The Repubs do want all of Edwards

[Tweed]

Bush's No. 1 thing going for him is national secruity. They would LOVE to run against a candidate with no foreign policy experience.
Look, Edwards is an up and coming star. He is a great Democrat. It just isn't his time yet. Rove would kill Edwards in the G.E. for being a trial lawyer with no international knowledge. The fact that the right-wing media is pushing him above Clark makes this pretty clear. I will be happy to support Edwards for President some day, but not for 2004. We need to win this one.

[lancdem]

1. I, too, think Kerry and Clark are our best bets

to challenge Bush on security issues, where he is vulnerable.

[Rooktoven]

2. National security will be a wash at best.

The reason they don't want Edwards is that he articulates most clearly (and charismatically) the harm Dubya is doing at home. Two Americas will be what the repubs hear when they can't fall asleep night.

[Eurobabe]

4. i will give you that

he could out-argue Chimpy with his mouth taped shut. I saw Edwards in NH at a rally, and he is clearly a logical thinker. Unlike the moron-in-charge. I would love to see THAT debate. But methinks Edwards is weak on national security.

[Tweed]

5. Yes, I'm a Democrat and I'm already sick of hearing about two Americas

That speech is pure dribble. "Somewhere in America, there is a 10 year old girl who will go to bed hunrgy tonight. She will go hungry because her dad lost his job two weeks earlier. The last meal she had was a cold hot dog. The heat had been turned off two hours and 14 minutes before. The girl could have put ketchup on the hot dog, but the mom used it on her week old potatoes three days ago. The potatoes were awful." That speech will be mocked again and again as I just did. It's not that black and white. You have all kinds of classes in America today. The two Americas speech isn't even accurate. If you take away National Security from Bush he has nothing. Why go for an arm wrestle when you can take the man out at the knees?

[AP]

3. 60+% of all voters already think Democrats are weaker on national security

than Republicans and that's DESPITE all the the service evaders in the Republican party, and all the war heros in the Democratic party.

If we run this election ON an issue that is so strong for Republicans we're going to lose.

The best way for Democrats to win is to run a candidate who makes voters think of all the Democratic party's STRENGHTS -- economic opportunity, public schools, hard work being rewarded, a compassion for the little guy, middle class opportunity.

[Tweed]

8. The race will be Bush vs. Clark/Kerry/Edwards not so much DNC vs. RNC

When voters go to the polls, they will be voting based on the candidate against the other candidate. Clark looks stronger on national defense then Bush. I suggest we broaden our strengths because it's possible. If you can attack Bush on several different levels, I suggest we do it. Using your logic, we could easily change the view of Democrats vs. Republicans. It's only 60%. Clark vs. Bush makes the Democratic party look stronger on defense. Let's change the public rather then going with the status quo!

[AP]

9. When FDR was faced with a fascist Republican attack exploting Hitler fear

FDR did NOT put on a uniform and pretend that he was going to bring law, order, and safety to America.

He put on a sweater, sat in an easy chair next to a fireplace and told us that it was more important to care about building up the power of the working man and woman (and his wife tried to help the black man).

This is why JFK didn't campaign in his naval uniform during the cold war, and why McGovern didn't campaign in his uniform during Vietnam, and Carter didn't campaign in his. And it's why Clark won't even campaign in a suit.

Unfortunately, Clark can't take off the suit in people's minds and can't take the "General" out from the front of his name. Furthermore, the image of Kerry walking through SE Asian jungles with an M16 might help him knock off Dems in the primaries at a time when Bill Frist is getting ricin sent to him, but I guarantee you this will NOT work in the GE. Just as FDR and JFK and McGovern knew that it's the persona of a Clinton that wins elections for Democrats, voters today might want to consider the implications of running on law order and safety against Republicans.

[Tweed]

10. It's just so easy with you Edwards people

Okay, first, FDR didn't have a uniform to put on.
Second, Clark talks about helping Americans quite often during his speeches. You might want to check out his tax plan for example.
Third, Clark hasn't been campaigning in his military uniform.
Fourth, I guarantee that John Edwards won't be able to remove John "no national security experience" Edwards from the middle of his name by Novemeber if he gets nominated

[AP]

11. because it's true.

FDR could have put on a uniform in the same way Clinton put on that flight suit.

Or he could have stepped aside and preserved Democratic victory by letting some war hero top the ticket.

He went in the opposite direction.

I guarantee you that Edwards will articulate a vision of America more people will want to embrace -- one that is way better than, "this world is a scary place...be afraid, and elect someone who knows the most about armies and guns and not so much about middle class opportunity."

[DaisyUCSB]

6. That might work if Bush wasn't the candidate he was facing

Edwards has probably worked more on intelligence issues and foriegn policy issues as a senator than Bush has as both a governor and president.

I'm for Clark but you would really be better off trying to take down Kerry a couple notches than Edwards

Edwards has become somewhat of a wonk on these issues, of course he'd never be as wonky on them as Clark but Edwards makes up for that in his debating/speech skills

[nannygoat]

7. The thing we need to pound home is that there has been another

terrorist attack--the ricin sent to Frist's, etc. offices--and that Georgie Porgie is obviously weak on national security issues since he couldn't protect even highly privileged and guarded senators and their offices.