Edwards is more electable period:

[EV_Ares]

From: The Agonist

Ok, enough with the BS "let's not talk about electability" idea that seems so prominent in the left-wing blogosphere. This isn't 2004, Kerry isn't the "electable" candidate preparing to cruise himself into the ground. It's almost 2008, we've got a different crop of candidates, and the most electable of the three top candidates is Edwards. This has been clear in poll after poll, the latest of which is CNN's poll, which shows Edwards crushing Republicans.

Versus McCain: Clinton loses by 2%, Obama is in a dead heat, and Edwards wins by 8%.

Versus Giuliani: Clinton wins by 6%, Obama by 7%, Edwards wins by 9%.

Versus Romney: Clinton wins by 11%, Obama by 13%, and Edwards wins by 22%.

Versus Huckabee: Clinton wins by 10%, Obama wins by 15%, and Edwards annihilates Huckabee by 25%.

Basically, current polling shows the popularity of the candidates in direct inverse relationship to how well they poll against Republicans in a general. Edwards polls better than Obama who polls better than Clinton.

Edwards is also the most liberal (or progressive, if you prefer) of the three of them. Democratic primary voters are supposed to be left-leaning, but they seem to support the most centrist candidate of the three -- Hilary Clinton, the woman who won't even say she'd shut down torture without exception.

Now, as long as we're talking turkey and breaking taboos, let's say the rest of what needs to be said.

Clinton has the highest negatives of any Democratic candidate, by a large margin. She's also a woman. Everyone plays up how that's an advantage, and sure, Americans claim they'd vote for a woman. But there's a well known polling bias on such social issues: people don't want to say they're sexist on the phone, but we all know sexism hasn't gone away. Some of Clinton's theoretical support in a general election is probably phantom popularity. It might only be a few percent, but given she already has razor thin margins against many Republicans, that could be the difference between victory and ignomious defeat.

And then there's Obama. Bill Clinton wasn't America's first Black President. Obama, on the other hand, would like to be. I fully expect a chunk of Obama's support would simply evaporate at the polling station, because a lot of Americans, no matter what they say, aren't voting for a black man. Shoot the messenger if you choose, but everything I know about America tells me America is still riddled with racism.

Edwards is male, southern and telegenic. He has run a populist campaign. He is probably as left wing as someone can be in the US and still run for President. He has been a friend to unions and to the poor. He has had the guts to admit he was wrong on the war and while his anti-war platform isn't as strong as I'd like (he should commit to pull out) it's better than Clinton's or Obama's.

He's electable. Of the big 3 candidates he's the most progressive.

And he's in third place.

This isn't 2004. Voting your beliefs (the poor and middle class are getting screwed) and choosing the most electable candidate aren't in opposition to each other this time.

So what I'm asking Democratic primary voters is to take a good hard look at Edwards again. Stop accepting the media's narrative of Edwards as "the number 3 guy". Look at the numbers, look at his positions and realize that this time you can have it all -- you can have a progressive candidate and you can have a nominee who will absolutely wipe the floor with the Republicans.

Vote your heart, but by all means also vote electability. And don't let political correctness blind you to political realities. Because the country simply cannot afford another 4 years with a Republican president.

Link: http://agonist.org/ian_welsh/20071211/edwards_is_more_electable_period

[yourout]

1. I don't get it either........I still think Hillary would end up in a spectacular loss.

[Clark2008]

2. He may be Southern, but he's not a Southern man's Southern man.

Sorry... he's too "pretty" and would bleed white male voters in the South and mid-West like a stuck pig.

Oh... and he's not really a populist. He just plays one in 2008. In 2004, he played a conservative, DLC Democrat.

[mtnsnake]

5. And what's your idea of the perfect "Southern man's Southern man"?.....This?...

[EV_Ares]

17. Evidently, since you posted this, it shows what you think one is, n/t.

[mtnsnake]

28. Hey, why not?

The fine gentleman you see in that picture just happens to be yours truly. That shot was taken of me a very long time ago when I was in my late teens. Of course, I don't look nearly that good nowadays.

[EV_Ares]

29. LOL, I thought so. You are the poster child of the day. Thanks.

[Clark2008]

23. Um... no.

I meant that Southern and mid-Western white males will not vote for someone they perceive as too "pretty" to be effective in national security - not to mention he's, well, not been effective in matters of foreign policy, but that's beside the point.

[JDPriestly]

74. Bill Clinton had no significant experience in foreign policy.

Bush had barely been out of the country. Edwards beats them by a long shot in terms of experience in foreign policy. At least he served a full term in the Senate. Edwards can choose a vice president with foreign policy experience. What is more, he can choose a great secretary of state. Some of the people running against him in this primary would be excellent even though they are not electable.

[Clark2008]

86. That was 1992... surely you know we lost 3,000 people and

five buildings since then, don't you?

[D23MIURG23]

77. Im a midwestern white male, and I have to disagree.

I think this is basically a stereotype, and I challenge you to evidence it if you can.

For the record I'm leaning toward Edwards (although being from MI I may not be able to vote for a Dem in the primaries).

[Clark2008]

87. Why are you leaning toward him, may I ask?

I know he says all the right things NOW, but his record and actions prior to 2007 would indicate that he's still a corporate, war-thumping DLCer. His statements concerning Iraq and Iran point to a complete naivete on his part regarding foreign policy and his domestic policy, while positive in its rhetoric, is not grounded in such as manner as to actually work should he try and implement it in his "gung ho" manner. I also know how he ignored his North Carolian constituents.

BTW, I'm in Tennessee and vote in early February. It's really disheartening to me to actually HAVE a decision-making voice with my vote and still not know who to vote for because I'm not comfortable with any of the Democrats running (and the Republicans don't count. They suck bigger eggs than any of the Dems).

[D23MIURG23]

102. I like you am not that comfortable with the field.

Edwards at least says the right things, and of the three front runners I trust him the most. Basically I come to Edwards by a process of eliminating all the other candidates for various reasons, and feeling ambivalent about him. I'd rather not list all my various differences with the other candidates, because I'd rather not respond to 80 angry responses from stalwart supporters.

I'll say I wanted Gore to run, but that didn't pan out, and it really seems to be too late. I also like Kucinich (close second), but I have nagging doubts about his sense of pragmatism, and the fact that Cleveland went insolvent during his term as mayor only worsens that.

So Edwards isn't my ideal answer, but he is the best answer I can think of at present. I also think he is the most likely to fix the health care system, and more likely than Hillary to actually take troops out of Iraq.

[ecstatic]

35. No. This:

[D23MIURG23]

78. PUKE!!!!!!!!!

:puke:

[asdjrocky]

42. Snake-

I thought I asked you not to post that picture of me.

[CherokeeDem]

15. Hey...

I am a Southern female and guess what, he's a Southern enough for me. Those other "Southern men" you are talking about are most likely misogynists, Republican, and wouldn't vote for Hillary or Obama either.

[Clark2008]

25. Guess what... I'm a Southern female, too.

And I think he's awful.

But, most Southern men I know think Hillary's actually stronger than "wimpy" Edwards... not sure if they'd vote for her or not, but they do respect her (even if some of them are threatened by her).

Oh - and I'm not advocating Hillary. Just tellin' it like it is.

[last_texas_dem]

68. As usual, you offer no proof for this assertion. nt

[Clark2008]

88. As usual, Edwards supporters have incredibly weak skins.

[last_texas_dem]

108. And this comment proves your assertion

that Edwards would do poorly with white southern males how?

[JDPriestly]

73. You are wrong. He is not too pretty.

I don't know what part of the south you are from, but it isn't a matter of how pretty a man is. A number of traits make southerners from the deep south like Alabama a little different from Yankees. One is the big smile. Edwards has that. Southerners feel comfortable with the big smile. Another is the fundamental courtesy that southerners learn very early to show toward one another. Edwards has that. Another is a kind of "Aw, shucks, humility." It isn't something phony. It is very genuine and is a way of expressing respect for others. Edwards also has that. I don't think Edwards is that "pretty" at all. But, even if you think so, it won't be nearly the problem that Fred Thompson's ugliness will be. Edwards is actually pretty normal looking if you want to ask me. A number of the other candidates are exceptionally ugly including Giuliani and Thompson. Anyway, the polls speak for themselves. Edwards consistently gets better numbers than any other Democratic candidate in the polls against Republicans. It has happened so often that it's hard to argue with the fact that Edwards is the most electable of the Democratic candidates.

[Clark2008]

89. He gets better numbers now because he's not discussed!!!

If he's the nominee, his record will come out and he's busted.

BTW, as evidence I'll offer every Southern man I know - Democrat and Republican. They all think he's a flake.

[IsItJustMe]

75. What sterotype bullshit are you selling anyway?

[aquaman11173]

90. Southern men

I'm as southern and man as it gets and I'm all for John... as are a WHOLE LOT of us down here.

[mnhtnbb]

127. I call BS. How do you think he won his Senate race in NC?

[cali]

3. racist and sexist arguments suck big time.

A lot of this yahoo's argument is rooted in: "Vote for Edwards- he's nice and white and has a dick".

[1932]

8. Having a less progressive president would suck more. Having a Republican president would suck most..

[cali]

10. Sorry, I don't countenance racism or sexism to promote a candidate

There are lots of arguments someone can use to point out that they believe Edwards is a superior candidate without sinking into the gutter. This is ugly raw racism and sexism. I guess some people do think the ends justify the means.

[1932]

12. I disagree with the logic in two paragraphs in the OP, but how can you deny that Edwards polls best

against all the Republicans? And he's always done that. He polled better than the other democrats in 2004. It's obviously something more than race and gender.

[cali]

14. then fine, make that argument. but arguing that this country isn't

ready to vote for a black or female candidate is the opposite of progressive. Literally.

[1932]

16. Have you read Freakonomics, by the way?

[rateyes]

31. Not just a tad bit partisan against Edwards are you, cali?

Oh, that's right....you won't vote for anybody who voted for the IWR. You ARE partisan against Edwards, and Clinton, and Dodd, and Biden.

[cali]

39. sure, I oppose Edwards. That doesn't mean

that I can't see a sexist, racist argument for what it is. And yeah, I won't vote in the primary for someone who voted for the IWR, but that doesn't mean that I can't appreciate certain things about all the candidates you listed. And I'd rather see Edwards get the nomination than Clinton. OTH, I'd rather see Biden get it over Edwards.

[rateyes]

41. Oh, so NOW you admit that you are partisan...

Welcome to reality.

[cali]

47. Oh, please. I'm not partisan in the sense that people generally mean

around here. I don't have any strong affiliation to any candidate, and it's just not all that important to me who gets the nomination. I won't be heartbroken whoever gets it.

[rateyes]

58. You saying that you are not partisan in the sense people generally mean

is like someone else saying, "I'm just a little bit pregnant."

Either you're partisan, or you aren't.

[EV_Ares]

53. Funny isn't it, you read the entire piece and it appears someone can

pull racism out of it. This has been on other boards and yet, here we have someone trying to make it a racist piece. The subconscious can do some strange things to one can't it.

[rateyes]

57. Yes, it can. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

38. An explanation of why they poll the way they do is in order.

Ignorance is no virtue. As the OP points out, the most centrist candidates of our group - Obama and Clinton, are leading among democrats. Among likely voters in the general, they do less well against their opponents than Edwards.

What's different about the general election? Republicans and independents get to vote in the general election, obviously.

What's different about Edwards? Well, he's more progressive, but that certainly wouldn't explain why he's more palatable to those who can't vote in the Democratic primary.

It is important that democrats win in the general. It is important that progressives win in the primary.

Both of these considerations point to Edwards.

I'm not saying that Obama or Clinton can't win, only that they have a much more difficult time and will not provide any carryover effect to help swing elections in lesser contests.

I am saying:
a) Obama and Clinton don't have adequate progressive creds.
b) They both have baggage, (earned and unearned) that negate any Democratic advantage.
c) Edwards margin of victory will influence other elections.

[cali]

50. Edwards has no progressive credentials.

In fact, his actual record is the most conservative of all three. That's literally a fact.

[EV_Ares]

54. Then post the facts to back it up. n/t.

[cascadiance]

55. Biden's promotion of the bankruptcy bill was also not what I'd call progressive either...q

The other two candidates aren't really progressive either when it gets down the real fundamental issues that face us.

We can have a "scorecard" with a huge number of votes where they can "ramp up" their progressive "rating", but the bottom line is that THE most important issue to tackle for progressives are those that are at the core of corporate control of our government (things like public campaign financing, stopping the war, pursuing impeachment and doing a purge of those who serve "the Mob" the most, and restoring the balance of our nations' wealth, which is hitting numbers close to those that would lead us into another Republican Depression.

Edwards is talking about those issues, and is putting himself on the hook for those, and therefore giving those of us a voice to say that THAT's what we want to vote for.

All of this "pragmatic" voting to vote for someone like Hillary, who hangs out with Rupert Murdoch and the rest of the corporate crowd, and rationalizing such a choice through only something like "she'd be better than a Republican", when that could be said about any of the other Democrats running is pretty lame.

We need someone at the top which will lead us on issues that COUNT and will make a difference! FDR Style! I think Edwards is the only one that comes close to that kind of person, if he's a man of his word, and I haven't seen evidence that he hasn't been honest with us now, even if he's changed on the support of many issues, etc. If he isn't, we can all claim through our votes for him that America is looking for that sort of person to put pressure on the media and other politicians to doing more what we want later.

I honestly believe that people can learn and change for the better. If I didn't, I wouldn't have been an Al Gore fan earlier either.

[lumberjack_jeff]

65. Edwards has promised meaningful change.

Given the choice between the candidate who promises significant, meaningful change and one who promises something else, I'd choose the former, regardless of their past support for what currently passes for progressive values.

Look around. Being in the top 10 most liberal congresspeople isn't really saying all that much these days.

Yesterday's thread was right on the money. Edwards has the capacity to be the next FDR, and economic indicators suggest we may soon need one.

[ChiciB1]

67. I'm With You... FDR?? Different Time & ERa, But MOST Certainly A Man

thinking about THE PEOPLE.... FIRST!! Says it all the time, and many here say it's fake, I don't think it is! I find him very sincere and genuine and think he's learned VOLUMES in 3 years!!

Go, Johnny, GOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

[1932]

70. Cali, what are you so worried about happening if Edwards becomes president?

[cali]

111. I worry that he really doesn't have any core beliefs

and that he'll switch positions again or crumble under pressure. Having said that, if he's the nominee, I'll gladly vote for him. I doubt Edwards' sincerity. Part of it is a gut feeling and it's reinforced by what I see as some glaring inconsistencies.

[1932]

112. He is making a clearer statement about what he's going to do than any candidate

Why would he do that if he doesn't plan on doing those things?

And what are the glaring inconsistencies?

[cali]

113. Campaign promises are broken far more often then they're kept

And statements themselves are not enough for me. I'm not going to go into the glaring inconsistencies again. I've laid them out often enough. I will ask why it bothers you so much that I don't support Edwards and don't trust him. Isn't it enought that I've said I'll gladly vote for him if he's the nominee?

[1932]

114. Which one do you think he won't push for, and why?

I don't care who you support. But I do care to hear a clear argument about why you don't support Edwards.

[cali]

116. I'm not going to go into this at length. I've already done that

I'm surprised you haven't seen some of my arguments. Let's just leave it at this: I believe actions count at least as much as words, and his record in the Senate is one of a centrist go along/get along type. He's moved 180 degrees since then and I don't trust those kinds of conversions. That and I'm less than impressed with any person of wealth who invests in a hedge fund. I was talking about that yesterday with my brother who runs a small investment company that only does socially conscious/ethical investing. His contempt for hedge funds- what they do and what they get away with, was eloquent. I don't know that he has the character to fight for what he says he believes when he faces the inevitable strong opposition. And no, I don't see his being a skillful trial attorney as something that absoutely means he'd be a president who could get his agenda enacted. It could help, but it's no guarantee.

[1932]

117. I don't find any of those arguments convincing.

The senate is a place where people compromise to move forward. Here's what they say about Obama's senate record: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2472781. I believe that it is true that Obama has moderated his voice so that he can be a successful Senator for his Illinois constituents. Yet, I'd never use any of these arguments as a reason not to vote for him.

Edwards investing in hedge funds? Edwards is so obviously not going to be the president for hedge funds. Fortune Magazine along with the rest of the MSM know that, and the hedge funds themselves know it judging from to whom they are giving money (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F27), I really find it hard to believe that you don't know this.

Changes 180 degrees? You provided the link that proves that's untrue. Open Secrets has a LONG list of Edwards's votes and his ratings by liberal and conservative organizations. You managed to cherry pick two votes from his career from that site to make your 180 degree change argument, but everything else on that site shows a very consistent progressive record (even more remarkable for a NC democrat holding a seat with a record of swapping parties -- rather than a state with a strong Democratic machine and 60% margin of victory).

[cali]

118. I understand why some of you Edwards supporters are so defensive

You can't support Edwards Senate record, so you point to others. You don't want to talk about his co-sponsoring the IWR or hawking the war in a major way and supporting it for years. You want to rationalize everything he's done, and even go so far as to claim his record in the Senate is progressive. It's not about two votes- and one of them was, as Senator Leahy said, the most important vote any of them would ever cast. And there were dems from red states who voted against it. You don't want to address the hypocrisy of asking Americans to give up SUVs and building a 28,000 sq ft energy hog. You avoid my point about hedge funds- I never claimed he'd be the president of hedge funds, although I sure haven't heard him call for the reform of that industry, when many people, such as Bernie have been. My point wat that investing in hedge funds is not consistent with ethical management of wealth.

I don't trust him. I don't trust your revisionism when it comes to him. I'd like to trust him. I've tried to trust him, and if he's the nominee I'll put aside my reservations.

I'm unconvinced by your defense of his record, and surprised to see that you view his vote and co-sponsorship of the IWR, as just another vote, just a mistake. It wasn't. Like Clinton, Dodd and Biden, John Edwards has bloody hands, and apologies don't wash that blood away.

[1932]

I just cited his senate record!

His senate record is very progressive. Open Secrets shows a very progressive record.

The IWR vote? In my opinion, the reason he voted yes on that was obviously because he (accurately) realized that most of his constituents and most Americans supported it at the time and, had he voted against it, he would have had no chance getting elected president and stopping America's crappy foreign policy which is so obviously subservient to the special interests his campaign as (accurately) identifies as causing all the rest of the problems with America.

You are welcome to criticize that, but it's perfectly obvious to me that Edwards is not running for president to start wars for wall street. And, all deference to Pat Leahy, but what was more important than that vote was a Democrat getting elected in 2004 so that we could have averted further entrenching ourselves in Iraq, the mortgage crisis, and the further concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.

[1932]

119. I just cited his senate record!

His senate record is very progressive. Open Secrets shows a very progressive record.

The IWR vote? In my opinion, the reason he voted yes on that was obviously because he (accurately) realized that most of his constituents and most Americans supported it at the time and, had he voted against it, he would have had no chance getting elected president and stopping America's crappy foreign policy which is so obviously subservient to the special interests his campaign as (accurately) identifies as causing all the rest of the problems with America.

You are welcome to criticize that, but it's perfectly obvious to me that Edwards is not running for president to start wars for wall street. And, all deference to Pat Leahy, but what was more important than that vote was a Democrat getting elected in 2004 so that we could have averted further entrenching ourselves in Iraq, the mortgage crisis, and the further concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.

[cali]

120. You actually believe that electing a dem president was more important

than the the IWR vote? Wow. I don't think they even need to be compared, but as you did so, I must say I find that completely bankrupt.

And no, you didn't prove he was a progressive as a Senator. He wasn't. He was a centrist and every one knows it. Progressives didn't vote for or co-sponsor the IWR. Progressives didn't vote for Yucca Mountain. Progressives didn't vote for a bad bankruptcy bill.

And Leahy was right: It was the most important vote of their Senate careers.

[1932]

121. Because, with the right dem president, that would have been the end of wars for wall street

And Obama has a centrist record in the senate and he won by a huge margin from a liberal state! Furthermore, as I said, you yourself have linked to the open secrets web site which lists Edwards's very high ratings from liberal groups and very low ratings from conservative groups. Why don't you wnat to talk about his record as a senator???

[cali]

123. It also gives quite a few lousy ratings from liberal orgs - and you know that.

You want me to dig up my old post with those ratings?

[1932]

126. Yeah. I want you to support your argument with facts.

Here's the link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=21107

[cali]

129. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3741052

[1932]

130. This is how uninformed that post is: you use the low CATO rating against Edwards!!!

Do you know the 17% rating was the lowest of all the people running in 04, INCLUDING Kucinich! Do you know the 40% rating was among the lowest for all Dems for that period. And, furthermore, I'm not even sure you realize what that rating is measuring!

You went through that long list of rankings and (once again) cherry picked a bunch of ratings you thought SOUNDED bad. They're totally out of context (you have no interest in comparing to other dems) and you have no idea what they are really measuring.

It's amazing to me that someone who posts SO MUCH could have so little foundation for what she is saying.

You might want to try spending less time posting and more time informing yourself.

[1932]

122. Furthermore, what's more important to you?

The size of a candidate's house, or this:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=E01

?

[cali]

124. It's not either/or. I take many things into consideration when

forming an opinion about a candidate. I've listed my problems with Edwards. You don't agree. Fine. But you don't address the things I list, or you brush them off. We need to agree to disagree.

[1932]

125. I'm not asking "either/or". I'm asking, "relatively, which is more important"

Whether a candidate has a nice house, or whether corporate donors believe that the candidate is going to guarantee that they will get big houses and easy profits?

What do you think I'm brushing off? I think I'm addressing all your issues. If I've missed any, let me know. I'd be happy to clarify.

[cali]

128. you haven't addressed the cognitive dissonance of Edwards

asking Americans to sacrifice their SUVs while building a 28,000 sq ft house. And I'm beginning to think many here don't have a clue as to this not being about a "nice" house. Not to mention that in this day and age of shrinking resources, there is no such thing as a "nice" 28,000 sq ft house. Nor do I think people realize how big a house that is. I do.

As for whether he'll cave to corporate interests, all we have from him are words- and his investing in an unethical entity.

[1932]

131. The "cognitive dissonance"??? Writing the word "red" in blue font is cognitive dissonance.

If you don't understand what Edwards policy positions are and how they will shift economic power to people on the lower rungs, then (1) you're in a small minority, and (2) the cognitive problems aren't Edwards's.

But, hey, let's do a square foot per family member measure for every candidate running and if the ratio is too high, then they can't be trusted to sign legislation curtailing the greed for profits that drives over-consumption and the waste of resources which is a feature of the late 20th century/21st century american economy. That makes sense.

And I'm still not making the connection between investing in Fortress and being a bad president. Care to flesh that one out a little more.

[karynnj]

64. Obama worked as a civil rights lawyer, HRC has plenty of Childcare credients going back decades

Obama was also Public advocate on the South Side of Chicago. Edwards made a fortune as an excellent trial lawyer. Obama in the Il and US Senate wrote ethics legislation. Obama wrote healthcare legislation in the Il Senate. Edwards was a DLC conservative Democrat.

In terms of REAL credentials they both have more than Edwards. Edwards is doing a great job playing the role of a progressive now. Edwards also has baggage - including most of his voting record that doesn't match his current rhetoric.

[ihavenobias]

76. Arguing

that racism and sexism magically vanish during election time isn't very progressive either.

You can't have it both ways. Either they are (sadly) very real in this country or they aren't. The extent to which they may impact this election is up for debate, but to try to shred anyone that dares to suggest they might have *some* negative impact is being dishonest.

[karynnj]

63. He won exactly SC and NC

and NC was essentially an after the fact favorite son win - Kerry already had the nomination. Kerry polled better than he did. The media pushed him - with the NYT even having an op-ed in the last week of February saying that the Democratic candidate would be John, but it was not clear if the last name would be Edwards or Kerry. The article made a case for edwards. Now, Kerry had won 16 primaries and Edwards 1, the state he was born in. Many big states were voting the next week and Kerry was polling as much as 20 % higher in them. Kerry won all of them, except for VT where Dean won and the race was over.

[1932]

72. All that's great, but I believe Edwards did better against Bush than Kerry

in 2004.

Also, with informed voters, Edwards did pretty well: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/politics/campaign/02POIN.html?ex=1398830400&en=61aeb61e3002e4b7&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

[karynnj]

101. The key words were "I believe"

As mentioned, the media pushed Edwards over Kerry. In the simultaneous polling against Bush, Kerry did better. It was only done in February, as by March, it was clear Kerry was the candidate.

It is never possible to know the result of something that didn't happen - which allows people to say that Clark, Edwards or Dean would have won - even though the primaries very convincingly chose Kerry. Even deep south states, other than the Carolinas and Oklahoma (where Clark, Edwards were at 30% and Kerry was close at 27%.

What neither of us can measure is how anyone else would have stood up to the intense, media supported RW attack machine. Kerry came out far better than McCain did and most people who were ever likely to go with Kerry did not believe the SBVT lies.

There were likely two reasons for the SBVT attacks - one was that any part of any candidate's life would be attacked, the second was the message people got from Kerry surrounded by his crew and the man whose life he saved. In 2004, America was still traumatized by 911 and, as is customary when a country is attacked - people had rallied around the only President we had, lame as he was, and out of need of heroic leader, blinded themselves to his real flaws. The Democrat had to do two things - simultaneously convince enough people to accept Bush's weaknesses and get them to see that he was the one who could be the leader to get us out of this mess. The level of fear in the country, further heightened by each politically motivated terror level increase worked against this. In reality, the Bush administration terrorized the country (If you view what happened as if it was a movie - raising the terror levels as they did was what you would expect in a bad horror movie.) We were an abused country, and as abused woman who stick with and defend their abusive husbands fearing that not having them would be worse, many people couldn't look at Bush realistically - even in that abysmal first debate - and reject him.

In the primaries, if you look at who made strong attacks on Bush, it was not Edwards. He prided himself on not attacking. Consider that he wanted the slogan "hope is on the way" versus "help is on the way". The difference in meaning and in tone is enormous. Which could reassure a terrorized country? Not to mention - by fall 2004, hope was THERE, promising that it was "on the way" was silly, not to mention by signing up as VP, he should have acted as a team member instead of a primadonna. Edwards would not have sufficiently gotten people to reject Bush. There is also the other side. Kerry in the primaries at the victory parties was surrounded by veterans and fireman. Combined with the reunion with Rassman and the fact that he is 6 foot 4 inches (that shouldn't count, but was part of the picture), you had a picture of someone who could help fix the country. Edwards did not have that type of commanding image - and as a former Midwestern I can tell you that the channeling a baby as she was born - even if it swayed the jury - would really be distasteful. Edwards had a short resume with little suggesting that he could lead.

I know that you can find people who said "I couldn't vote for Kerry, but I would have voted for Edwards". Well, I know many who would have gone the other way. You should also remember that that was said AFTER Kerry was smeared to an unprecedented level. From the primary debates in 2004 and 2008 and the VP debate, I seriously doubt that Edwards would have done the masterful job that Kerry did. There have been some Edwards "deer in the headlight" moments - there were none for Kerry, refecting the deep store of knowledge he has on foreign policy and domestic issues.

Another thing to consider is that with Kerry, there was a very small third party vote. The main reason was recognition that they cost Gore a win that would have not been easy to steal. The other reason was that as angry as they were with his IWR vote, they knew that he spoke against the war before and after that vote - which was not true in Edwards' case. With Kerry, part of the anger at that vote was because he was Kerry, a trusted anti war hero, someone they likely had never even thought was at risk to vote for it. Most believed that he would, as he said, not have taken the country to war, so even though angry, they trusted him over Bush. Edwards could not have said enough to win the left without antagonizing the center. (Remember he hadn't rejected his conservative Senate record then.) He likely would have lost a much larger share of the left - that now loves him - to people who either did not vote or voted third party.

[1932]

110. Edwards and Kerry did same against Bush after February. I still remember Edwards doing better

than everyone else before February.

[EV_Ares]

21. Interesting how you read into things the way you do or the way you want

to perceive something. Just because the author makes an assumption on how people might vote is not being racist. It is written all the time in books, magazines, polls, etc. The only racism comeing out of this is you trying to make it racist. Has nothing to do with the electability of John Edwards.

And, we know how you already feel about John Edwards don't we. Also, stay focused on electability which is what the post is about not racism.

I know you will respect that as you always point that out in your posts.

[Andy823]

56. I am begining to see

Why so many people here dislike you. Grow up!

[Deep13]

4. Geez, I know who I want for the R. nominee.

Mike "DOA" Huckabee!

[saltpoint]

6. Edwards would be quite formidable against any of the Pukes. Thompson is

from a Southern state also but Thompson's vital signs are flat-lining. I'm thinking someone should call the Thompson household just to see if it's too early to make the funeral arrangements. And flowers are so expensive.

Huckabee's also a Southerner, but Huckabee is a bible-thumping psychotic. He has the personality of a self-centered fraternity guy who somehow took a wayward turn into fundamental religion. In any case, he's in way over his head and I think his GOP opponents are at this hour devising hard-hitting ads in Iowa and SC to loosen the bolts on Huck's truck. Look for him in a ditch along the highway sometime in the next couple of weeks.

Edwards' organization in Iowa is impressive. With less cash he's done a lot more. And he's downright surgical on the issues. There's not a Puke in their field who can match him.

[cali]

7. interesting that you don't object to the inherent racist and

sexist argument the author presents. Sad.

[EV_Ares]

11. What is there to object to? Yes, he did not need to throw in the

race factor, gender factor, does not mean he was being racist just saying it which everyone knows who is black and who the woman is in the campaign. It was simply speculation on his part, not factual and would have been better for the article as a whole to be left out. It does not take away from the positives that make John Edwards the most electable of all the candidates.

That said: we know your opinion of Edwards which I am sure helped you to find a negative.

[cali]

18. if you can't see why this is the worst argument that a progressive

can make, you need to rethink it. And it was one of the main parts of his argument. And no, this has nothing to do with my opposition to Edwards.

[EV_Ares]

26. You might need to rethink your argument and stay focused on the

post itself, the elect ability of John Edwards instead of trying to bring racism into it. This is what you always request yourself, right. You seem to be the only one trying to change this into a race issue.

[cali]

48. I hate to break this to you but the author of the piece YOU posted

brought in racism and sexism. Sad you can't see it.

As far as electability goes, I've said many times, I think they're all electable, including JE. I do not, however, think he's more electable. He's got a problem of his own making- actually a couple of them. He's got the funding problem and the hypocrisy problem. If I were a repuke strategist, I know just how I'd go after him.

[EV_Ares]

52. What is sad is your pathetic hate of someone so much that you pull

out something which you know isn't true, then start another thread attacking another poster's thread which didn't work as most didn't agree with you that this post is about racism. The only person bringing up racist is you which also has not worked. Out of all the boards with this thread, you are the only one that finds racism in it. It seems sometime back you brought up racism in another instance. I wonder why that is

Try disrupting this thread another way.

[1932]

71. "Hypocrisy problem." Hmm. Have you see this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=75857&mesg_id=75871

[asdjrocky]

43. I've never made this argument-

But, I do see it's logic. You can chose to believe the way you want to see the world, or you can see the world for the way it really is.

I don't prefer the way it really is. But, it is, the way it really is.

[saltpoint]

9. A 5th Rec for the Carolinian. The imminently electable Carolinian at that.

[EV_Ares]

13. Yes, will be interesting after the Iowa and NH primaries and who is

standing where. I think it will be as close or closer after the two primaries but not sure where Obama and Edwards will fit in at that time. Both are certainly preferable over Hillary.

[K8-EEE]

19. Hillary stands the best chance of losing, IMO....

which is why she's the corporate media's darling.

The RWers have invested YEARS of rhetoric brainwashing the sheep to think she's the most evil thing alive, because they are completely out of even any semblence of real reason to vote GOP. So that's the big motivator: GAK! BEAT THE HILDEBEAST/SHILLARY/HITLERY etc...

It's funny because in general if you ask a Dem who doesn't want Hillary they come up with basic differences on policy (she's too conservative for me!) but have you every tried to nail down a GOPer on what is the worst/scariest legislation she's every passed, what's the baddest ass thing she's going to do, they seem like, uh.....I dunno! BUT SHE'S DANGEROUS!

Even they are embarrassed to go into "killed Vince Foster" type crap.

[K8-EEE]

22. Also since she would FLOOD the teevee with money/ads

They like her best! Edwards, for moderate campaign spending and no corporate money, he would lose a lot of money for CNN & Fox. BUT HE WOULD WIN!

[Sooner in VA]

20. Edwards

I think at this point people should give more consideration to who would be the most effective leader. I think Edwards could do a very good job but I think Hillary is better at political positioning to get things done. Obama is naive.

[K8-EEE]

24. What I like about Edwards is

He has come to the same conclusion as a lot of us that you are not going to "work with" these corporate interests and get them to volunteer to give up even one tiny bit of power. You have to make the case, and then just take it back.

The flat-out bribery re: pols/lobbyists/corporate money and the favors they pay for, it's poisoned everything, IMO.

[rateyes]

27. Well, Doug Wilder, a black man, was elected governor

of the commonwealth of Virginia. His office was in the Capitol of the Confederacy. Louisiana elected a Democratic woman as governor (Blanco) and that state is about as far south as one can get in this country...

...so, while I understand your point about blacks and women losing votes because they are black and female, a point can also be made that they gain votes for those reasons as well. It's sad to say, but racism and misogyny is alive and well. Therefore, I'm not sure that those points for your argument hold much water.

But, I do agree that Edwards is the most electable in the GE of the three, but for different reasons.

Kicked and Recommended :kick:

[JohnnyLib2]

30. "Electable". Does that term really mean much?

I suspect that the essential meaning is changing during this election cycle.

I would like to think that all the main candidates are "electable".





Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
e·lect·a·ble /ɪˈlɛktəbəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
capable of, or having a reasonable chance of, being elected, as to public office.


—Related forms
e·lect·a·bil·i·ty

[frazzled]

32. If the "new" Edwards were to be scrutinized ...

These polls, which are quite ridiculous anyway (if you think current 'national' polls for primaries are nonreflective, these polls are even worse--especially a year out from a general election, and with no real nominees even chosen), would look a hell of a lot different if Edwards were put under the spotlight.

If you think they were able to pin flip-flopper on Kerry, just wait to see what they would do to an Edwards who was beneath centrist (yes, he was a founder of the DLC wing in the Senate, co-sponsored the IRW, voted for the bankruptcy bill, etc.) and worked for a hedge fund, but now declaims the war and beats his chest over poverty and "corporatist" politics. Not to mention the fun they'd have with the 10-minute photo-ops in NOLA, the haircuts and house. He'd be losing by double digits in these polls.

The only thing that keeps people from saying they wouldn't vote for Edwards in a general is that they feel sorry for his wife, and that he lost a son. These polls mean absolutely nothing.

[Colobo]

33. I'll vote for Obama. Period.

[ChiciB1]

34. KICK, I Agree & Have For Much Longer Than Most! I've Heard That

D.C. Elites hate him over and over and over again! It's very probably VERY TRUE! He scares them and THEY don't really want him around to make any effort to at least "try" to minimize Corporations and Lobbyists from "gumming" their agenda!

I'm not so naive to think he can get it ALL done, but at least "trying" would give me some hope! And HOPE is not a word I've even used in over 2 years!!

I've lost almost ALL Hope!!

[sellitman]

36. Electability better be important to voters

Or we can have another 4 years of Neo-Con rule.

[Sooner in VA]

37. RE: Electability

I'm a little worried about all this Fed posturing on interest rates. They're working their hardest to extend the economic cycles and are making the inevitable recession worse with every move. They're putting this recession off until the next Presidency and if a Republican wins then no one will be able to blame the Democrats. Look at Carter's Presidency, essentially sabotaged by the Fed.

[Mythsaje]

66. That might be a really dangerous tack to take...

It might well force the Dem party to institute the kind of reforms most necessary...WITH a strong majority of support from the people themselves.

They're dancing on a razor blade.

[zalinda]

40. One thing that we haven't looked at is

he is a self made man. He IS the American dream. He came from a small town with very little, worked his way through college and became rich. He married his college sweetheart, which has lasted for 30 years. He is a Hallmark movie. Face it, he is everything, every person has ever wanted, with just enough tragedy to make his life not a Disney movie.

And, to top it off, he is saying to everyone, if I can do it, so can you, and I'll help you get there. This is a powerful message. I think this is why he resonates with both repubs and dems alike.

zalinda

[w4rma]

44. K&R from another Southerner. (nt)

[zulchzulu]

45. This just in...America is not ready for a black man who is good at golf

America would never stand for a black guy to be president since they certainly think black guys can't play golf either.

:sarcasm:

As for Obama being black, he has a lot of cross-racial as well as political party appeal. I think the OP's view is utter nonsense.

[frogmarch]

46. Yes, there are still a lot of knuckle-draggers,

both male and female, to whom the idea of a woman or a black serving as president is unthinkable. Some of those people are my in-laws, several of whom vote Dem because they realize the repubs are not who they portray themselves to be. These few Dems support Edwards because he's a white man.

My side of the family is a multi-racial, well-educated bunch, and our women are feminists and among the most unsubmissive women on the planet. Everyone in my family, including my husband and grown kids, supports Edwards because of his stand on the issues.

[Danascot]

49. The fact is that

the US has elected a white male as president in every single election in the past. I would like to think we could elect a woman or an African-American but the weight of the past is substantial. I also don't have a lot of faith in an electorate to do anything right that allowed B*sh to become president twice, and will not even now remove him given overwhelming evidence of impeachable wrong-doing.

In general I think it's pretty clear that the American voter much cares about the candidates positions and policies. Personality counts for much more. Joe America thought they'd rather have a beer with Chimpy than with Gore. Notice that the pukes always attack Hillary's personality not her politics.

Does that argue that white male Edwards is the only electable Dem candidate? Maybe, maybe not. I think a lot of the conventional wisdom and polls saying he is, is based on the fact that he's white, male, youthful and attractive.

Personally I'd be delighted to have any of the top 6 or 8 Dem candidates as president. But then if the Dems nominate a steaming dog-turd, I'll vote for it. ... Can't be any worse than what we have now.

[FrenchieCat]

51. Go ahead and keep pretending that Edwards has not accepted matching funds......

and watch Edwards get torn down for the 6 months that he'll barely have a voice.

It will be a bloodbath with Edwards at the top of the ticket; a bloodbath with Dem blood all over the place! Remorse once it is all over will hit Dems like ton of bricks if Edwards is the nominee.

John Edwards is very much unelectable. Period.
---------------------------------
Also, remember that when you're talking public funds, the downside is that they have spending caps. So however much money Edwards has, his spending in the primary states will be severely restricted (save on field, which doesn't come under the caps). Moreover, the problem with public funding isn't in the primaries, but once they're completed. Kos explains:

Lots of money is spent in January and February. Let's say Edwards emerges the victor -- wins Iowa, and parlays that victory into national momentum. It could really happen, especially if Hillary and Barack beat the crap out of each other.

So he's won, but he's spent his primary money, and he won't get his first general election check until after the Democratic convention. August 25.

So Edwards won't have any money in March, April, May, June, July, and most of August. That's six months of darkness.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3824893

Most experts expect the major parties' nominees to be selected by the end of voting on Feb. 5, 2008, when upwards of 20 states will hold their primaries. That “Super Tuesday” will fall barely a month after publicly funded candidates receive their initial infusions of cash.
http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/problem.cfm

[zalinda]

93. I know you have been saying this in many threads

But, from what I've read, Edwards does not like to lose. He didn't like it when he was younger and he doesn't like it now. Actually, that is sort of a mild statement, he HATES to lose. He must have some sort of plan. He has been through this before and he learns from his mistakes. I am sure he studied his campaign and the Kerry campaign to the nth degree and has laid out a plan for every scenario. So far he has spent far less then his competitors, and he is in a dead heat in Iowa. I admire him for this, this means he is careful with money, which I hope will translate into he's careful with OUR money.

zalinda

[Tejanocrat]

59. The Agonist is one of my favorite blogs

[onehandle]

60. Why aren't polls like this reported by the MSM?

Because they was a close election. Landslides are only good on the day after the election for one headline.

[karynnj]

61. You lost me in your first paragraph

True, John Edwards is not John Kerry. He has little of Kerry's decades long record on the environment and foreign policy, nor does he have Kerry's gravitas, or his real record as an activist and reformer. Also, Kerry fought a hell of lot harder than the Vp candidate he chose, who had the chutzpah to refuse to use the slogans the Presidential nominee chose.

If Edwards wins the nomination, he will have a far easier year to win in.

[MGKrebs]

62. Fundraising doesn't count towards electability?

Whatever.

[asdjrocky]

79. Does it have to be about who has the most money every time?

How 'bout we tip over that apple cart?

[Yael]

69. I would vote for a woman in a heartbeat. Just not that one.

Go get this thing, Senator Edwards...

[cadaverdog]

80. I am ashamed to say

that with a few exceptions, this is probably the worst thread I have ever read on DU. Instead of an honest discussion of the original post, we get name calling, empty rhetoric and Democatic bashing worthy of Powerline.

Listen to the voices out there people; this election should go to the candidate who can win over the independents, not the party faithful. We will be very sorry on Nov 8 if we choose to ignore what the polls are telling us about the independent/undecided voters. Get over yourselves.

[harmonicon]

83. fuck that

we'll be more sorry on Nov. 9, 2009 when a Democratic president invades Iran because we ran a candidate only because some arm-chair pundits thought they'd "win over" independent voters.

[cali]

96. fuck your prognostications founded on nothing but

dogshit personal opinion. I'm no Edwards fan, but it's delusional to suggest that he'll invade Iran if he becomes president. He won't. And why don't you stick that Nov 9, 2009 date back where you pulled it from.

[harmonicon]

98. 50/50

If you want to talk "prognostications founded on bullshit" look no further than people telling you how great a president any one of these senators would be. Look at who they've been, what they've voted for, not what they've done on the campaign trail. How many of them have been Hawks on Iran? Most, including Edwards. Do I really think he'd invade Iran? No, but I wouldn't be too surprised either - he voted to invade a country for no damn legal or moral reason at all before. I certainly don't think he'd ever do much for the likes of me.

[cali]

100. I don't think any of them have the qualities to make them great

but they are all infinitely better than their repuke counterparts. And right now, I'd be ecstatic with "decent".

[harmonicon]

103. of course they'd be better

That's why we shouldn't bother with shit like "electability" and just put who we think is the best person forward. Whoever that is, they'll be better than the republican. Once we let the media and corporations choose who our candidate will be (that's what saying someone is "electable" means, it seems to me), we've lost our democracy (again).

[bjobotts]

81. When willyou people get it. ELECTABILITY IS NOT AN ISSUE THIS TIME.

WHOEVER WINS THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT.
After the horrors of Bush and with the present GOP candidates being such a joke There is absolutely no possibility of a republican winning the general.
ALL OF THE DEMS ARE ELECTABLE. NONE OF THE REPUBS ARE ELECTABLE...PERIOD

It has nothing to do with Kerry and the last election etc. This IS the way it is this time.
And no we are not sitting back on our butts doing nothing thinking it's in the bag either. We are driven by an anger and fury at the destruction of our constitution and our democracy by these republicans that there is no way we will allow one of them to get elected president. We will be out in droves making sure that does not happen.

SO GET OVER IT. This is not like any other time in our election history. No republican will be elected President. Which means that whoever wins the democratic primary will be the next president...period.

[onehandle]

84. Except that the more "electable" a candidate, the bigger their coattails will be.

A larger margin = more Democratic seats won in the House and Senate.

We want a landslide, not a barely win.

[PATRICK]

95. At this time that is what it appears

but the same could have been said of Gore before Bush put his royal slipper on the red carpet to his throne. We have not been paying much attention to the sorry GOP field. They are ALWAYS sorry at this stage, yet how many have succeeded in defeating stalwart, less than charismatic Dems? If elect ability is NOT an issue then margins and coattails most certainly is in this opportunity of a generation with a world at stake. Electability speaks to fear. Margins speaks to our hunger to get what needs to be done done, now and quickly and decisively. We will need that simply to have a chance to clean house of the Bush harm. We will need it to survive in every sense of the word.

I hate it when fear motivates. If Hillary is the candidate I hope it is the hunger that is maintained, not the fear, because no matter the standard bearer, we have our work cut out for us. Any candidate will be isolated, ruined, and opportunity lost with lack of unity toward our simple goals. The left has to make a difference for left policies. Thanks to our sorry show of divisions over our smorgasbord of "feared" choices we are less respected or noted than the wacko(GOP term) RW religionists who are now reasserting themselves over Huckabee. Huckabee, whom Edwards can cremate and scatter the ashes into the Potomac! But their minority coalition of mad hypocrisy can get its act together. We should fear ourselves more than any candidate. Fear instead blowing this opportunity and be left whining in blame at the nominees who must come from decades of failure and improper representation no matter their virtues and sincerity. We are lucky they are as good as they are. If we want better representation we need to give them a base to represent.

[harmonicon]

82. "the poor and middle class are getting screwed", if they vote for Edwards!!!!!!!

I'M SO FUCING SICK OF THIS SHIT!!!

I DON'T GIVE A FUCK IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT ELECTABILITY!!!!!!! IT'S A FUCKING NON-ISSUE, AND I'LL BEAT THAT INTO THE GROUND.

This is early in the race. The people doing the voting decide who's elected, and who our candidate is won't even be decided until after several primaries. "electability" doesn't mean shit. It's a word made up by assholes to push other assholes on voters who would be better served by someone who is "un-electable".

Edwards and every other senator running in this race are criminals. They voted for an illegal war of aggression once (not counting Obama - he's only voted to fund imperialism), and don't think for one second they wouldn't launch one if president. They've voted to strip you of your constitutionally guaranteed rights. A vote for one of these fuckers is a vote against freedom and democracy.

Oh, sure, you'll flame, you'll put me on ignore for saying this shit, but you'll recommend threads hyping the crimes of Buschco, slamming present senators for caving to the same on bills put before them, but conveniently forget how Edwards was one of these same bastards when he was in the senate. Fuck him. We could do a lot better. For Christ's sake, we could barely fucking do any worse.

[cali]

85. nah. I'm not flaming you, just

laughing at your barely coherent, hysterical rant.

:rofl:

[EV_Ares]

91. Good Morning; n/t.

[harmonicon]

97. you try writing that many words when you're loaded and about to go to sleep!

[EV_Ares]

92. Never do flame and never have used the ignore, always interested

in hearing what others have to say including this nonsensical combination of words you have thrown up on this board here. Go ahead, that is what it is for, may not make a lot of sense to some but your right. Have a good day & thanks for posting.

[1932]

104. What do you think Edwards is going to do if he's elected?

[PATRICK]

94. I have to add more

bluntly, he is the only candidate, if all three were absolutely equal in all polls, whose victory would be a mandate for progressive policies and courageous agendas. Otherwise we are going to be stuck on the high road to bipartisanship(with corporate crooks, cheats and killers) just as we are now with FISA. The DLC war against the progressive wing will continue to suppress the party's overall strength, never mind the grass roots populist OR the success of that centrist fallacy will be grander, though less tyrannical, disaster for everyone on the planet.

There is some doubt about Edwards credentials on peace, etc. There are no doubts that the critical judgment of both Hillary and Obama are deeply flawed with the worst of DLC high-minded, fallacy ridden, corporate leaning naivete. The utterly criminal and ruthless elements of the GOP can eventually have our party for lunch so long as that kind of beachhead is maintained.

With Edwards the mandate is as clear as if Bush had the mandate of Christian Conservatives. We back Edwards all the way for the sake of the agenda of Dennis Kucinich. There will be no 100% resting on laurels or any sense of having already arrived. We will be in build, re-building mode all the way and that pretty much reflects the best that reality can offer. The more immune the candidate is to thin margins or negativity or prejudice the less potential distractions on what will be tough road needing and embracing wide participation by "lefty" activists and the ordinary folk. The more chance that to empower his presidency rapid strong reforms for elections and campaign finance will top the early agenda. The more chance that foreign policy will be cooled down and no caving to red meat GOP hedge issues and phantom focus groups.

All well and good the polls(that no one will agree with anyway). I'd rather back Edwards for the thrust it gives for the right things with no messiah and no easy distracting target and no lofty, murky, short meme centrism to inhibit the thrust of a renaissance of democracy itself. Even if the country enters financial hardship and natural disaster. WE will be damn ready, not sitting centrist compromising ducks
ready to be weak sister goats for the next GOP dictator to take advantage of. The people, of all spectrums, will start to own the party and not just a frustrated liberal caucus struggling through time we no longer have.

[Stop Cornyn]

106. Excellent point!

[mwb970]

99. I'm gradually settling on Edwards as my choice.

There are many posts bashing him in this thread, but every Dem candidate is bashed repeatedly on DU, something I must admit I don't fully understand. According to the collective "wisdom" of this site, all of the Dem candidates are hopelessly flawed losers that don't stand a chance. The only thing worse is the Republicans.

Hey, folks. Someone has to be nominated. Someone has to become president. Why not Edwards?

[politicasista]

105. Thanks. But I will continue to look around n/t

[smalll]

107. Not With That House.

Seriously, not with that house. :shrug:

[rosetta6]

109. Anyone who voted for the Iraq invasion cannot be considered

electable.

[Perry Logan]

115. Haven't we seen enough of these "match-up polls" to realize they make no sense?

[annie1]

132. Edwards rocks.