Analysis by David Sirota of Edwards as the People Party Candidate of 08

[mnhtnbb]

over on dailykos

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/5/104544/1056

Who represents the money and who represents the people?

Lots of give and take with over 500 comments.

Definitely worth the read

[BeyondGeography]

1. Let's nominate another guy who can't win his own state

a Southerner who doesn't do squat for us in the South.

Flame away all you want about how Edwards was misused by Kerry, you Edwards supporters, but losing by 12 points at home in a presidential campaign is grounds for disqualification in my book.

[Bicoastal]

3. 2004 was a different election.

We were 2 years into the war.

We had captured Saddam 1 year earlier.

Bush popularity was in the mid-50's.

It was before Terry Schiavo, Michael Brown, Nancy Pelosi, Scooter Libby, and Alberto Gonzales were news fixtures.

The GOP still controlled the House, Senate, and Governer's seats.

We cannot judge this election by the standards of the last one--it's a whole new ballgame.

[BeyondGeography]

7. I know...last election Edwards defended IWR

now he's "sorry."

Oct. 8, 2004:

``The vote on the resolution was the right vote, even in hindsight,'' Edwards, a first-term U.S. senator from North Carolina, said in an interview aboard his campaign plane on Oct. 8 (2004). ``It was the right vote to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein,'' he said.

New election, new Edwards, new results in North Carolina.

Not buying.

[mnhtnbb]

14. Take a look at some current primary poll numbers

South Carolina
Clinton 34%
Edwards 31%
Obama 10%
The rest are at 2% and 1%

SC is a must win for John and so far he looks good, very good. I would say with a 3% margin of error, Clinton and Edwards are running neck and neck, Edwards won the state in the 04 primaries, he should pull it off in '08 and notice Biden is 13% behind Clinton in his home state yet Edwards polls neck and neck with her in a state he was born in but did not represent. Shows strong support in SC where 50% of the vote is African American and Obama only poll's at 10%, thats encouraging.

North Carolina
Edwards 30%
Clinton 26%
Obama 19%

Edwards represented the state in the Senate and has the backing of Congressmen Shuler, Watt, Miller and McIntyre. If they stump for Edwards in their districts, he should be fine.


Actually, an edit is appropriate in the above. Edwards has the endorsement of all seven Democratic Representatives from the State of NC.



http://www.politicaltruthusa.com/2007/03/new-poll-numbers.html


So who are you going to nominate that's going to do better in NC than Edwards?
Somebody who isn't even in the race? Hillary will bomb. Obama hasn't
generated any enthusiasm here. Neither one of them has a prayer of taking NC, whereas Edwards has a damn good chance.

[spooky3]

37. not only that, but I think he'd do better in the general election there,

where Repubs and Independents vote as well, than would either Clinton or Obama.

[mnhtnbb]

4. We know we had election shenanigans in NC. Machines that dropped votes

One week prior to the election, Kerry/Edwards had pulled within the margin of error in NC (less than 5%) to Bush/Cheney according to local polls. We have a huge military population. The Defense Dept. was coordinating the absentee ballots.

While all the attention was focused on Ohio, I don't doubt for a second
that there may have been problems with the integrity of the election
in NC.

We've had polls recently that suggest a generic Dem will beat a generic Repub.

And the military is fed up. It may not be popular knowledge, but they know they've been used and abused by Bush. Elizabeth is loved here, and respected
for her military family background.

That said, the demographics continue to change here, in favor of turning
NC blue. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Edwards' ability to take NC if he's at the top of the ticket.

[BeyondGeography]

10. Honest, snark-free question here for anyone out there

Has anyone ever won a presidential election without winning his home state?

[mnhtnbb]

11. You assume Edwards would lose his home state. Last time he ran on his own

without a damned Yankee attached, he won.

And I'm a damned Yankee.

[BeyondGeography]

12. That's not an answer, but thanks anyway

[mnhtnbb]

15. see my post #14.

[BeyondGeography]

21. The 2004 results suggest Edwards isn't terribly popular in his home state

My question remains, has anyone ever won a presidential election without winning his home state? We know it's possible (Gore won in 2000* and lost Tennessee), but has it ever happened before? I'm not getting on you for not knowing, as I don't have the answer either.

It might seem a frivolous question, but losing at home hurt did cost Gore a clear victory. Clinton will take NY (check), Obama will win Illinois (check), Richardson will win NM (check), etc., but the last time Edwards ran in a presidential race in his home state (with a Yankee, granted) he lost by 12 points.

[mnhtnbb]

24. I don't think it's the right question. When was the last time a Dem

really turned out Southern voters?

It was Carter in 1976.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter#1976_presidential_campaign


Bill Clinton did it to some degree, but not the way Carter did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1992


You aren't going to turn the South with Hillary or Obama at the top of the ticket.

[BeyondGeography]

26. So why waste the nomination on a Southerner?

That's the Thomas Schaller/Whistling Past Dixie argument, and it's not a bad one. If it's a battle for Edwards to win his own state, where is his geographical base? Why not go with a candidate who has roots in a region that is more favorable to us?

Kerry didn't pick Edwards so he could win NC, it was in part to broaden his appeal to rural white voters, where we got creamed anyway largely because of Rovian lifestyle ploys and gay marriage initiatves that were planted by the Republicans all over the country. Tough task for Edwards, granted, but it's hard to see what he did for that ticket.

[mnhtnbb]

38. Yeah, it's damned hard to see what Kerry did for that ticket

[AshevilleGuy]

39. Yeah. We wasted them on Carter, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore, after all.

The last time a non-Southern Dem won the WH was John Kennedy in 1960. I am convinced that only Al Gore, Edwards or Jim Webb could win the general election next year (out of the Dems), preferably some combination of two of them.

Bill Clinton would win it walking away, but he can't run again.

[jcrew2001]

34. Blue staters can't win red states - is that your point?

So we HAVE to nominate another northeasterner because those are BLUE STATES?

That's why we lost last time, because we didn't broaden our appeal to the south and mid-west.

NC is a blue state now, esp with all the migration to Research Triangle. Edwards will def swing the "native son" vote to Blue, don't worry about that.

The Repubs won because Bush carried the South - so we NEED the south, we Can't ignore it. Otherwise, we'll be losers once again.

[BeyondGeography]

36. The Midwest/Southwest is more like it as a starting point

We can easily win the presidency by carrying Fla. in the South and nothing more. I don't share your optimism on NC, but I hope you're right.

[1932]

45. Gore.

[w4rma]

52. I agree. I think North Carolina is close behind Virginia in turning blue. (nt)

[jcrew2001]

35. But what states can Obama win?

Or anyone else. I don't want a tie in Ohio.

I want a candidate who can win a decisive majority of the US and re-capture the nation.

If we're going to play it safe at our Home Stadium of Illinois or New york, massachusetts, we're going to lose all the red state, yet again - and lose the election, yet AGAIN.

We need to grow some balls and attack the South - win Decisively.

[cadmium]

40. Obama can win the south as well as anyone else. By saying that he

cannot win the South are you suggesting that a black person cannot win the south or that a person from Illinois cannot win the south? Edwards has not shown that he can win the South--Bill Clinton has, Wes Clark may, and I think the south would take a more favorable look at Al Gore again. None of them look like they are running

[jcrew2001]

49. Both - the south is a difficult place to win

some states are swing - viriginia, west virginia, tennesee, arkansas, NC, florida, Louisiana.

Some states have large black populations like Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia - but that is offset by the white voters who all vote republican.

Wes Clark probably has the best chance because the southern repubs like military people. But he's also not very well known. Gore is disliked even in Tenn, so I'm very doubtful. Edwards has the jury-speak which will help convince many southerners to pick him. NC is very Blue and is ready for their next president.

[Czolgosz]

2. Great link. Here is the part of the analysis that made most sense to me:

To date, it's fair to say Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's campaigns have been about themselves. Whether that's their own fault, a deliberate strategy or a media distortion is not important - the fact is, neither of these candidates has made any headway in staking out themes any more coherent than fuzzy poll-tested rhetoric like "leadership" or "hope," textbook rhetoric of history's past false prophets and vapid cults of personality - and that's the good stuff. ...

Edwards, by contrast, has been extremely disciplined in making economic class issues the central focus of his race (he has also taken a strong, consistent stand on the war first by apologizing for his initial vote, and then unequivocally supporting aggressive efforts to end it). Whether he was kicking off his campaign in hurricane-battered New Orleans or using his clout to help union drives, he has worked very hard to shine a light on the "two Americas" crisis that has, unfortunately, been aided and abetted by the Wall Street-Clinton administration pact which still dominates the Democratic Party establishment in Washington, D.C. Edwards among the three is the only one who has shown a commitment to taking stands on the core economic issues that Wall Street would rather no Democratic candidates even talk about. On "free" trade and the ability of K Street lobbyists to buy off politicians, for instance, he's been a populist champion since way back in 2004.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/5/104544/1056

[underpants]

5. Damn you beat me by 14 minutes

Really good article.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=272915&mesg_id=272915

[mnhtnbb]

6. LOL. Seems a little more Edwards friendly over there.

[Czolgosz]

8. A little more progressive, a little more Edwards friendly, a little less Kucinich hostile ...

[madfloridian]

9. Sirota wrote about The People Party vs The Money Party.....

The People Party leaders and the Money Party leaders...Who's who among Democrats.

He names names of the leaders of both parts of the party.

Money Party leaders:

"Money Party Leaders

Sen. Chuck Schumer and Reps. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) and Steny Hoyer (D-MD): All three of these men, now in leadership positions, have made very little effort to conceal that they answer to Big Money interests.

Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA): Tauscher has been one of the most aggressive spokespeople for the Money Party, using her position to undercut major Democratic efforts to address core economic issues from a middle-class perspective.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (CfL-CT)"

Amd he includes anyone who signed the letter about bringing the bankruptcy bill to a vote.

I agree with him on this issue. Edwards has been working away on these issues. The Poverty Conference is one example.

http://www.dfalink.com/event.php?id=4511

[zulchzulu]

13. Sirota's basic assessment of Clinton/Obama/Edwards scenario is flawed

He makes a point that Senator Clinton and Obama's campaign are "about themselves" and that the Edwards campaign is about the people and not him at all.

This is flawed to the core. Is that to say that people who support Edwards are more for the issues he talks about than who he is? Has Edwards taken out the "son of a mill worker" angle in his speeches? It's not about Edwards like the other top tier candidates?

Personally, like others have said, he didn't a very good job running as a VP candidate in 2004. I wish all the best on his candidacy, but will be working grassroots for who I feel is a better candidate.

[Cameron27]

16. Absolutely correct.

Edwards is no more selfless than any of the others campaigning.

If my guy doesn't run ----> GOBAMA!

[AtomicKitten]

50. right again

[mnhtnbb]

17. Actually Edwards has changed the focus of his campaign. I was a Deaniac

in 03. Ewards really is pressing the issues and encouraging community activism.
Sounds more like Dean did in 03.

I have a newfound respect for Edwards.

[madfloridian]

18. Edwards has been pursuing a more populist course for a while.

He is ahead of the others in addressing issues.

[karynnj]

28. But Obama was a community advocate for 3 years

in inner city Chicago. His life as advocate, civil rights lawyer, Il Senate etc gives him the history to claim that he is an activist. Even Hillary, can point to work she did on education when Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. This is a Democratic issue. Likewise, I would guess every Democrat will have a strong environmental plank.

The idea that just because Edwards speaks about something - he owns the issue, is ludicrous.
I don't have a candidate now and am looking - and I will be looking for action to back up words. I am glad though that Edwards is speaking of these issues - I just wish his supporters (not you, Sirota) didn't feel the need to ignore the actions of the candidates.

[rinsd]

30. It has more to do with Sirota's anger at Obama and Clinton than anythign else

Whiny little shit is still pissed that Clinton and Obama weren't more active in Lamont's general election campaign.

He is still pissed at Obama's endorsement of Lieberman on March 31st at a CT Dem fundraising dinner.

Obama's words:

"I know that some in the party have differences with Joe," Senator Obama said, all but silencing the crowd. "I'm going to go ahead and say it. It's the elephant in the room. And Joe and I don't agree on everything. But what I know is, Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America."

Then, with applause beginning to build, he finished the thought: "I am absolutely certain that Connecticut's going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate." That time, people cheered loudly."

This was a time when Lamont was barely a pimple on Joe-mentum's butt trailing him by some 50pts.

The endorsement had little effect as Lamont closed the gap and beat Lieberman.

After the primary, Obama was asked to come campaign for Lamont. Obama did not. He instead sent out a mass e-mail endorsement.

Here it is:

(Barack Obama sent out an email to his CT list supporting Ned Lamont earlier today – Tim)

Ned Lamont has waged an impressive grassroots campaign to give the people of Connecticut a choice in the November Senate election. He has a vision for his state and country, and his campaign has been about presenting that vision to Connecticut voters.

Ned Lamont and I share a commitment to bringing our troops home safely from Iraq, to achieving energy independence, to helping all our citizens realize the American dream, and to empowering the American people to reclaim their government. Ned Lamont’s campaign is about delivering on these goals in Washington.

The November 7th election is right around the corner. Please join me in supporting Ned Lamont with your hard work on-the-ground in these closing weeks of the campaign.

http://www.nedlamont.com/downthestretch

We all watched Ned’s improbable primary victory two months ago. His campaign generated a record turnout that saw 30,000 new Democrats vote to change course at home and abroad.

Ned earned the Democratic Senate nomination through his hard work and clear message. And his victory paved the way for an entire crop of Democratic challengers to stand up and fight for the common good. Today the candidacies of Diane Farrell, Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy are integral to the Democrats’ strategy to regain the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

A majority of Connecticut Democrats supported Ned Lamont in the August primary. I hope they will see this impressive movement through to the end by volunteering their time with Ned in these next two weeks.

http://www.nedlamont.com/downthestretch

Sincerely,



U.S. Senator Barack Obama

See in Sirota's fucked up little world, not doing what he says amounts to betrayal.

[zulchzulu]

43. Good post

It's clear that Sirota has missed the mark on his analysis....

[AtomicKitten]

44. precisely why I don't pay attention to blog chatter

... conversely others here at DU consider some of this crap gospel

oy vey :eyes:

[madfloridian]

47. Well, you can put me on the same page as Sirota....

Obama had said he would come and campaign for Lamont and he did not.

The visible one was Edwards. Hillary had a sit down photo op, and sent Howard Wolfson as an advisor. He apparently asked Ned to go on vacation and let Lieberman get a head start.

No proof, just conjecture.

I was very angry about the way Lamont was treated by the establishment Democrats.

Lamont "will have accomplished more in defeat than most campaigns do in victory."

[CTLawGuy]

55. Obama is not about himself

he could go around saying "look at me, I'm black and I'm running for president." But he doesn't. He is trying to have a broad, positive appeal, and it is resonating. And he has no IWR vote to apologize for, or for the Republicans to beat him over the head with.

He has consistently been against this war.

[LaPera]

19. I support Edwards over EVERYONE - Republicans do NOT want to face Edwards!

I also support Kucinich's Ideas...However, Edwards really has a realistic chance to win the nomination...if he can overcome the DLC, the media and republican party pushing Hillary and Obama down our throats....The strongest candidate without a doubt is Edwards and the republicans do NOT want to face him!

[mnhtnbb]

20. I agree. The DLC/media/Wall Street interests would prefer Hillary or Obama.

[BeyondGeography]

22. Here's Edwards in 2002 on the DLC

"Responsibility of the kind we have seen in New York is at the heart of what the DLC has always stood for; it is written in the record and work of this organization."

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=106&subid=122&contentid=250711

But John is different now. Anyone else see a pattern here?

As for Barack, the lifelong progressive:

<Barack Obama will not be carrying the Democratic Leadership Council’s baggage in his race to become the second Black person to represent Illinois in the U.S. Senate. The state senator and professor of constitutional law has told The Black Commentator that he is acting to have his name stricken from the “New Democrats Directory,” a list of several hundred DLC-affiliated elected officials.

“I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC,” said Obama, in a statement that substantially reflects a telephone conversation with Associate Editor Bruce Dixon, this weekend. “It does appear that, without my knowledge, the DLC…listed me in their ‘New Democrat’ directory,” Obama continued. “Because I agree that such a directory implies membership, I will be calling the DLC to have my name removed, and appreciate your having brought this fact to my attention.” >

http://www.blackcommentator.com/48/48_cover.html

John's not exactly a stranger to Wall Street, either:

<For John Edwards, the Democratic presidential candidate, the 14 months he spent as a paid senior adviser at Fortress Investment, a $29.7 billion hedge fund and private equity firm, helped him to bond with the fund’s liberal-leaning executives, several of whom have given money to Mr. Edwards.

As to what Mr. Edwards, a trial lawyer with no previous financial markets experience, did at Fortress, an adviser to the candidate said that Mr. Edwards “advised on where there might be investment opportunities and where he saw the global economy going.” Mr. Edwards resigned from Fortress last month before declaring his candidacy.>

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/business/25hedge.html?ex=1175918400&en=dd2aa906ff7e22a8&ei=5070

[Czolgosz]

25. I like Obama, too, but "life long progressive" is a bit of a stretch. Obama gets a "C" from for his

lack of support for middle class issues from the Drum Major Institute:

The Drum Major Institute evaluated the whole Senate based on 8 key votes to support the middle class, from protecting social security to fair trade to Medicare drug protections to the minimum wage:



Obama got just a "C" for throwing the middle class under the bus on two key votes. http://www.drummajorinstitute.com/congress/outerenvelope_senate.htm

Obama voted in favor of corporate immunity from responsibility and against consumer protections when he voted in favor of the ironically named "The Class Action Fairness Act" which overturned almost 200 years of law protecting consumers in civil rights, worker protection, product liability and consumer fraud cases.

Likewise, Obama voted to water down safety and environmental protections like the Safe Drinking Water Act when he voted in favor of Bush's Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope, devotes must criticism to the progressive wing of the Democratic party. Here are two quotes I was uncomfortable with:

"I also think my party can be smug, detached, and dogmatic at times. I believe in the free market, competition, and entrepreneurship, and think no small number of government programs don’t work as advertised..."

"We Democrats are just, well, confused. There are those who still champion the old-time religion, defending every New Deal and Great Society program from Republican encroachment, achieving ratings of 100 percent from the liberal interest groups ..."

"Yet our debate on education seems stuck between those who want to dismantle the public school system and those who would defend an indefensible status quo, between those who say money makes no difference in education and those who want more money without any demonstration that it will be put to good use ..."

"That Reagan’s message found such a receptive audience spoke not only to his skills as a communicator; it also spoke to the failures of liberal government… Nevertheless, by promising to side with those who worked hard, obeyed the law, cared for their families, and loved their country, Reagan offered Americans a sense of a common purpose that liberals seemed no longer able to muster ..."

Also, the Nation magazine did a critical analysis of Obama which I found very persuasive in its criticism of his record as a true progressive: http://www.thenation.com/docprem.mhtml?i=20060508&s=cockburn

Finally, you get a good idea of both candidates’ priorities from the issue pages of their websites:

http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/
http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/

I like Obama. He is one of four candidates I really hope for, and if you exclude two very long-shot candidates (Kucinich and Dodd), Obama is definitely my second favorite after Edwards.

P.S. One area where Obama is arguably more progressive than Edwards control. Obama has written, "I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturer’s lobby." See The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006. Obama would ban the sale or transfer of all semi-automatic weapons, and would increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms, and would require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms. Edwards favors background checks for gun show sales, but is otherwise less oriented toward gun control. Frankly, I can live with either candidate's position on this issue, and I can see how both positions have good support among progressive voters, but I do wonder if Obama's position is a very tough sell in parts of the country, and I applaud Obama's courage in standing by that position.

[BeyondGeography]

29. Whoa, two votes wipe out a lifetime of commitment to liberal causes

I wonder what they would do with Edwards' record in the Senate, which was among the more conservative in the party:

<As Media Matters for America previously noted, although National Journal's 2003 vote ratings of senators placed Edwards fourth, that rating was based on only 40 of Edwards's Senate votes during 2003 and is not representative of his more moderate lifetime Senate voting record. In fact, as National Journal congressional reporter Richard E. Cohen pointed out in a July 9 article, Edwards's average National Journal "liberal score" during his five years in the Senate (1999-2003) is 75.7 percent, "a number that puts him in the moderate wing of his party," and is almost 20 points lower than the 2003 rating that Republicans are touting with the help of the conservative media. National Journal's Cohen also noted that in 1999, Edwards's National Journal "liberal score" placed him as the 31st most liberal senator, in 2000, Edwards ranked 19th, in 2001, he ranked 35th, and in 2002, he ranked as the 40th most liberal among all senators -- 15 to 36 spots lower than "the fourth most liberal senator" label that Republicans and the conservative media are pushing. As Cohen wrote, "From 1999 to 2002, Edwards had ranked among the more conservative Democratic senators. In 2002, only 11 of the 50 Senate Democrats voted more conservatively.">

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407120004

That's not to exonerate Obama from occasionally playing politics and tacking toward the center. I'm simply more inclined to trust someone who is running for President moving from the left to the center than the reverse, which is what Edwards is doing. I look at Obama's whole career, from community organizing to civil rights law to consitutional scholarship to early opposition to the war and a mountain of progressive causes he has championed in legislation that he has written, and I am reassured in the face of anecdotal evidence to the contrary. Edwards' personal and professional narrative simply doesn't hang together as well for me.

[Czolgosz]

31. It's not just those two votes. I just highlighted those two. I also have reservations about his

avote against Feingold/Kerry, for example. Likewise, I was not thrilled about his votes confirming Condoleezza Rice, Michael Chertoff, and John Negroponte as well as his vote for cloture on Priscilla Owen. I could go on, but my point is I LIKE Obama, but I sometimes have qualms about how progressive he is.

[BeyondGeography]

32. Criticisms acknowledged and appreciated...We'll knock him around here

however, if he gets the nomination, the Republicans will say he's more liberal than DK.

Funny how that works. They can use hit pieces like this:

<When Obama’s record and views are separated from the mythmaking and rock star rapture he’s wrapped in, the problem of his electability looms large. Obama got a perfect 100 rating from the NAACP, National Organization for Women, National Education Association, the Children’s Defense Fund, the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, the Illinois Environmental Council (during his stint in the Illinois legislature) and got a huge plus rating from the ACLU. These are America’s top liberal advocacy groups, and they are some of his most ardent cheerleaders.

Meanwhile, Obama bombed in the ratings he got from the conservative National Taxpayers Union, National Right to Life, the Gun Owners of America, the NRA, the Federation for Immigration Reform and the American Conservative Union. These are some of the nation’s top conservative advocacy groups, and they reflect the interests and views of millions of voters on immigration, spending, guns, abortion and military prowess. These voters will scrutinize his record and his views with a laser eye.>

http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/african/politics_law/ofari_barak0206.asp

The Children's Defense Fund likes him....call the police.

[mnhtnbb]

27. You might want to try reading the speech. Those were remarks

Edwards made to the DLC in a speech.

Try this on for size:

Until he was assassinated by the corporate media, Howard Dean seemed poised to destroy the DLC’s corporate stranglehold on the national Democratic Party. Progressives (including BC ) focused their attentions on Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, the DLC’s most ideologically outspoken candidate. Kerry and North Carolina Senator John Edwards kept the DLC at a distance – in Edward’s case, almost in the closet.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0426-05.htm


And as for being owned by Wall Street the way that Hillary and Obama are, well, I'll take Edwards' 14 months on the hedge fund board with liberal leaning executives over Hillary's time on the Board of Wal-Mart.

I like the fact that Edwards is changing, growing, expanding his experience
while running a highly focused campaign on issues that matter to a lot of people who've been left behind in this country.

[Czolgosz]

23. I like both Edwards and Kucinich (and - only slightly less - Dodd and Obama), but between Edwards

and Kucinich, I think Edwards has the best chance of actually succeeding in implementing the best agenda for the most of America.

[unlawflcombatnt]

33. Excellent Analysis by Sirota

This is a very thorough, comprehensive, and well-referenced article on our Democratic representatives

:kick:

[zulchzulu]

41. "To date, it's fair to say Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's campaigns have been about themselves."

So Edwards' campaign is not about himself? The "son of a mill worker" brand is now not part of his campaign. Perhaps that it is referred to on his web site is a mere careless oversight? That's precisely where Sirota's skewed analysis deflates into nonsense.

Sirota misses the mark again when he tries to say that Obama supports war monger Lieberman when in fact Obama let it be known he endorsed Lamont when Lieberman lost and decided to run as an Independent.

Additionally, Sirota plays the Kootch Mamby Pamby Card by saying that Obama was "undercutting fellow Democrats" by saying he would support the recent bill to fund the troops with the timelines and benchmarks. A clear majority of Democrats must have "undercut fellow Democrats" by voting for that bill.

Sirota can pimp for Edwards if he wants, but he should clearly try not to deride Obama with misinformation without some people calling on it.

[cadmium]

42. The recent spate of attacks on Obama

probably mean he is taking over front-runner status

[1932]

46. If you go around and ask 100 people what each of those candidates stands for

I bet you're going to find that more people say they same thing about Edwards and that the things they say about Edwards match up to the candidate Edwards has been telling people that he is.

[mnhtnbb]

48. Obama made his endorsement Oct 26th--a little late, I'd say.

http://nedlamont.com/blog/1976/barack-obama-writes-emails

[rinsd]

58. I would argue that was more helpful than his endorsement of Lieberman on March 31st

Was it hard campaigning for Lamont? Hardly.

But given what a prick Sirota has shown himself to be maybe Obama decided not to work with him.

[zulchzulu]

59. Well that sure beats the lie that he "never endorsed Lamont" as some have said...

As for Lamont, he SUCKED as a candidate. Lamont lost because of Lamont. Blaming Obama (or anyone else) for the loss is pitiful.

[question everything]

51. Thank you. Selected paragraphs

To date, it's fair to say Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's campaigns have been about themselves. Whether that's their own fault, a deliberate strategy or a media distortion is not important - the fact is, neither of these candidates has made any headway in staking out themes any more coherent than fuzzy poll-tested rhetoric like "leadership" or "hope," textbook rhetoric of history's past false prophets and vapid cults of personality - and that's the good stuff. More often on major issues like Iraq, we get Clinton trying to justify her continued support for the war and Obama either singing the praises of his "mentors" likepro-war icons like Joe Lieberman or undercutting fellow Senate Democrats who are trying to take an aggressive posture against President Bush.

Edwards, by contrast, has been extremely disciplined in making economic class issues the central focus of his race (he has also taken a strong, consistent stand on the war first by apologizing for his initial vote, and then unequivocally supporting aggressive efforts to end it). Whether he was kicking off his campaign in hurricane-battered New Orleans or using his clout to help union drives, he has worked very hard to shine a light on the "two Americas" crisis that has, unfortunately, been aided and abetted by the Wall Street-Clinton administration pact which still dominates the Democratic Party establishment in Washington, D.C. Edwards among the three is the only one who has shown a commitment to taking stands on the core economic issues that Wall Street would rather no Democratic candidates even talk about. On "free" trade and the ability of K Street lobbyists to buy off politicians, for instance, he's been a populist champion since way back in 2004.

He has even called for the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement - an issue Bloomberg News shows that Hillary Clinton can't even talk about coherently, and an issue which, as I saw in my 2006 interview with him, Barack Obama desperately tries to dance around (not surprising, considering his top policy aide was the top policy aide to NAFTA proponent Bob Rubin).

[flaminbats]

53. great article...

we have plenty of time to decide, but reading stuff like this always has an impact on my vote. Edwards and Gravel are currently my two favorites for the primary. Gravel has many great ideas, but because of his age I doubt he can win the nomination or endure the tough four years of the Presidency. Edwards is certainly a much better candidate than he was four years ago, and if he had run this type of campaign in 2004 I probably would have voted for him in the primary.

I always pay attention to who former President Jimmy Carter endorses in the primaries..not because his candidate is more likely to win, but because that candidate is a reflection of who Carter thinks can accomplish what he could not as President. I know Carter endorsed Edwards in 2004 and Gore in 2000, neither won my primary vote..but Carter's support for these candidates in the primaries only increased my support for the Democratic ticket in the fall.

Despite Carter's troubles in the primaries of 1980, he has shown no bitterness or resentment toward his party. Despite the difficulties Democrats have had in the south, Carter is still active in the primaries and wants our party to succeed. I am interested in any info others may have regarding who he is likely to support in this election.

[Adelante]

54. Carter endorsed Edwards in 2004?

Do you have a link, flaminbats? I don't remember that at all.

[mnhtnbb]

56. Dean tried very hard to get Carter's endorsement, but I don't think Carter endorsed anyone

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/15/elec04.prez.main/index.html

Dean did get Gore's endorsement--which really caused Kerry/Gephardt/Edwards
to go nuts with negative ads

[Adelante]

57. That's what I remember - Carter didn't endorse anyone nt