I'm coming out and saying it : I hope John Edwards does not get the nomination

[Sparkly]

I've been careful not to disparage any of our candidates, nor to back any one of them strongly over others. But as Iowa draws closer, I'm coming out of the closet to say that Edwards is the one candidate I hope does not win the nomination.

I know he's talking a 'populist message,' but I think all of the candidates' talk is about political positioning. They're all politicians, and it's what they do. I don't give a whole lot of weight to their political maneuvering, nor do I see much difference between Edwards, Clinton and Obama on policy proposals.

My main problem with Edwards is that he is a lightweight as a politician. In the last presidential election, I backed a NON-politician, so this may seem inconsistent; but General Clark has so much gravitas it was a plus that he didn't need to be a politician (in my view). For the '08 candidate, we're looking at politicians, and I think we need a very strong politician with heavy machinery and sharp teeth, ready to fight. I think Edwards' debate with Cheney showed his tendency to acquiesce and equivocate and frankly, his style in general (fair or not) is weak, with a tendency toward vocal stammering and blinking in a manner that suggests flinching.

The media has never really taken Edwards on the way it has some other candidates. As John Kerry was wrapping up the primaries in 2004, the media insisted Edwards was a strong threat and the RNC continually expressed their 'fear' of running against such a "formidable" candidate as Edwards. When John Kerry was in the process of choosing a running mate, the talking heads sang Edwards' praises constantly. But when it came time to campaign, as one commentator later put it, Edwards was like a glass of lukewarm water -- colorless, odorless, tasteless, just "doing no harm."

This is not personal. I know he has many fine qualities, and a beautiful family. And if he does win the nomination, there is no question that I'll vote for him. But as in 2004, I'll use my primary vote to try to block him if necessary (the reason I voted for Kerry in 2004 rather than Clark -- pundits were saying Maryland might go to Edwards).

I still don't really have a candidate I'm supporting. If there's a real primary battle happening in Maryland by the time we get to vote, I'll probably choose a preference -- again, more about who I'm voting against than who I'm voting for. If it's all wrapped up by then, I'll vote for Kucinich -- where my heart is.

No disrespect intended toward Edwards supporters -- again, if he wins, I'm on board. And I predict he'll do very well in Iowa. But I'd prefer to see Obama, Biden, Dodd, or (gasp!) Clinton win over him.

[TwilightGardener]

1. Yep--agree. I have deep and serious reservations about him.

[Adelante]

2. Unlike you, Sparkly

I would take Gravel over Edwards ;)

[Mass]

3. I agree.

[bunkerbuster1]

4. One (only one) reason I could agree with this...

given his one opportunity to shine in 2004, when pitted against Darth Cheney, he flat-out didn't. He was just ok, but I saw none of that hot-shot legal-eagle, kill-'em-with-a-smile stuff we all thought he could bring.

And bring it, he needed to do. And he didn't.

I know he's learned a lot, and like you, I won't hesitate to support him if he's the nominee. Unlike you, I haven't decided whether or not to vote for him in my state's primary. But I do understand your concern (and I don't mean "concern" in a "concern-troll" sense. Seriously.)

[JustAnotherGen]

5. I'm a huge Edwards supporters

But I thank you for framing your argument against him so respectfully.

Pssst - I was a Clark supporter too! But I voted Edwards in the Primary to block Kerry. :-)

[Catchawave]

6. LOL....it's Silly Season on DU

:eyes:

So vote for someone else, and tell us why :shrug:

[tired_old_fireman]

7. With all due respect...

I want to believe you when you say "no disrespect towards Edwards supporters," but I'm not sure I can. These types of posts just lead to a bunch of other negative posts about Edwards or whichever candidate they are written about. All they do is upset or anger the supporters of the candidates they are written about. In a perfect world, people would be for something instead of against something.

[Andy823]

20. Yes, it's just another

Post to attack Edwards. Seems like the other supporters here are seeing that he is going to win Iowa, and his message will carry him on to win the nomination. Must be hard to accept that!

What I can't understand is why there are so many attacks on Edwards and very little post by the "other supporters on why we should all be voting for their candiddate? Must mean they can't come up with things to show how good their candidate is, so they just tear down the one person they fear the most! :shrug:

[kenfrequed]

35. Yeah

Most of the Anti Kucinich posts are very, very similar that way.

And interestingly enough the anti-anti-hillary posts have similar kinds of "logic" in them.

[Jim Sagle]

8. Edwards RRRAWWWWWWWXXXXXXX!!!!!!

[Amerigo Vespucci]

9. I hope Obama doesn't get the nomination for many of the reasons you list

"he is a lightweight as a politician"

"we need a very strong politician with heavy machinery and sharp teeth, ready to fight"

"his style in general (fair or not) is weak, with a tendency toward vocal stammering and blinking in a manner that suggests flinching"

I encourage you to check out yesterday's Meet The Press: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3898804/

I did not see a lot of high-fiving on DU yesterday after Obama's appearance. I understand that many here have an issue with Russert, but he asked direct questions and the answers that came back didn't impress me.

Also...

I thought the whole "Hillary is disingenuous" exchange had a tone more like a pissy, petulant George W. Bush and less like a man I'd want to see in the White House:

NEWSWEEK: Hillary's team says she was ganged up on by men in last week's debate. Does she get or deserve special treatment because she is a woman?
OBAMA: I don't think that Senator Clinton would ever suggest that she should be treated differently because she's a woman. And I actually thought that everybody was very courteous in their disagreements with her. We had a debate in Iowa which George Stephanopoulos presided over, and for the first 10, 15 minutes people were questioning my qualifications for the presidency. I don't remember anybody worrying too much about that … We're not running for student council president, we're running for leader of the free world.

How would you describe her response on the question of her First Lady papers?
Her response was certainly inadequate. When she suggested somehow she didn't have control over whether or not these papers were being released—what we're talking about here is her husband's presidential library. And when she is making a suggestion that part of the experience that she brings to this office is her experience as First Lady, people have a right to ask some tough questions. She can release these papers.

So is she being honest?
I think she was being disingenuous.

What's the difference between disingenuous and dishonest?
You'll have to ask her.

Is she entitled to any credit for her years as First Lady as she argues her case to be president?
On those areas where there is a record of her having done work, she certainly deserves credit for it. What she can't do is have it both ways. She can't embrace every success of Bill Clinton's presidency and distance herself from every failure of Bill Clinton's presidency.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/67934

I also didn't care for his wife's "Black Americans will wake up and get it" remarks:

Michelle Obama: 'Black Americans will wake up and get it'

David Edwards and Jason Rhyne
Published: Monday November 12, 2007

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Michelle_Obama_Black_America_will_wake_1112.html

Acknowledging a certain reluctance in the African American community to back her husband for president, she said that support would come -- but it would take time.

"Black Americans will wake up and get it," Obama said. "But what we're dealing with in the black community is just the natural fear of possibility. When I look at my life, the stuff that we're seeing in these polls is played out my whole life: always been told by somebody that I'm not ready, you know, I can't do something, my scores weren't high enough."

Obama pointed to a specific skepticism about her husband's chances to win the presidency among blacks, who she says have been repeatedly told by society that there are limitations on what an African American can achieve.

"There's always that doubt in the back of the minds of people of color. People who've been oppressed and haven't been given real opportunities that you never really -- that you believe that somehow someone is better than you," she continued. " Deep down inside you doubt whether you can do it, because that's all you've been told is 'no, wait.' That's all you hear."

I'm not impressed with Obama, I don't feel that he has the experience to lead this country, and his particular method of campaigning (from the battle with Hillary to the "Oprah Event") all adds up to the fact that he's not "my" president.

But that's just me.

[flpoljunkie]

15. Obama as the Democratic nominee would send a powerful signal to the world.

Obama does not pander and seems both honest and trustworthy, as well as thoughtful and intelligent. He also comes across as one who can take a punch and defend himself. Remember the last debate when he responded to Hillary's derisive comment and laughter? He was very quick on his feet.

Obama would be a nominee that I could support without reservations and wholeheartedly, unlike either Edwards or Clinton.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

24. I respect your opinion, I just don't share it.

And that's OK. As much as I try to understand and appreciate the views of Obama's supporters, more often than not I find my self responding to an "Obama is..." statement with "No he's NOT..."

I've seen and heard him on TV and in clips on the Web. I've read the transcripts. I'm not impressed and I don't anticipate an epiphany any time soon based on what I've experienced to date.

It's called the art of respectfully agreeing to disagree.

:patriot:

[Rockholm]

30. Thank you for the elegant statement.

[mnhtnbb]

17. After reading Obama's book I came to same conclusion. He's too ready to make nice.

[AndreaCG]

32. Obama can't have it both ways

As I said in another post, during his Senate campaign he was rude to my friend who wrote for a black newspaper. And his staffers at that event were all white. Now all of a sudden he needs the black vote? Hypocrite.

[babylonsister]

10. While I think Edwards may have sharpened his teeth in four years,

he's not my first choice either. But I'll be totally on board if need be.

[peace13]

11. Vote Kuicnich.

Vote for the changes that this country needs. Be the change you wish to see. Vote to get the Constitution back. All things good. Peace, Kim

[MethuenProgressive]

12. k&r

:kick:

[ecstatic]

13. He gave a beautiful speech in Iowa the other day, but he can't deliver

any of the promises he has been making. I'll support him if he's the nominee, but at this point I think we need someone in there who knows what she's doing. Edwards history in the senate is horrible, and he has personal baggage as well.

[mnhtnbb]

18. Hillary has more baggage than you can weigh!

[cali]

14. well said but you left out

one reason why Edwards could be a bad nominee for the dem party: Money. He's severerly limited as to what he can spend until the end of August.

[Armstead]

16. He convinced me he's no lightweight

I initially had similar doubts about Edwards.

But the more I've watched him this time around, I'm convinced that he is anything but a lightweight.

Perhaps his youthful looks, slim buld and higg voice make him look less substantial. I dunno.

However, as for having the machinery and the "sharp teeth," I think he's got the teeth, and would have the machine if backed by the Democratic Party and other supporters in the General.

I realize a candidate's "message" is often about political positioning. If so, then I still prefer hios message, and have long believed it needed to be acknowledged and embraced by mainstream candidates.

I wouldn't judge him now by his performance as the VP candidate. A VP is somewhat hamstrung by having to reflect the strategies and decisions andf message of the presidential candidate.

[Andy823]

21. Yes

The more I listen to him, the stronger my support is. I watched the tape of his town hall meeting yesterday on CSPAN, and it was great! He speaks from the heart, and I really believe him when he tells us what he will do to take this country back. I don't get that from the other two. Now Hillary and Obama can give a great speach, don't get me wrong, but I just don't have the same feeling that they will make the changes we need. I don't really think they will stand up to those special interests who have been pumping money into their run for the nomination.

Of all the two tier, only Edwards strikes me as being a "figher" not a lightweight!

[ProSense]

19. Agree,

easy to trip up, and there is no justification for some of his previous votes.

[bobbolink]

22. Why now? Because reports of him doing well are surfacing?

?

[Sulawesi]

28. Would that be so bad?

Few people comment negatively on those that are behind, there is no point...beats the hell out of Richardson and Biden being ignored...

[bobbolink]

31. It points out the fear.

[Cameron27]

23. I agree,

but in addition to what you wrote, I personally don't trust what he's saying now. I wish I did, it would make me a whole lot less nervous about him, but as much as I've tried, I just don't.

K&R

[Tess99]

25. Edwards is not a man who

should be taken at his word. He lied to Harry Smith this morning. Are democrats really falling for this guy? It's unbelievable. He's our very own Mitt Romney. Read this. Can Edwards supporters defend yet another lie from this man?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1207/Dept_of_understatement.html#comments

[LSK]

26. please read this

And tell me if you still trust him after you do.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3898749

[Cameron27]

33. That's an excerpt from Four Trials,

which is John Edwards talking about his civil lawsuits. I think it's admirable that he was able to bring justice to his clients, but why didn't he go further? If these cases were so important to him, why didn't he make it his mission to lobby for legislation that would have protected everyone from these companies or products.

After getting elected, how many bills did he sponsor to protect consumers from dangerous products, or what companies did he fight against? I'm not being snarky, I just don't know.

[itsrobert]

27. Yeah, we all thought George W. Bush was a light weight too.

Don't underestimate people.

[coco77]

29. Bush is a lightweight...

the only difference is that,his party stood behind him and went along with anything he did right or wrong. The Dems don't stand together and some are really republicons..

[kenfrequed]

34. Oh....but not Kucinich

This rant feels really anti-liberal, realpolitik, and "pragmatic" to me.

Sorry but I just can't buy it.

[many a good man]

36. He sounds like he really means what he says

He can give a really sincere motivating speech. Part of me wants to believe that he's had an epiphany the last four years and is truly committed to the populist message he delivers.

The only problem is so much is at odds with his record. He is way more populist now than when he was in the Senate. His IWR vote still bothers me. If nominated he will have harder time than most others defending his flip flops.

He and DK are the two delivering the message I agree with the most, unfortunately I don't think either would make successful presidents.

[Rowdyboy]

37. I also backed Clark in 2004 but Edwards is my 1st pick this time....

Guess its possible for two Democrats to respectfully disagree.

[eridani]

38. In 2004 he was lukewarm

This year he's sizzling hot. He's decided to take off the gloves.