If the polls are right, then perhaps most DUers, including me, have been fools.

[Boojatta]

What will be gained by supporting the nomination of a candidate who could easily lose in the Presidential election?

Ideally, there would be a way to end crime. Then there could be a timetable to dismiss all government employees who enforce criminal law. In practice, that is absurd. You might support the nomination of Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. In practice, isn't that also absurd?

Perhaps you have questions about exactly what the views of John Edwards are. Perhaps you want to know what his priorities will be. Perhaps you want to know whether there are any promises that he is willing to make to earn your support. Now is the time to ask. If you receive satisfactory answers, you should seriously consider supporting the nomination of John Edwards.

Think of this as your choice of a meal before you run a marathon. A large serving of turkey smothered in gravy and washed down with three glasses of wine won't help. Plain pasta with a touch of basil might help. I'm not advocating the use of anabolic steroids. I'm simply recommending a sensible meal to help achieve victory.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

1. One thing I don't see much here on DU are "fools". This is as pragmatic a bunch of folks as you'll

ever see, on the internets.

Thanks for the lecture. MKJ

[Nederland]

10. Pragmatic? DU?

Are we on the same board? We are after all talking about a board where DK polls 20 or 30 times higher than he does among primary voters.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

11. DK is very pragmatic. Understandable. Or, are you saying those who support him are fools?

:shrug: MKJ

[Nederland]

34. I'm saying supporting DK is not an act of pragmatism

It is an act of idealism.

[quickesst]

15. This....

"Are we on the same board? We are after all talking about a board where DK polls 20 or 30 times higher than he does among primary voters."

statement needs to be read, and actually absorbed, in order to understand where DU stands in the overall picture. Brilliant in it's simplicity. Thanks.
quickesst

[DutchLiberal]

25. Hey, you're Dutch too?

[monmouth]

2. I think I'm pretty well informed on Edwards views, don't think I'll buy at this time.. Thank you.

[TomInTib]

3. The one with the hands on the wheel makes no difference.

It is the one in the back seat with the pistol who calls the shots.

[Desertrose]

12. Well put, TominTib.

...and unfortunately... true.

[demommom]

19. IF...

you are saying what I think you are.... We already bought that argument and look what we got for it.:shrug:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

4. This is a sexist, racist country, but we Dems are ignoring that.

We are playing optimist and pretending that this sexist, racist electorate will elect a woman for president "just because." Maybe it's because I was born outside of this country that I don't understand such refusal to view the U.S. realistically, and accept reality. It is what it is. This country is sexist. It will NOT at this point in time elect a woman for president, when it is still possible for a nazi-like, militaristic, oligarchist idiot to receive enough votes to get into the presidency, not once but TWICE.

[EST]

5. I certainly hope we would not and will not elect a woman president

"just because."
If we elect a woman president, I hope it is manifestly because she is the single most qualified candidate in the contest and can best serve the American people.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

6. You must not have looked around lately at the country you're living in.

She could be GOD, she's not going to be elected president in a sexist country. You obviously ignore every study on sexism in this country.

[EST]

22. Please don't be insulting.

In the first sentence of your post, you made a point about a woman being elected president simply because she's female.
I made my point.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

29. Be specific. What are you referring to? I know what I'm referring to.

I'm referring to the fact that this is a sexist nation, and if our only hope of getting a Dem president in the White House is to put in a man, I WANT A MAN. We Dems fucked up twice and let a complete idiot have the White House. Are we going to do it again??

[Boojatta]

7. Some of those votes came from the Supreme Court, but I

don't know that the Supreme Court is stacked with sexists and racists.

If we are talking about ordinary people who are likely to vote in the Presidential election, then there's really no need to condemn. When it comes to deciding who needs to be the Democratic nominee, the reasons for the preferences of ordinary voters in the Presidential election will not be the main issue. The main issue will be their preferences.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

8. The fact that that pig in the White House got as many votes as he got is enough....

plus every study done on sexism and racism in this country, PLUS living here and witnessing it first hand. Wearing blinders is going to get us another Republican pig in the White House.

[Boojatta]

9. Don't forget about the Vice President.

Cheney-Condi would be a ticket with a woman and an African-American (who happen to both be the same person). Suddenly the role of the Vice President would be diminished by a President Cheney who has suddenly seen the light and realized that the President should actually do some thinking and not merely show up for photo-ops.

[Colobo]

14. Sarah, we need to believe. Changes only happen when people are willing to beat the odds.

[Boojatta]

16. People are willing to beat the odds whenever they buy lottery tickets.

Perhaps they are not using the power of positive thinking when they buy their tickets?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

30. I lost my optimism when we Dems fucked up in the last two elections.

I have no more optimism left. There's too much at stake now. I feel that either we Dems do it right this time and stop dreaming, or I'm out of this country.

[mrigirl]

39. Sarah

evey single reply you've made I've agreed w/ you. Born, bred and raised in Massachusetts, my husband and I are going to leave this country if things don't change and soon. I'm embarassed to call myself an American. This country is in a shithole and I think life may be better outside of the good old USA. I can't believe how much this country has changed. It's disgusting. There is indeed too much at stake now!!!! I refuse to start a family in 2008 if we elect another repub. I'm sick and tired of busting my college educated ass for the 1% of this country.

[Boojatta]

41. If you care about the good old USA, then why not stay,

get more active in politics, and also keep voting? People usually leave a country when it becomes a tyranny, not because there is a risk of future tyranny that makes them just give up.

[mrigirl]

42. you have a good point-

I think that I am lately just seriously fed up w/ how things are here- ranked 37th worldwide in healthcare, not keeping up w/ worldwide emissions policies in our vehicles, our kids aren't as smart, etc. we've become a gluttonous, greedy, all-about-me- country that cares more about Lindsay Lohan than global warming. We need to get w/ the program like the rest of the world has done!!!! We can do better. We used to be the most powerful country in the wolrd. Now we're the laughingstock! It's just very frustrating!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

32. Why put hurdles in front of us when we already have a massive challenge and have lost twice before?

I don't get it. I just don't GET IT.

Sorry, I can't be delighted with this situation. It almost seems as if the Dems lack any good advisors at all. :(

[mrigirl]

38. I'm not! And I'm a woman!

And deep down I know that maybe yes- the East and West Coast would vote for Hillary or Obama but as a WHOLE nation it will not happen. Which is why I support Senator Biden because he CAN defeat the Republican nominee. I am not niave enough to waste my vote on Hillary.

[CJCRANE]

13. Now this is an OP I can agree with.

:thumbsup:

On edit: I like Gore and Clark but if they're out of the race I think Edwards should be given a chance.

[maximusveritas]

17. Obama and Clinton are just as electable as Edwards

I'm tired of people saying Edwards is more electable just because he's a white male.
There's no evidence for that whatsoever.

We don't even know who we'll be facing. None of the GOP candidates look particularly formidable, so I think all of our candidates will have a good chance of winning.

Edwards has changed his position on way too many vital issues and thus has a major credibility problem that the GOP will have no problem exploiting, especially when they tie it to the haircut and mansion nonsense. So whatever advantage he may get from his race and gender disappears.

[Boojatta]

18. Why are GWB's poll numbers so low?

His position with respect to Iraq has been unchanging and hence unexploitable.

[Boojatta]

20. Maybe he should have waited to get the haircut after

he was in a position to face impeachment.

[maximusveritas]

21. Did you mean to reply to someone else? I have no idea what you're talking about

I didn't mention GWB anywhere in my post.

[Boojatta]

28. It was meant in a joking way.

If a haircut ensures that someone doesn't become President, then it saves everyone the trouble of having to remove from office a President who has the inappropriate haircut after the inauguration.

[venable]

23. there is much evidence that edwards is the most electable

in poll after poll he is EITHER: the ONLY Dem to beat all the republicans, or he is the one with the widest margin of victory over each of them.

I personally don't believe it's because he's a white male. I believe it's because he is the most adamant and outspoken at a time when the electorate is fed up with half measures from Dems.

[maximusveritas]

24. Not true

You have to go back to like April to find a poll showing Edwards as the only Dem to beat all the Republicans. The Zogby poll from last month showed Edwards as the only Dem to LOSE to a Republican. While Edwards may have a slightly wider lead in some polls, it's hardly significant. So the evidence is not convincing.

Your explanation for why Edwards does better among the general electorate than he does among Democratic voters just doesn't make any sense. This early into the race, with most people not paying attention yet, the voters are most likely thinking of the moderate 2004 version of Edwards, not the outspoken liberal 2008 version.

[venable]

27. the voters are not a monolith

and the support across the board for Edwards is most likely a palimpsest of 2004 and 2008 campaigns.

the virtue of the sharper, unabashedly leftist 2008 version, and why I believe there is more traction from this campaign is:

1) it's more current

and

2) the times have become more desperate. the loss in 2004 engendered feelings of impotence, which produces anger, which Edwards feels and expresses.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

46. ...I mean... huh?"

I'm tired of people saying Edwards is more electable just because he's a white male.
There's no evidence for that whatsoever.

No evidence that white males get elected more often in nation wide elections?

What history course did you take again?

I'd say that since every single POTUS has been, oddly enough, male and white sort of speaks for itself.

I am not saying that this isn't going to change but your argument is just filled with a bunch of holes.

Maybe you really didn't mean to write that.

[Adelante]

26. I am entirely informed about John Edwards

I make it my business to be informed about all of the candidates. I choose No on John Edwards based on what I know about him, not out of ignorance.

[Boojatta]

44. "I choose No on John Edwards based on what I know about him, not out of ignorance."

Isn't it possible that if John Edwards is not nominated, then the Democratic Party will lose the election because a majority of voters will make a decision based not on what they know about the candidates, but out of ignorance?

[AtomicKitten]

31. I think Obama has the best shot of taking down SS Clinton.

[BenDavid]

33. I disagree with all you haterizers and I

tell you why, and why HRC is the best candidate and the one which will win in November 08.The Clintons bet on America, the republican canidate bet against us. The Clintons bet on peace, the republicans bet on oil, which goes up in war. The Clintons brokered peace agreements, the republicans goes to war. Clinton told the world, "Bet on America," when he paid down Reagan's debt.
Republicans borrows from others, because nobody wants to bet on a loser. Clinton prevented terrorist attacks, Bush creates terror every day he's in office and if a republican is elected more of the same. With Clinton, we had peace, a surplus, a Constitution and the world's respect. What do we have now, besides 3700+ dead soldiers?

I do thank you
Ben David

[zulchzulu]

35. "What do we have now, besides 3700+ dead soldiers?"

Can you tell me if Clinton voted to authorize the war in Iraq? With her breadth of experience, I'm sure she made the right choice. So what's the answer?

:shrug:

[QueenOfCalifornia]

47. This made me laugh

Clinton - peace? He was a statesman of masterful proportions compared to the Bush's --- but...

Clinton wasn't all about peace. He ordered the use of depleted uranium on the people of Yugoslavia - Which, BTW, they are going to suffer from for generations to come - it's the gift that keeps on giving.

Okay, I voted for Bill - He was the best thing at the time but let's not succumb to what the Republican's seem to enjoy doing - rewriting history.

BTW what the hell is a haterizer?

[zulchzulu]

36. Edwards proved he could get the Southern vote in 2004 by helping win North Carolina

Edwards on the ticket helped win his home state, North Carolina in 2004, right?

:shrug:

North Carolina Election Results (2004)
Bush 56%
Kerry 44%

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/elections/2004/nc/

[Boojatta]

37. Do you suspect that if North Carolina had been

represented by Senator Clinton or Senator Obama instead of John Edwards, then the results would have been something like Bush 47%, John Kerry 53%?

Do you suspect that if Senator Clinton or Senator Obama had been the Democratic nominee instead of John Kerry, then the results in North Carolina would have been something like Bush 47%, and Clinton or Obama 53%?

[mnhtnbb]

40. Election shenanigans occured in NC in 2004, but have not gotten the press

or investigation of Ohio and some other states. We had machines that lost votes
and threw a state wide race into recount for months.

We had exit polls that did NOT match results. A week prior to the election,
Kerry/Edwards had pulled within the margin of error in the polls against Bush/Cheney.

We have thousands and thousands of military voters--and we know that DoD was
given the job of handling their absentee ballots. How many Dem ballots do you suppose went astray?

Please stop trying to suggest that the vote in NC in 2004 was meaningful.

[EndElectoral]

43. I like Edwards, but I have to go for Kucinich. The rest are dismal.

[treestar]

45. The election is more than a year away

There hasn't been a single primary.

The polls of today are meaningless.

The average voter has little or no idea what they are talking about and has an entire year or more to change his or her mind.