poll. She's polarizing.

This thread is a perfect example.

[wyldwolf]

41. well, then, for that matter, so is Edwards and Obama. So was Kerry. Thank god DU is not a barameter

[cali]

11. If you actually think that they'd be delighted with Clinton

as the nominee, you're swallowing the repuke koolaid. There isn't one of our candidates that they relish facing- not this time around with their candidates.

[flyarm]

33. hell she is polarizing with dems..big time!..big big time! eom

[wyldwolf]

55. but she leads among Dems... big time!..big big time! eom

[PresidentObama]

58. National polls means nothing. She doesn't lead in Iowa. Nor in SC. Losing SERIOUS ground in NH.

Six points ahead of Obama in NH? Ouch, what happened to double digit leads there?

National polls won't save you from anything.

She doesn't lead Iowa. Nor South Carolina.

And New Hampshire is in SERIOUS doubt.

Looks like Obama is gaining some ground....

[wyldwolf]

65. sure they do. Sorry to break the news to you...

..being that you're relatively new to the process and you've heard stories about the Iowa and NH bounce, but that won't be the case this year.

Clinton leads big in the the early Feb. states.

[PresidentObama]

68. New to the process? Personal attacks when you lack substance. Works everytime.

I would imagine you don't know me, so that statement was of ignorance.

So if Hillary loses Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina you SERIOUSLY think she could still pull off the nomination? Because those three are at risk....

And I have a hard time seeing Hillary beating Obama or Edwards in some of the Feb. states. Especially my homestate of Missouri. Edwards and Obama have literally split the state in half with support, from what I've seen. Polls show Hillary leading here, and I don't see that AT ALL.

[wyldwolf]

72. Are you still tap dancing around your charge of Repubs being "delighted" with her?

Let's get back to the meat of it - before you started veering off into other tangents.

[PresidentObama]

75. Yes--let's get back to the meat of it.

Something you've lacked an ability to do.

The personal jab revealed so much...

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

77. ok, so where is your evidence the GOP would be "delighted" with her?

[flyarm]

82. well she is losing in many places ..national polls mean less than nothing now

she just lost big time in NJ straw poll..big time..and that is the state next to hers!!

fly

[wyldwolf]

83. ..and winning in many more places

[asdjrocky]

6. I've been saying that all along-

And so have the polls.

[cali]

8. considering the actual facts

that republicans are suffering an exodus of party members while dem registration is increasing, that they have the weakest most flawed field in memory, the electablilty argument is even less compelling than usual. They can all beat the repukes.

[PresidentObama]

14. Yes but we need more than a victory. We need more seats in Congress.

And BARELY winning isn't something I think we should be looking at.

We need the best candidate. I think it's appropiate to debate who has the best chance against the Republicans.

[cali]

20. Not a problem.

First of all, the argument that we won't make gains unless we have x for a candidate doesn't hold much water. The top of the ticket is overrated as being vital to Congressional election sucess. In the House, approx. 10% of the repukes have resigned, some in very vulnerable districts. There will be more. In the Senate the repukes have far more seats to protect than dems- and some of those seats are already gone. In VA, meet the new Senator Warner. In NM, meet the new Senator Udall. NH and CO both look like extremely likely dem pick ups. Then there's OR and ME.

[Cha]

10. I think John Edwards

is the real deal and that's scary for the m$$$$$$$$$$$$m and the fascists. Even if he doesn't make it I hope he sticks around and helps out the inequity of our country.

[MethuenProgressive]

13. Suddenly we should believe some Republican talking head?

Have the Edwardians lost their freaking minds? The guy is a Republican!!
Sheeeesh...

[Andy823]

26. But the fact is

Edwards can get independants to vote for him, AND he can get republicans that are tired of things to vote for him. I have talked with republicans that "would" vote for him. Can you say the same about Hillary? Every republican I talk to says the same thing, "if Hillary is the nominee it will bring out every republican in the country to vote 'against' her!" Many republicans won't even come out to vote this year "unless" Hillary is the nominee. You can spin it anyway you want, those are the facts, like it or not! :wow:

[Clark2008]

44. No independent I know will vote for him.

They think he's a snakeoil salesman.

Why so many progressives on these blogs are so duped by him is beyond my progressive independent mind.

[madmunchie]

90. You and me both. All of the so called progressives on these blogs

that support this guy seem not to care about his NUMBEROUS anti-Democratic of not too long ago votes and just buy into his new "promises". How short can a memory be and still be considered respectable? I have lost a lot of respect for the Democratic Party because of leaders like Pelosi and JE supporters - (loosely called) "Democrats"

[Cronopio]

17. He should be scared of Edwards.

And he's about to be even more afraid.

[AnneD]

19. I have been thinking this....

since first watching him in the VP debates. They will have a hard time framing the argument and dirt will have a hard time sticking. And then there is Elizabeth. Everyone likes her but the most rabid. They will end up looking like the petty ugly loud mouths they are. I think this is why Hillary was anointed so early in the game by the mouthpiece media-that is the election they want to have. Hillary is the only way they can get their base to the polls this year.

[frogmarch]

21. Yes, it was certainly worth posting!

Thanks, Kerry2008.

K&R

[Clark2008]

27. Well... his voting record is similar to a Republican's on key issues.

:shrug:

[SaveElmer]

28. Lets' see...If it was Hillary they were talking about...

We would hear all sorts of conspiracy theories about how this was all a plot to get Democrats to rally around her...thinking that Democrats would be suspicious of Republicans saying things like this about her...

But seeing as they aren't talking about Hillary...they are obviously just being honest...

[Tactical Progressive]

43. Heads - Hillary loses

Tails - everybody but Hillary wins.


You get an A+ in deconstructing Clinton-basher logic.

[Schema Thing]

31. plea' don' trow me in dat briarpatch!

[DrFunkenstein]

36. Because He Is Tied to Public Financing?

"By accepting public financing, Edwards will be able to receive up to $250 in matching funds for each person who donates to his campaign. In return, he will face severe limits on his spending, both during the early primaries, and if he wins those, in the months leading up to the general election.

...

The parameters are so severe that only one other candidate - Sen. John McCain of Arizona - has discussed taking matching funds. Other campaigns have said to do so would make them non-competitive."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/27/edwards_accepts_public_financi.html

I like Edwards alot, but his inability to present an organizational challenge to Clinton beyond the early states - particularly on mega-Tuesday, when you need to deal with complex states like California and New York - made my enthusiasm for Obama that much more comfortable a decision. I'd be happy with either (although certainly more so for Obama), but I only think support for Edwards would strengthen Clinton's hand.

We'll see and of course everyone is entitled to support the person they like best, but I cannot see the Edwards campaign putting together a massive organization in so short a time, especially because he would need a really striking victory to have major, major money flood in to his coffers.

[waiting for hope]

94. There are the 527's to back him

(SEIU was the leader in 527 ads in 2006 - Edwards has 12 SEIU states) as well as the DNC - money is not going to be an issue.

[Tactical Progressive]

39. Hillary is the only one that Publicans fear

They fear both her electability and her governance.

They are right on both counts.

[DrFunkenstein]

47. What Has She Ever Governed?

You guys are really taking the "experience" talking point a little too literally.

[saracat]

50. No kidding but to be fair , I would "fear" her so called "governance" too, but only

because it would so much resemble theirs!

[Tactical Progressive]

78. She will knock them down and take them apart

And they know it.

She will govern like Bill did, only ALOT tougher than Bill ever was.

That is why they are afraid of her. If she were a weakling like Obama they'd be just fine with her.



As for Obama, he'll do what he always does. Which is whatever is good for Obama.

He has proven himself to be a man of extremely low integrity. Lowest I've ever seen in a Democrat.

He would, if history is any guide, spend more time impugning Democrats than Republicans.

[Carrieyazel]

106. Nonsense. They are prepping for Hillary, Obama or Edwards.

Especially Hillary. She's unelectable and has never governed anything.

[butterfly77]

60. How do you think Obama or Edwards will do in a debate...

against Mc Cain when it comes to foreign policy?

[PresidentObama]

62. VERY well. McCain's the same nut job who says Democrats want to surrender in Iraq.

When most Americans don't like this war, saying they want to surrender won't help him at all.

[Tactical Progressive]

67. Obama would talk about how Iran and Pakistan

are 'stuck in the politics of the past' and are really just 'hungry for his leadership'.

Or whatever other pablum motivates his legions of political teenie-boppers.

I'm "The One" Pakistanis! I'm "The One"!

[DrFunkenstein]

69. Mr. Surge Walking Through The Tulips in Baghdad?

I don't think that would be an issue. The only Republican with a potential advantage on foreign policy against Obama and Edwards would be Guiliani, and that is more than debatable.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

64. I think he would be easiest to smear

a rich man who owns many material goods championing poverty as his major lifelong issue will rub many, many people the wrong way, unfounded as it may be. this is just human nature and knowing how the Repubs campaign, they will take him to the cleaners over this issue.

[amandabeech]

92. He's rich now,

but he sure didn't start that way.

He made his own money with smarts and hard work.

Hilary's Chicago suburban upbringing was Rockefellerian in comparison and he didn't get the advantages of going to a prestigious prep school, either.

Of course, Clinton and Obama have done well for themselves, but they didn't have as far to go as Edwards.

[cali]

108. really? How did he manage to leave the Senate in 'O4

with a net worth of approximately $15 million and parlay that into $54 million in less than 3 years? You honestly think that was all hard work. Granted he made the orignial fortune, but let me tell you, it is not usual for someone to increase their worth by that much in such a short period of time.

[amandabeech]

120. The orginal was hard work, let me tell you.

Hedge funds are not practicing law, I'll grant you, but it depends on what you do while you're there.

Me, I have always thought that folks involved in investments make too much money for what they do.

On the other hand, being a successful trial lawyer is tough enough to warrant more money in my book.

[Horse with no Name]

71. Our local Democratic Party

I won't even tell you what they say about Obama and Hillary...but it isn't nice.
Actually, it is quite foul.
Sad as it is, THEY are what we have to unite behind in rural areas.
And if you look overall at what the breakdowns were, rural areas were a huge part of the loss in 2004.
IF Kerry had been able to overtake Bush in these areas, he would have won without the debacle in Ohio.
Rural people are ready for a change, but they are NOT ready for the change that Obama OR Hillary represent and if that is who we end up putting out there...you can chalk up another republican win.

[wyldwolf]

73. the chair of our country party has endorsed Hillary.

[Apollo11]

113. "the chair of our country party" Why - that sounds like a hoe-down!

I would have thought that most country folks would prefer John Edwards.

[bonito]

79. I agree

Thanks for posting this.

[laureloak]

80. Edwards is our man if we want to win. n/t

[laureloak]

81. I'm not surprised. That's why the media ignores him.

They're afraid.

[butterfly77]

84. He's lying...

[asdjrocky]

85. Wow, thanks for clearing that up for me.

Can I call you up tonight and ask you what I should have for dinner?

This is DU, I hope for better than, "He's lying..." Got anything else?

[butterfly77]

86. Is it really a surprise that rightwingers lie...

they know that he is weak and will be easier to eat..

[asdjrocky]

87. Really?

Here's another lie for you then-
12/11/07 cnn poll

Our Candidate vs. McCain
Edwards WINS by 8%
Hillary LOSES by 2%
Obama TIES


Our Candidate vs. Romney
Edwards WINS by 22%
Hillary WINS by 11%
Obama WINS by 13%


Our Candidate vs. Huckabee
Edwards WINS by 25%
Hillary WINS by 10%
Obama WINS by 15%


Our Candidate vs. Giuliani
Edwards WINS by 9%
Hillary WINS by 6%
Obama WINS by 7%

Is this a lie too? He's always beat the pugs. They get the polls to ya know.

[ecstatic]

88. Of course--they can't imagine Americans electing a woman or black man

Remember, the strong point of repugs is that they have no qualms about stirring up bigotry. With Edwards, their only hope is to try again with the "Edwards is gay" meme.

[amandabeech]

91. I remember that woman, too.

I was surprised that the talking head afterwards didn't comment on it.

Edwards may come across as more sincerely interested in the plight of folks without much $$$ and with some problems in their lives, despite the critics, who are usually well-heeled.

[onehandle]

96. Damn straight! He would landslide and expand our hold on Congress.

Figure it out!

[jackster]

97. right wing wacko son says if Edwards is the Dem nominee

against anyone but Mitt (his guy) he'll vote for Edwards. And my son reminded me this weekend that he still believes that there were WMDs in Iraq. But he'll vote for Edwards.

I just do not get the reasoning of the right even though I bore one of them....

[Catchawave]

100. My son married into a whole nest of right wing whackos.....

All supporting Edwards, or McCain. Funny, Gallup and Rasmussen must've lost those phone numbers :evilgrin:

[happygoluckytoyou]

98. AND THE TOP 10 REASONS THEY FEAR EDWARDS THE MOST----->

1 EDWARDS IS THE PRO-LABOR GUY... AND ABSOLUTLY NOTHING SCARES THE GOP MORE THAN PAYING FAIR WAGES AND LOSING THEIR SOURCES OF CHEAP LABOR

2 EDWARDS IS ---> WHITE <----- IT REMOVES THE SCARE OF A BLACK GUY IN THE WHITE HOUSE

3 EDWARDS IS ---> MALE <----- IT REMOVES THE SWIFTBOATING OF A WOMAN FOR LACK OF BALLS

4 EDWARDS IS ---> THE RIGHT RELIGON <---- IT MAKES THEIR CANDIDATES BLUSH BY COMPARISON

5 EDWARDS WAS A LAWYER... HE KNOWS HOW TO READ AND THINK ON HIS OWN... WHICH IS STRANGE TO THEM

6 EDWARDS HAS A COOL WIFE... PRETTY DIFFICULT TO ATTACK HIM THROUGH HIS SPOUSE

7 EDWARDS IS POPULAR, COOL, YOUNG, SMART, GOOD LOOKING, WELL MARRIED, WITH A VISION FOR THE WORKERS, POOR, AND HONEST CITIZENS OF AMERICA

8 THEY ALREADY USED THE "EXPENSIVE HAIRCUT" TRICK... AND THERE IS NO PROOF HE HAS BLACK BABIES OUT OF WEDLOCK IN AFRICA...OR 3 WIVES... ETC

9 EDWARDS CARRIES THE SOUTH WITHOUT HAVING TO GAIN THAT CARD FROM HIS RUNNING MATE

10 EDWARDS IS EVERYTHING THEIR GOD KISSING, RELIGON WEARING, BUTT SUCKING CANDIDATES AREN'T

OK...TOP 11....... EDWARDS WOULD WIN AGAINST ANYTHING THEY HAVE TO OFFER

[Catchawave]

99. #12 - Edwards will help down ticket candidates to increase

our majority in Congress ! People are more willing to go to the polls to vote FOR a candidate, not against :D

[info being]

116. Exactly

Too bad most Dems can't see it.

[harmonicon]

101. who believes this shit?

They said last time that they wanted to run against Dean, which was a lie. Rove admitted after the (stolen) election that Dean was the last person they wanted to run against, because there would have had to have been substantive debate about the issues - a real difference between the candidates through their entire careers. No, "I was for it, but now I'm against it" shit. Why do you believe a republican strategist at anything? You know they're lying to you at other times, but when they say something you want to hear, you believe them? What crap.

[Catchawave]

103. Tim Russer asked the Dem strategist the same question....

He responded with McCain. I believe that too. Remember, less than 2% of US population watch cable news and/or read political blogs. McCain and Edwards are genuinely the most likeable of the two parties. That's what "scares" strategists.

[harmonicon]

104. my point is that the strategists lie

that's part of the "game". What do they gain by showing their cards? Nothing... but they can gain advantage by bluffing. Maybe it's the truth, but I wouldn't put any weight behind this - these people are liars as a profession.

[Hieronymus]

111. Have you seen this poll, released yesterday?

http://www.democraticcentral.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1250

CNN poll -- Edwards is only Democrat who beats all Republicans
by: cvllelaw
Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 21:25:17 PM EST

According to a CNN poll out today, on a national basis, of the top 3 Democrats and the top 4 Republicans, only John Edwards beats Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee and McCain. McCain beats Hillary Clinton and ties Barack Obama. http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/im...

McCain is clearly the strongest Republican at this point, though he seems to have little chance of getting the nomination. And Huckabee is still largely unknown among the electorate as a whole, so his numbers will surely look artificially low at this point in the head-to-heads.

Edwards is the strongest Democrat, though his chances of getting the nomination would have to be regarded as not great at the moment.

Clinton 54% Romney 43%
Clinton 48% McCain 50%
Clinton 51% Giuliani 45%
Clinton 54% Huckabee 44%

Obama 54% Romney 41%
Obama 48% McCain 48%%
Obama 52% Giuliani 45%
Obama 55% Huckabee 40%

Edwards 59% Romney 37%
Edwards 52% McCain 44%
Edwards 53% Giuliani 44%
Edwards 60% Huckabee 35%

What these results show is that John Edwards runs about 10% better than Clinton and Obama against everyone except Giuliani.

Now, I suspect that a significant reason for some of that lead is that Obama and Clinton are the focus of each other's criticism at the moment, and the focus of the criticism of the Republicans as well. And some of the reason for Edwards' lead may be simply prejudice -- some folks just don't want to vote for a woman or a black man for President.

But the polls have been showing for 6 months that Edwards lines up better than Obama and Clinton against all of the Republicans. So it is probably not just some transitory blip.

Amazingly, though, polls of Democrats show that over 60% of Democrats polled think that Hillary Clinton is the most likely Democrat to win. I wish they'd read the papers.

[harmonicon]

112. yes, I've seen it

but history (and I think, common sense) shows that polls mean next to nothing in a primary race, especially this far out. How many people were polled? A few thousand max, I bet. I just don't buy that that is any representation of what 200 million people would do - it's 11 months away. People get married having had relationships shorter than that. A lot can/will change.

[Carrieyazel]

105. A lot of others would tell you Richardson scares them the most.

Give me two states in the south that Edwards (or any Dem) could possibly win.

[Hieronymus]

107. Thanks .. I agree and the poll released by CNN, yesterday, supports this.

[mzmolly]

109. I can understand why they would fear Edwards.

It's part of the reason I support him.

[info being]

115. This is obvious to anyone

[Perry Logan]

117. I can understand that. Edwards is very charismatic.

[KingFlorez]

118. I don't buy it

A Republican strategist isn't going to say who they are really afraid of, this is all strategy. Edwards would be the same sort of candidate Kerry was, so of course they would want to run against him.

[FrenchieCat]

119. Yep...the Republicans really fear John Edwards and his matching funds.....

which will silence our candidate from mid February (once the Nominee is known) until Mid August, after the conventions.

I'm sure that they are deathly afraid of being able to attack John Edwards and his inability to fund adequately his defense. :scared:

They must be terrified of that prospect! :sarcasm:

This is one of the biggest reasons that John Edwards is unelectable......and the GOP knows this.