Edwards is the Most Electable

[katieforeman]

All of these candidates are good men. But Edwards is undenaiably the best candidate to beat Bush. Here's why:

1.) Edwards really connects with people. I'm from Ohio, an incredibly important state in the general election, and I've had moederate Republicans as well as Democrats tell me, "You know who I really like, John Edwards." People vote for who they like, who understands their problems, and who seems genuine.

2.) If people voted based on experience in elected office Arnold Schwarzenager would not be the governor of the state with the fifth largest economy in the world and Al Gore would have won in a landslide. In fact, John Kerry's long career in the Senate gives the Republicans lots of ammo. His voting record was rated more liberal than Ted Kennedy's and Republicans will use this to paint him as a career politician out of touch with the American public. Kerry was Dukakis' Lt. Governor. Everything Republicans did to Dukakis, they will do to Kerry.

3.) Ask Max Cleland if his record of service as a Vietnam vet who lost three limbs in combat, stopped Republicans from picturing him with Osama Bin Laden. He lost to a Republican draft dodger in 2002. Kerry's vote against the first Iraq war and for the second, his votes to cut defense spending and his statement in the 1990's that the US spent too much on intelligence will be used by Republicans to paint Kerry as someone who panders to public opinion instead of leading. Clark's gaffs as well as his being fired by Bill Cohen and the statements by the Former Joint Cheif of Staff attacking Clark's intrgrity will be used to question Clark's leadership ability.

4.) John Edwards is not too young! John Kennedy was only 44 when he was elected president and that was during the height of the cold war. Bill Clinton was only 46 when he was elected and John Edwards is 50.

5.) John Edwards made a career of convincing juries (wich undoubtedly had some Republicans who dislike trial lawyers in general)to trust him and vote his way. Edwards would be the most effective advocate of Democratic values and polcies. He will wipe the floor with George Bush during the debates.

6.) Because John Edwards is so positive and optimistic it will be harder for the Republicans to attack him without looking bad.

7.) John Edwards background as the son of a millworker contrasts perfectly with George Bush's aristocratic upbringing. Kerry being married to an heiress does not help defeat George Bush.

8.) A John Edwards candidacy would force George Bush to spend resources and time in the South.

9.) People vote for Prsident not Vice-President. We need John Edwards on the stage debating George Bush.

10.) Elizabeth Edwards is his secret weapon. She is amazing on the stump and would be a huge asset to the campaign.

Finally, with John Edwards the Democrats have Bill Clinton minus Monica, Paula and Jennifer. We would be crazy to pass up this opportunity. I think the Republicans are really scared of an Edwards candidacy because they can't run their usual playbook.

Vote John Edwards!!

[TakebackAmerica]

1. two words:

Clark-Edwards.

[PurityOfEssence]

14. Absolutely! By far and away

There's nothing they can hit him with other than the allegation that lawyers like him have driven up healthcare costs. He fought this off very successfully against Faircloth, and he can do it again.

More importantly, if they bring up healthcare costs, then he can blast them for being in the pockets of the rapacious insurance industry (that mines malpractice premiums to cover their other business losses) the pharmaceutical companies and other medicine for profit. He will beat them hands down at that.

He's got charisma to burn, and his essential message is that America is good; this always plays well. He can't have 20 years of votes picked apart and misrepresented, and he can't be tarred as some eastern intellectual.

He would demolish Junior in a debate in a way that neither Kerry nor Clark could; Kerry would be dry and authoritative--alienating the stupid and bumkins--and Clark is far too spotty in debates.

He's ALREADY beating Bush in a hypothetical matchup in the most recent CNN/Gallup polls, and hardly anybody knows him yet.

There's no comparison: he's got more favorables and far less negatives than either of the other two, and none of the rest is viable.

[katieforeman]

16. Excellent Analysis

[Carolina]

23. that's

my idea of a winning ticket too. Two guys from humble backgrounds who made it on their own through native intelligence and educational opportunity.

Edwards is a cutie pie with a great stump speech persona; Clark is a quick study, handles Q&A sessions masterfully. Gert and Elizabeth are both great.

[worldgonekrazy]

2. I tend to agree with you

But I also think it is possible that Edwards would not be convincing enough in the Commander in Chief role. As much as I hate it, this will be a big issue and thus gives Kerry and Clark a push. Ultimately though, I think Edwards has far more charisma than any other candidate.

[Old and In the Way]

3. Nice Post!

Hope your candidate does well. John is a good man and would make a great nominee if he can show viability in the primaries today.

[katieforeman]

19. thanks

Good luck to you to. John Kerry would be my choice as the second most electable and I respect him personally.

[connecticut yankee]

4. I couldn't agree with you more.

And, as we all know, the most important thing is to defeat Dubya.

I would vote for my cat if I thought she could do it.

Edwards is a fine, upstanding, intelligent man. Tony Blair is young and charismatic, and (at least for the present) is PM of Great Britain. I don't think anyone has said he's immature or inexperienced.

[katieforeman]

6. You're Right!

Tony Blair is a perfect analogy! Edwards and Blair are a lot alike. They are both incredibly persuasive attorney's who effectively advoacate progressive causes.

[Bombtrack]

5. I think that Edwards is the second most electable

just slightly behind Clark.

It's about timing. On the issues. On geography.

Of all the candidates, it makes the most sense that Clark has the best chance of turning around dem prospects in Arkansas, and somewhat in surrounding states like Louisiana.

Contrasted with Edwards, who has more of a probability of improving our sitution in North Carolina, and perhaps Georgia and Tennessee as well.

But the latter states are immensly more out of reach for the party within the next couple of years than are Arkansas and Louisiana.

I believe that by 2008, with a successful dem administration(or an unpopular GOP one) that population trends could make those southeast coast states more towards the center, but it's unrealistic to say that pinning our hopes on splitting the south there is wiser than looking to split the south in Arkansas and Louisiana, states that are clearly more likely to be competative for the party.

Secondly, foriegn policy will be more important a political issue in this election, and more important a policy issue in the next years than it has since Vietnam.

It is just more prudent in my opinion to run an expert against Bush on those issues this time around

[Hoppin_Mad]

7. Plus he's pro-war, and America loves a good war ! Next stop Syria !

They have oil, right ?

[Bombtrack]

13. about as pro-war as Dean

I don't even know why I respond to the constant Dean-campaign-propaganda-regurgation anymore.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bowens43]

9. Edwards is ok but

his lack of experience is rivaled only that of Clark and Sharpton. I'd rather see him as VP and then as President. Being a North Carolinian I was very disappointed when he decided not to run for the Senate again.

Your points:


#1. I agree he's a nice guy but that is not a reason to give him the nomination.

#2. I LIKE Kerry's voting record for the most part . Nothing wrong with being a liberal. Those who consider 'liberal' to be a dirty word won't vote for a Democrat under any circumstances and we don't need their votes.

#3. I agree that the candidates military records are irrelevant and should not be considered when choosing a candidate.

#4. Who said he was too young? I haven't heard that one.

#5. That's what we said about Gore. We really don't know how well any of the candidates would do against bush in a debate. But my guess is that ANY of them (even Clark) would easily beat him.

6#. I agree with this one. Edwards has for the most part been very positive.

7#. I agree with this one too.

8#. and this one. But the same argument could be made for a Clark candidacy.

9#. Agreed but this isn't a reason for giving the nomination to Edwards unless you have already decided that edwards would be the best candidate (and I haven't).

10#. I like Judy Dean more then any of the wives I've seen.

[chimpymustgo]

10. Every person I have asked in the past week: so, who do you like?

Edwards. This includes a friend from Virginia who called last night, a friend who called from Oregon over the weekend, and FOUR other couples at a dinner party last weekend.

When asked, people say, a little uncertainly (to a person) "you know, I like John Edwards" - as if they are surprised by their own admission. I know people supporting Kerry and Clark as well, but even they say they'd like to see Edwards on the ticket.

This guy has something special.

[katieforeman]

11. Absolutely!

And that's what wins elections!

[Carolina]

28. totally agree

All of my relatives are yellow-dog Democrats who truly would vote for a golden retriever before casting a vote for anyone with 'R' next their name. That said, NONE of them like Kerry and I have a hard time convincing them to go with Clark because almost all (there's one Dean person) are saying the same thing: "ya know, I like that guy John Edwards."

Here in Columbia, SC many of the so-called independents (it ain't popular to say you're a Dem) are split between Edwards and Clark. NONE like Kerry.

From this southern perspective, Kerry is our Bob Dole or worse, Dukakis redux :scared:

[spooky3]

29. hmm, much as I wish that held true throughout SC

according to the polls, a lot of folks plan to vote for Kerry over Edwards.

[Carolina]

34. I know

:-( my family is not very big and we're spread out in SC, DC, MD and CA.

Campaigning this weekend, I cannot tell you how many people I encountered who decided to go with a "winner" meaning Kerry despite the fact that I pointed out repeatedly that Bill Clinton also lost NH and Iowa to a MA Senator. The media and Washington insiders have done good job touting Kerry's alleged electability.

I sure as hell hope they're right. In early 2002, I was a Kerry-Edwards ticket person, but was really put off by Kerry's IWR vote and his non votes on Medicare. If he prevails, I will hold my nose and vote for him in the GE but no more money and no more active campaigning. I'll be saving up and weighing my relocation options especially since I have a draft age son.

[efront]

12. I'm dreaming of the day Edwards is

on stage debating *. He will cut him to pieces, and do it in a manner that doesn't come across as mean spirited. You know Rove and Co. are dreading that match-up.

[katieforeman]

74. After tonight we are one step closer to seeing

Edwards on the stage debating Bush. Once that happens the White House will be back in the hands of Democrats where it belongs.

[Auntie Bush]

15. Clark/Edwards "Yes"------- Edwards/ ? "No" n/t

[citizen snips]

17. Welcome to DU katieforeman!

It is good to see new Edwards supporters here at DU. :hi:

[katieforeman]

18. Thanks Mattman

Let's keep getting the word out.

[Leilani]

20. John Edwards is the most likeable candidate

But this is not a popularity contest.

The Repukes will run on terror, national security, war, terror, national security, war etc.

I really think his national security & foreign policy credentials are not strong enough.

[dolstein]

22. "This is not a popularity contest"

Please tell that to Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and Al Gore. All of them lost to candidates despite the fact that polls shows that voters favored their positions on the issues.

Sorry, but Democrats need to realize that elections are very much popularity contests, and that simply "being right" on the issues isn't enough. Not only is Edwards right on the issues, but he's able to connect with voters in a way Kerry never could. Moreover, he's the only candidate right now who can clearly articulate just why it is voters should replace Bush. Every other stump speech I've heard from other candidates is just a laundry list of policy proposals interspersed with a few personal anecdotes and some focus-group tested catch phrases. Edwards, on the other hand, has treated his stump speech the way he would a closing argument before a jury. And it's a very forceful argument.

[spooky3]

24. Most people see little policy difference among the top 4 Democrats

and Lieberman. I think this point was made on a much earlier thread by ArtieBoy (forgive me if I've misremembered). People in general just aren't as interested in politics as we are, so they aren't going to delve into policy proposals and past votes. They believe there are differences between Republicans and Democrats, but within each group, far less difference, and they are largely correct, IMHO and according to poli sci research showing that you can almost perfectly classify Congresspeople if you know their votes. Many figure that anyone who has made it this far has enough experience for the job, whether it is as a governor, as a long term Senator, as a General, or as someone who succeeded in the private sector AND served as Senator. For the vast majority of voters, I DO think they want to find someone they like and trust, before they are motivated to vote. And for many people, Edwards will fill that bill. For others, another candidate will charm them more, and that's ok. I agree with people who have pointed out that that is why Clinton kept coming back and remains popular, despite the HUGE smear campaign (and his own missteps) the RW turned against him.

Fortunately, Edwards also has the excellent, detailed proposals to accompany the charm, so we are not asked to trade off charm for depth.

[spooky3]

27. and even today, polls show that most people disagree with *

on most positions, yet many still "like" him and may not even realize they differ with him!

[Carolina]

31. exactly

they are popularity contests. It's unfortunate that the electorate and media don't examine the issues, don't recognize the value of experience and intelligence, but rather go with the who do you like best...

Shallow things like looks play a role too. How else to explain Kerry's makeover?

[Leilani]

41. Sure popularity is important

But I would put forth the argument that foreign policy & military strength had an influence in each of the elections.

Remember Carter vs Reagan: our hostages in Iran

Dukakis vs Bush Sr. : Remember Dukakis in the tank?

I could go on...economy, taxes(Mondale), lots of things went into these elections, but Repukes always run on national security & they will again.

[spooky3]

43. but Reagan didn't have a strong military & foreign p. background. He

was just an alternative to Carter, and Iran's timing was designed to push Carter out of office. Yes, he did serve in the military but so did Carter, as I recall (Navy for Carter).

The economy was tanking at that time. Reagan hammered at that.

I see more similarities between Dukakis and Kerry than anything else, from the standpoint of the typical voter. Both had strong liberal-from-MA credentials, but speeches were not their forte.

[katieforeman]

45. I agree with your point and..

I don't think Reagan actually served in WWII except mayby in training films. I'm sure he never went to Europe or Asia for combat.

[katieforeman]

44. Sure Security is important but...

Remember Bill Clinton, a man who didn't serve in Vietnam, beat a commander and cheif who won a decisive victory in the Gulf War.

Carter, a Navy veteran, lost to Reagan who confused starring in a war movie with fighitng in WWII. Reagan had absolutely no foreign policy experience when he was electe annd as you pointed out this was during a foreign policy crisis.

Furthermore, military experience does not make someone a credible on National Defense. Again just ask Max Cleland who lost in 2002 when National Security was also an important issue.

To be credible on defense, a candidate must seem like a leader. Republicans will point out inconsistencies in statements by Clark and Kerry to attack their integrity. They will paint them as candidates who pander to public opinion instead of leading. I know this characterization is unfair. But when has that ever stopped them before.

[magnolia]

21. I agree....

I've always said...Edwards is Bill Clinton without the baggage. And he's so damn good looking! Next to Edwards...Bush would look like the weasel that he is!

IMO...all the candidates are great. But...the fact is.... those of us on this board would vote for a potted plant rather than Bush...so it's really the undecideds we need to think about. All things considered...Edwards would be the most electable and with a VP with military background he'd be unstoppable.

[corporatewhore]

25. he is the most electable in.......

the looks primary\
but sadly thats how some americasns vote :cry:

[ChiefJoseph]

26. I agree. Edwards is most electable.

I don't like Clark, though. I'm new, so I don't know if I'm allowed to say this...but Clark is the only one of the candidates that I would have real trouble voting for. Frankly, I'm fairly contemptuous of him.

[spooky3]

30. Welcome to DU, ChiefJoseph.

[ChiefJoseph]

32. Thanks!

:kick:

[HFishbine]

33. Too bad he's a liar

" I've never taken any money from Washington lobbyists"

- John Edwards, New Hampshire Debate, Jan. 22, 2004
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39875-2004Jan22?language=printer)

Edwards, accepts at least $6,200 from lobbyists in 2003.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=7&u=/ap/20040203/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_lobbyists

[bowens43]

36. Actually , he didn't lie.

According to the article you linked to the money wasn't from 'Washington lobbyists' it was from 'state lobbyists'.

[HFishbine]

40. FACT CHECK

Actually, the article quotes an Edwards' spokesperson as saying that the money was from state lobbyists, but she's lying too:

BALDICK, NICHOLAS - CONGRESSIONAL LOBBYIST
BETHESDA,MD 20817
DEWEY SQUARE GROUP/CONSULTANT
3/28/2003
$1,950

http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/opr_viewer.exe?2003412185REG~0

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=&txtState=%28all+states%29&txtZip=&txtEmploy=dewey&txtCand=edwards%2C+john&txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&txt2000=Y&Order=N
(http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/lobbyist.asp?ID=107687&year=2000

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY
Lobbying firm for RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co.
3/26/2003
$2,000
ROLLINS, VICTORIA - CONGRESSIONAL LOBBYIST

http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/opr_viewer.exe?2003441443REG~0

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=&txtState=%28all+states%29&txtZip=&txtEmploy=WILLIAMS&txtCand=edwards%2C+john&txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&txt2000=Y&Order=N

[katieforeman]

42. These are really minor issues

A $2000 contribution is nothing when you're talking about a President who's raising 10s of millions from lobbyists.

[HFishbine]

48. The issue is Edwards' truthfullness

The issue is not the amount of money, it is the fact that Edwards can look his audiences in the eye and lie with a straight face.

[katieforeman]

51. I think Edwards is truthful

Did he know these people were lobbyists. Were they lobbyists at the time they made the donation? Did these two dodnors disclose their status?

[HFishbine]

58. You decide

Did he know? Probably. One was a lobbyist for a NC industry, the other he hired as his campaign manager. He probably was quite aware that they are lobbyists. But, he certainly knew after the Charlotte Observer wrote about him accepting lobbyist contributions, so for him to continue to say he hasn't is quite simply, a lie.

[DjTj]

46. I wish they would tell us whether or not they checked the box...

...marked "I am not registered as a federal lobbyist pursuant to the Lobbying Disclosure Act or the Foreign Agents Registration Act."

Nick Baldick left his lobbying job and is now John Edwards' campaign manager. I'm sure of all people, he would not be the one to break John's promise.

I would guess that the other firm checked the lobbyist box also. I don't have any insider knowledge about that and someone will have to ask them or the campaign about that person's status.

[littlejoe]

35. No way could Edwards be elected.

He has absolutely zero experience. The only reason no one can say anything bad about him, is because he hasn't done anything.

[bowens43]

37. He has more experience then Clark

and way more experience then Bush had when he ran in 2000. Your argument doesn't hold water.

[katieforeman]

39. Tell this to Arnolod Schwarzenager

[DjTj]

47. Welcome to DU Katie!

...good thing Ahnold can't run for President.

...and 5 years in the Senate sure doesn't sound like "zero experience" to me.

[katieforeman]

49. Thanks for your welcome.

It's great to hear from so many Edwards supporters.

[progressivebydesign]

38. I don't believe in the whole "electability" thing as it is today.. BUT..

I DO believe that Edwards would make a fine President. He is not my first choice, but I'd be way happy to see him as my Democratic Nominee. I'm just bummed that the other canididates are being pushed to move aside for Kerry... that inevitability thing just bothers me so much. I hope Edwards shocks a lot of pundits and polls and kicks butt today. Dean/Edwards? Edwards/Dean???

[pezcore64]

50. ...

I tend to believe he may be too, tho i am a Dean supporter.

My mother is a pretty big Edwards fan , and i like him alot myself. If Dean drops out and Edwards stays in longer, Ill be voting for Edwards in my states primary(Not till freakin' May). Id love to see an Edwards/Dean or Dean/Edwards ticket(either way, doesnt matter to me). I think theys give the republicans a SPANKING like theyve never had before.
I just feel very un-easy about Kerry becoming the nominee. Dont get me wrong, Ill definitely vote for Kerry come GE if hes our guy, but until then I just dunno about him.

So yeah
to sum it up

VOTE DEAN or EDWARDS!

;)

[SangamonTaylor]

52. He's my number one choice...

after reading his book Four Trials.

John Edwards' greatest experience is the 20 years that he spent representing ordinary people who were wronged by HMO's, negligent doctors, and corporations.

He has served on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Comittee..

As a U.S. Senator he has As has helped pass a $4.6 billion bioterrorism bill to help localities and cities respond to an attack. He worked to strengthen security at our ports and supported to protect our nation’s computer system. Last, he fought to help pass $3.5 billion in direct funding for our local cities and towns to they would finally receive the resources they needed to protect Americans.

He truly is Bill Clinton without the baggage!

[katieforeman]

53. I just made another donation to get a copy of 4 Trials and

I can't wait to read it. You make excellent points about the experience he does have.

[TexasSissy]

54. You're in La La Land. Edwards in a few years, maybe. Not now.

He's too inexperienced...he's a trial lawyer (most people don't like plaintiff trial lawyers).

Hey, I'd run, not walk, to go vote for him. But Bush's campaign machine would smush Edwards in no time. He's a youngster in politics.

[mlawson]

55. Lincoln had two years experience in the House; the rest was as a

trial lawyer... Why do people keep repeating this same thing about Edwards??? Sheeesh...

[katieforeman]

60. Excellent point!

[katieforeman]

59. Did you read my original posting?

A youngster in politics beats a lifelong politician anyday. Look at Arnold Schwarzeneger.

Edwards experience as a Senator gives him way more expertise in foreign affarirs than Bush had when he ran the first time.

If his career as a trial lawyer is the best they can do. I say bring it on. Attacking Edwards on this basis didn't work for the former Republican Senator Edwards beat. It's hard to attack Edwards on that issue without attacking his very sympathetic clients. Furthermore, that's only one storyline. It takes new charges and countercharges to feed the press. John Kerry's long voting record and Clark's propensity for gaffs will feed cable news with new stories everyday.

[jpgpenn]

56. your kidding right?

I mean you are really, truly kidding right?

[genius]

57. I hope all the trial attorneys make it to the polls.

Actually, there is an over-population of attorneys in America and the attorney vote could make the difference in an election.

By the way, I'm not joking.

[ozone_man]

61. Edwards is the leading reciprient of contributions from lawyers.

Lawyer contributions, Edwards beats Bush.

1 Edwards, John $7,449,190
2 Bush, George W $6,299,340
3 Kerry, John $3,302,899
4 Gephardt, Richard A $2,074,963
5 Lieberman, Joe $1,588,296
6 Dean, Howard $979,48

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=K

But my favorite statistic is now the distribution of contributions in dollars.

Edwards 3% under $200
Kerry 12% under $200
Dean 56% under $200

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/donordems.asp?format=&sortby=2

Do you want someone who represents the people or do want someone who represents lawyers?

[katieforeman]

62. Last time I checked lawyers are people too!

[ozone_man]

63. They certainly are, but the point is

that they can contribute too much money to the campaign process and get disproportionate representation, not to mention influence peddling.

[katieforeman]

64. I still disagree.

There are all didfferent kinds of lawyers. District attorneys, defense attorneys, corporate lawyers, trial lawyers, tax attorneys, patent attorneys, divorce attorneys. Environmental advocacy groups employ attorneys to advocate for the environment and human health. Corporate attorneys advocate for polluters.

My point is that attorneys are not a single monolithic interest group and many of them work to advance liberal causes. Bill Clinton actually was an attorney- do you think he gave dispropotionate representation to attorneys?

[ozone_man]

67. More than half of Edwards contributors were at the $2,000 limit.

The average person cannot afford that much, but more like $100 is typical. Why should one candidate get to receive 20 times the average donation of another candidate? Saying it another way, it allows certain candidates to advertise to a much larger extent than is representative of the number of people contributing to them. So in essence, it is trial lawyers (in this case) that are paying for the advertising, not the average wage earner. It goes against the one "man" one vote concept.

[katieforeman]

69. That's life- deal with it.

Why should George Bush get to collect hundreds of millions in from $2000 checks? That's what we are up against. My whole point is that Edwards is the most electable. I doubt many voters care about $2000 contributions. They are legal afterall.

[genius]

65. The lawyers are the ones keeping you out of jail

Everytime attorneys win a case against the Bush gestapo, they are winning one for everyone here. Have some respect and say "thank you."

[ozone_man]

68. How about the ones keeping Ken Lay out of jail?

You're going to have a tough time convincing me that Edwards with 65% of contributors over $2,000 and 3% of contributors under $200 is going to be representing the average person. That's all I'm saying.

[katieforeman]

70. He'll represent the average person much better than Bush

To represent the average person the first step is getting GW out of the White House. To do that we need an electable Democrat like John Edwards. You can't honestly beleive George Bush represents ordinary people.

Furthermore, John Edwards represented ordinary people whem he was an attorney.

[DjTj]

71. John Edwards is the only candidate that speaks about poverty...

...in every one of his speeches.

He speaks for the people who can't even afford to donate to a campaign, can't volunteer for his campaign, and many of whom won't even vote.

That's what makes me believe in him.

[katieforeman]

72. So true!

I'm glad we support the same candidate. Sometimes I get so caught up in convincing people why I think Edwards can win, I forget to emphasize what he stands for.

I also like the way Edwards is the only candidate who talks about poverty as a moral issue we must face as a nation.

[DjTj]

73. The poverty talk...

...is what makes me believe he represents the average person.

He doesn't just talk about using rich peoples' money to help the poor, he's actually taking rich peoples' money and using it to spread a message about helping the poor.

That's putting your money where your mouth is.

[Casablanca]

66. How will he explain his complicity in the Patriot Act and the Iraq War?

Without appearing to be on the defensive that is.

[jab105]

75. Agreed...

Edwards is our strongest candidate right now...

and I have been a Dean supporter since April...long and hard to say, but it would be a stronger candidacy...

[katieforeman]

76. Thanks for coming on board

I so appreciate everything Dean has done to re-energize our party, but I think in the end we need to rally around the candidate who will beat Bush.

Mayby Dean could have a cabinet position in an Edwards administration.