I'm really starting to think that Edwards has a decent shot at being our nominee.

[Guaranteed]

He's been stellar recently, doing a good job of setting himself apart from the other candidates and defining himself. It really looks as if his support is getting strong.

I'm still a Gore supporter, myself- I'll be holding out for awhile. But Edwards is doing very, very well.

And I think that if Sen. Clinton continues to falter- and she very well may- it could be Edwards that will step in and fill the gap.

I guess it all depends on what's going on at the time of the Iowa caucus, and what the Iowans think.

[rwheeler31]

1. Damn someone thinks like me,and its a loony.

[On the Road]

2. Exceeding the Polls in IA

will lead to a better showing in NH, which will lead to a still-better showing in SC and the SuperDuper states. It will happen very quickly this time.

Dean's original goal was to finish third in IA and second in NH. Edwards has a great chance of doing better than that.

[pauldg0]

3. I Think so too.....Edwards is a great manager. Think how good he'll be in the White House as our co

country manager....i.e. President of the United States...............


THINK ABOUT IT!!!

John Edwards has raised the least amount of campaign funds than anybody.....mostly from common folks. But he packs the BIGGEST PUNCH for the small amount bucks he has received!!!!!

FOLKS, JOHN EDWARDS IS EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT WITH MONEY!! HE WILL BE A GREAT PRESIDENT AS HE IS A GREAT MANAGER. CAN YOU IMAGINE HOW HE WILL MANAGE OUR TAX DOLLARS???!!! HE WILL DEFINITELY SURROUND HIMSELF WITH GREAT PEOPLE AS HE ALREADY HAS IN HIS CAMPAIGN.

[JDPriestly]

17. Great post. You make a good point.

[Catchawave]

31. Welcome to DU pauldg0 !

Great management skills on the ground will translate to great management skills from the Oval Office ! I totally agree :toast:

[laureloak]

64. Edwards is our only hope for change. n/t

[Nutmegger]

4. Edwards has been turning heads, no question.

He must be doing something right. I've seen the number of haters here has grown since he kicked ass in the last debate.

It all comes down to Iowa for John Edwards. I just put myself on a monthly donation to help him out.

[calteacherguy]

5. If he becomes President you can kiss the planet goodbye.

His stance on climate change is horrendous.

[saracat]

6. Baloney.

[calteacherguy]

13. Global warming. No baloney. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. Link?

Anything?

[calteacherguy]

10. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3708793&mesg_id=3708793

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3708832&mesg_id=3708832

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. I respectfully disagree.

While I'm not overly paranoid about nuclear power, there are some intractable problems with it - does Chernobyl ring a bell? You may argue that radioactive contamination of hundreds of thousands of square miles of land in Eastern Europe is less of a problem than hundreds of thousands of tons of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere, I have to wonder if that is not a false choice.

Why not reduce our use of energy to more rational levels? At the same time, increase wind, solar, tidal, geothermal generaton systems. There are many alternatives that don't require putting tons of radioactive materials in the hands of corporations.

Nuclear power is a stop-gap at best. It takes so long to bring it on line, and the life of a nuke plant is so relatively short, it is barely practical. In the time it would take to get new nuke plants built, better alternatives can be produced.

And still, an active nuclear plant is a prime terror target, and what to do with the waste? With water becoming an ever more scarce commodity, can we afford to divert millions of gallons to cooling and containment?

I think Edwards has the ecologically correct position.

[calteacherguy]

15. Edwards has the ecologically naive position, one that would put the entire planet in greater peril.

nt

[benny05]

33. Absolutely No New Nukes

I guess we forgot Three Mile Island.

I live in a land of nukes and don't want to see any more of them.

[calteacherguy]

78. So you want to see Manhattan flooded by the Atlantic Ocean?

O.K.

[Turn CO Blue]

61. NO NUKES! NO NUKES! Bombs or power plants!

[calteacherguy]

79. You would rather have more catastrophic hurricanes and coastal flooding.

O.K.

Bye-bye polar bears. No Nukes!

[Turn CO Blue]

90. You think nuclear winter is better than global warming?

Nuclear fallout would destroy more biomes and life forms than hurricanes or floods ever could - Chernobyl ring a bell with you? What about all those decaying nuclear-powered devices that are causing cancer and mutations all over Russia?

Precious, precious few liberals or true environmentalists will EVER side with anyone pushing the inevitability and "preference" of nuclear power. In fact, you sound like a LOBBYIST.

Clean renewables that don't involve radioactivity are far more promising.

[immoderate]

62. Anybody who favors nuclear power loses my vote.

Nuclear power is an environmental disaster.

--IMM

[calteacherguy]

80. Climate change is an environmental disaster. We can't solve it without nuclear progress. nt

[immoderate]

83. Of course we can.

Fifteen years ago, I did a rough calculation. With the technology of the time, the total energy consumption could be provided by solar collector arrays with an area that covered the rooftops of every structure. The technology has since advanced.

--IMM

[waiting for hope]

27. You just can't get your facts straight -

Can You? As well as taking a pot shot every chance you get -

Leading environmental group says Edwards has the best policies to halt global warming and protect our planet's natural resources

Manchester, NH – Today at an announcement event in Dover, New Hampshire, Senator John Edwards won the endorsement of Friends of the Earth Action, one of the leading environmental groups in the country.

"John Edwards understands that we must accept responsibility for conserving natural resources and act with urgency to stop the crisis of global warming," said Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth Action. "He has led on this issue, with the best plan to halt global warming and protect the environment. He has the strength and courage to stand up to the big corporations that are abusing our planet. And he is the only top-tier candidate in this race who opposes new nuclear plants in the U.S. these reasons, we trust John Edwards to work for a healthy environment and fight for the rights of regular people in our country and around the world."

http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20071014-foea-endorsement/

I really don't think that a leading environmental group would back someone who didn't have a plan.

[elle1sf]

76. Thanks for that and additionally ...

Edwards has proven that he is open to learning and changing as more information comes to light. He will stay on top of the issue and keep informed making adjustments
as needed over the course of his two terms.

[calteacherguy]

81. They are dead wrong on this.

Many leading environmentalists understand there is no solution without nuclear progress.

[immoderate]

84. That's your obsession.

--IMM

[Czolgosz]

30. More false garbage from the hypocrite who begs others to keep discussion of the candidates positive!

LOL!

You are just PRECIOUS aren't you!

[On the Road]

32. I Should Have Known That

"his position on global warming is horendous" and "you can kiss the planet goodbye" meant that Edwards is not in favor of building more nuclear plants. How much clearer could that have been?

[Dawgs]

46. You got that right. Edwards has been very disappointing on climate change.

[Ignis]

53. ...Unless you compare it to those of other mainstream candidates.

Are you seriously suggesting that either of the other two front-runners will do more to combat global warming? Neither of them has a great track record in this regard, and their words on the topic thus far seem rather ... well, canned, to be frank.

I think we could do worse than Edwards on environmental issues. The primary driver for non-religious anti-environmentalism (that is, excluding dominionist Christian whackos who seek to bring about the end of the world) is short-term corporate profits at the expense of our planet's future, and Edwards has the best position of the top 3 Democratic front-runners when it comes to reigning in corporate power.

Besides which, I'll take Edwards' environmental positions over ANY Republican, any day of the week. Don't you agree?

[calteacherguy]

82. Yes I am. The will have nuclear energy as part of the solution. nt

[Ignis]

87. Typing is hard work, but care to explain in more detail?

Are you saying that you support HRC or Obama over Edwards because the former want to solve global warming by increasing the number of nuke plants in operation?

If so, I'd say your risk vs. reward standards are waaaaaaaaaaaaay off. :shrug:

[saracat]

7. He does indeed. His odds are getting better and better. He is

talking truth to power and isn't afraid to speak out. Edwards is the neocons biggest threat. They can't buy him and he has already experienced and is living with the worst life can serve up. John Edwards deserves to be President!

[calteacherguy]

9. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3708793&mesg_id=3708793

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3708832&mesg_id=3708832

[JDPriestly]

19. Rasmussen poll against Republicans

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

Edwards 44% Giuliani 45%
Hillary 42% Giulianai 48%

Edwards 50% Huckabee 43%
Hillary 46% Huckabee 43%

Edwards 45% McCain 38%
Hillary 45% McCain 47%

Edwards 50% Romney 34%
Hillary 47% Romney 42%

Edwards 48% Thompson 39%
Hillary 42% Thompson 48%

Edwards beats Hillary against each and every Republican. This has been the trend since the beginning. The media doesn't mention this fact. If more Democrats realized this, they would jump off the Hillary train and back Edwards.

Obama also does better than Hillary generally.

Edwards favorable 46% unfavorable 45%
Hillary favorable 47% unfavorable 50%

[BringBigDogBack]

23. damn

Is Hill really doing THAT poorly against the pukes?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. No-She's Beating The Pants Off Them

The poster cherry picked a poll...Here's links to dozens and dozens of polls:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html



http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

[JDPriestly]

38. If you compare Hillary v. Republicans to Edwards v. Republicans,

Edwards polls much better than Hillary. Edwards is our winning candidate, not Hillary. Polling report seems to show Edwards as polling lower than the other polls and only reports the Edwards/Giuliani number. I suspect that polling report is less accurate than the others. The polls reflected on realclearpolitics show consistent large margins in Edwards' favor, much larger than Clintons.

[rinsd]

41. Hillary outperforms Edwards vs. Rudy.

[Renew Deal]

45. That won't matter.

Because Rudy's not going to be nominated.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. Any Of The Three Can Beat Romney, McCain, Or Huckabee

I do admit McCain can be problematic but I think his Iraq/Iran war support will sink him...

[rinsd]

50. So who is going to win then?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. I Think It Wil Be Mitt Or Rudi

My Rethuglican Power Ranking

1) The Mittster

2) Ghouliani

3) McBain

4) Huckleberry

5) Frederick Of Hollywood

6) Who cares...

[rinsd]

52. Mitt has the money and the early state polling.

Who would have thought the McCain campaign would still not only be chugging along but somewhat viable.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. Rudi Is Betting On A Good Super Tuesday Showing

It might be too late by then if he's portrayed as a "loser" for losing all the early primaries and caucuses...

[rinsd]

58. Could he survive long enough finishing 2nd or 3rd?

I have to agree that it would be tough going into Sooper-Dooper Tues without a win or two under his belt.

If he can't take NH, how in the hell is he gonna take SC?

[Renew Deal]

56. I think Romney and Huckabee have the best chance,

Then Guiliani and McCain. I think Guiliani has way too many problems for the republicans.

[rinsd]

57. Romney I buy.

While people have called Huckabee a dark horse for some time now, I think McCain's campaign has risen from the grave (they needed the space for Fred).

[JDPriestly]

94. That is the only one.

Huckabee and Romney are the candidates to watch on the Republican side.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. They Are Drawn From Essentially The Same Universe Of Polls

The only difference is the format...

[BringBigDogBack]

24. we're headed towards a trainwreck. nm

[rinsd]

39. Pssst your poll shows Edwards LOSING to Rudy while Hillary beats him.

"Obama also does better than Hillary generally."

Except for Rudy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. Oh, And That Should Be The Hill 48% - Thompson 42%

Rasmussen has the numbers transposed; just follow the links...

on edit- Good Gawd... Rasmuseen has the Ghuliani numbers transposed too... I wonder if that's intentional:


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_clinton_vs_giuliani_thompson

[creeksneakers2]

63. The poll listed between Hillary and Giuliani has transposed digits

The transposition is an error by Rasmussen.

Rasmussen wrote in its text story about the poll that Hillary won 48% to 42%. The same poll is listed on RealClearPolitics.com as Hillary 48%/Giuliani 42%.

[asdjrocky]

11. We need to work on a local level,

Iowa and NH are important, no doubt. But it would be great to see him make more noise in the national polls. If we work locally, we might change some minds outside of the big primary states. Any ideas?

[calteacherguy]

12. Yes.

Convince him to take the threat of global warming seriously and stop pandering to radical fringe elements of the Party.

[tkmorris]

16. You've said your piece friend

Let it go with that.

[billyoc]

21. Workers' rights are a higher priority than global warming.

Billions of people will be born, live in misery and die before the planet so much as hiccups.

[Ignis]

54. That's funny...albeit unintentionally.

It was only a few years ago that environmentalists were considered to be the "radical fringe elements" of the Democratic party. Even on DU, we were often told to go join the Green party if that was our "single issue" or source of ideological purity.

Are you suggesting that we are now the mainstream? I sure didn't get the memo. :)

[earthlover]

28. Remember that at this time in 03, Kerry was at about 4% in the polls...

Kerry was so far behind in New Hampshire he eventually put it on hold to concentrate on Iowa in a last-ditch effort, do or die. The Kerry's even had to remortgage a house to get money, the campaign was so broke.

So anyone who doesn't think Edwards has a chance if he wins Iowa is blowing smoke. This inevitability meme is getting old. And it flies in the face of recent history.

Hillary seems to be stumbling. How far and for how long, we don't know. Either Obama or Edwards could become the alternative to Hillary.

Only about half of the voters are even paying attention right now. If either Edwards or Obama wins Iowa, all the media attention will be on the victor, and the momentum will be HUGE. I personally think Edwards has a better chance than Obama in Iowa, and....maybe this is wishful thinking....but I have always thought Hillary's support is soft, based largely on name recognition and the desire for a woman president for a change. Problem with Hillary is the for a change part...Americans want a change.

[NC_Nurse]

18. I talked with someone today who said he thought Edwards

was the one who would survive the primaries. He feels like Hillary and Obama will fade.
I am undecided too, but I would be happier at this point with him than anyone else besides Kucinich.
I like them both. I haven't given up on Richardson either. :-)

[earthlover]

29. I can see that....

I have been really unimpressed with Obama's debate performances. He just doesn't connect for me, doesn't look into the camera and says UH way too much.

This week's debate will be really interesting. I am betting that Hillary is REALLY going to play it safe. She cannot afford another gaffe like the last debate. I think this will make it harder for Obama and Edwards, because I am sure that the Pundit Class will be yacking about Hillary's stumble, and unless either Obama or Edwards delivers a knock-out punch, then they will yack about Hillary still be standing and so forth. Which, of course, has been the Pundit Class' standard observation on all of Hillary's performances.

To me, the real challenge will be between Obama and Edwards. Who is going to be the nominee who provides the alternative to Hillary? A strong performance by one coupled with a weak performance by the other could make a bigger difference than whether Hillary still has blood pumping in her veins after the debate....

[Mythsaje]

20. I certainly hope so.n/t

[BringBigDogBack]

22. I'm seeing the same thing...

I've been swayed by Edwards recently.

[CoffeeCat]

69. Me too...

I am drifting toward the Edwards camp, but I am still undecided.

I say "the boys" shouldn't mention Hillary's gaffe, cuz you just
know she's waiting for their comments--and she'll have a pithy, well-rehearsed
one liner waiting for all of them.

Edwards needs to come out swinging like he did during his speech at the recent
Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa.

[Clark2008]

26. Please, no.

[Bread and Circus]

34. me too. If he does well in Iowa it's over for Obama and then

Edwards becomes the "alternative to Hillary" candidate.

Although, I'm really unsure which way Obama's supporters will largely break.

[mtnsnake]

35. Not that he ever will, but if Edwards gets the nod it will be 2004 all over again

...probably even much worse. It's no small wonder that John Kerry rarely talks to him or about him, Edwards was such a letdown then.

[NC_Nurse]

36. Are you kidding? Kerry was the problem, not Edwards.

Kerry was in charge of the campaign. He didn't fight back on the swiftboating, he was the less talented speaker...did
you attend any of the rallies? John was much better at getting the crowd excited. Kerry did well if he didn't put people
to sleep.
Then, when the election results were questionable, it was Kerry who chose not to challenge them.

[mtnsnake]

37. I didn't say Kerry wasn't part of the problem. I said Edwards was a letdown

Edwards was SUPPOSED to complement the campaign because of his dynamic personality and he was a total bust. For anyone watching, we quickly found out that all of John Edwards' personality is scripted in his well-versed speeches and nothing else. What a flop he was.

[Forkboy]

42. I'm not sure it's the same Edwards in a personal sense.

I do think some of what he's doing and saying is calculated* like any campaign does.By a campaigns very nature it has to be.But I also know that having cancer, either yourself or in your family can definitely change the way you approach your life, and that's even when it's not terminal.Things that you thought you had years to accomplish suddenly get magnified and put into a whole new perspective.

I don't think he's perfect at all (that's goes for every single one), but I do think a lot of what he's doing is genuine to him now even though he's said things differently before.And I'd rather go with someone who was wrong before right now than someone who was wrong before and still is.Of course, I'm still voting for DK because he's been right about a lot of things all along. ;)

* See Hillary fans...men can be calculating too. :evilgrin:

[mtnsnake]

48. Well said, Forky

...even though I think Edwards is phonier today than he was in 2004. In 2004, I only thought he was a flop, now I think he's a phoney flop.

Hey I'm glad your voting DK in the Primaries, as I intend to.

:thumbsup:

[Guaranteed]

68. And someone that had the integrity to APOLOGIZE- he owned up

to his mistakes.

And, judging from what he is doing now, the only conclusion one can come to is that he learned from it, as well.

[bpeale]

47. i voted for Kerry in 2004 BECAUSE of Edwards

and i'm sure there are others who did so as well. it was Kerry who conceded before all the ballots were counted in ohio, not Edwards. Edwards wanted all the ballots counted.

[Major Hogwash]

60. I think this has been corrected so many times at DU it isn't necessary to do it again.

So, just let me say that I think you're full of hooey.

LoL

[Perry Logan]

40. You may be hyperventilating. Try breathing into a paper bag for a while.

[Adelante]

59. We won't know what Iowans think until the time comes

But as of now the trend line is not looking good for Edwards there.

[creeksneakers2]

65. Edwards cannot possibly win the Democratic nomination

He's losing already and when people find out what a liar and phony Edwards is they'll turn against him even more. Already 30% of Democrats have ruled out voting for Edwards. All Edwards has now is his appeal to Hillary haters.

[asdjrocky]

70. I don't hate HRC, and I'm not a hater in general.

But I do see a lot of hate coming from you. Do you have anything else to offer?

[creeksneakers2]

72. Yeah

I include facts and original opinions and reasoning in my hate Edwards posts. I don't just call him names and leave it at that.

Like the 30% ruled out Edwards part. That's valuable information.

[mzmolly]

66. We're on the same page again BGL.

:hi:

[AzDar]

67. I've said it before, but it bears repeating : nominating JE will put a Dem in the White House in '08

End. Of. Story.:patriot:

[SayitAintSo]

71. Why is the press so hard on him? He is virtually ignored!!!

I thought he gave one of the best speeches at the Iowa JJ dinner - 'crickets'... barely a word!

[defendandprotect]

73. YEP ---- and I'd be very serious about being sure we don't get a "deal" with a VP ---

like let's say some fascist like Liebermann . . . !!!!

Wow . .. !!!

[defendandprotect]

74. Less than a year out now . . . but still a long, long time---!!!

[usregimechange]

75. Plus he can win the general

[Czolgosz]

86. That's the most important point!

[saltpoint]

77. I'm impressed with the ferocity of the campaign team. These people are

a fierce, determined bunch, and they have that hard-bitten realism thing going.

Mario Cuomo and Paul Krugman are among the folks who have offered praise for Edwards' effort. That's not a bad duo to have saying kind things about your campaign.

[LWolf]

85. I believe that several candidates

outside HRC/Obama have a decent shot, Edwards among them.

[asdjrocky]

88. Thank you for an open mind.

Remember when that was a good thing?

[LWolf]

95. It's still a good thing,

regardless of how many leave it behind.

:hi:

[laureloak]

89. I like his promise to introduce legislation to cancel health ins.

for himself, cabinet and congress until a universal health plan is passed.

[jenmito]

91. It's a shame that he chose to take matching funds for "moral reasons" then

because he'll never have enough money to compete in a general election. Oh wait-he only took matching funds after seeing he couldn't raise as much money as he expected. He first said he was going to forego matching funds to remain competitive. :shrug:

[liskddksil]

92. Looks like the supporters of other candidates are realizing this too

If you look at some of the attacks that have been posted today to smear Edwards.

[jenmito]

93. I've been pointing out for several weeks now that Edwards lied about his reason for taking matching

funds.