Edwards the Real Battle Tested Candidate?

[Rabo Karabekian]

Thom Hartmann mentioned yesterday that Obama and Hillary have both coasted to victory in all of their Senatorial elections. While Edwards had to beat the Jesse Helms machine to win in his state (and Thom believes Bush stole Ohio, Kerry and Edwards won there). Also Thom cited some polling, that showed Edwards beating all potential Republican challengers, by more than Hillary would.

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. he did not carry his state in the last election. He was unelectable

And frankly, he caved at the debate last night: under pressure (not nearly as much as Clinton withstood, but she is badass) and he showed he is not strong enough to pull us out of the mess we are in.

[Rabo Karabekian]

2. We Don't Really Know if He Could Have Carried It

I couldn't watch the debate, I didn't like how the candidates didn't answer questions; but instead went through a laundry list of concerns, every time they were asked something.

As for not carrying his state, he wasn't at the top of the ticket, which, of course, also reduces his credit for Kerry's win (but at the same time he can't be excluded from taking part).

[Cameron27]

4. Dennis took the wind out of his "populist" sails last night

and Edwards looked real uncomfortable when he did it. He's not battle tested, if he ran for a second senate term and won, or if he showed any distintion as the VP candidate you might have a point.

[Rabo Karabekian]

5. Much Harder to Win in a Carolina

Yes, but he did win in a red state, whereas Illnois and New York are two of the bluest. I thought it odd he didn't try to get his Senate seat again, he claims he saw enough of Washington to know what's wrong with it.

[Cameron27]

10. I think he's had his eyes on the presidency

for a long, long time. He should have run for a second term, at least to help clean up some of the mess that his votes from his first term made. That would have given him a lot more credibility in my eyes, certainly it was a better choice than going to work for Fortress.

[MethuenProgressive]

59. He quit the Senate, lost a national election, and flipped on every position he held..

And he says he's "proud of my record"...

[venable]

19. the vote was between kerry and bush, not edwards and anyone

and the dem machine kept him out of the south.

different republicans and even karl rove have said since the election that edwards was the one candidat in the 04 primary field that they were worried about.

he leads now larger than any other dem against republicans


why don't you know this? or do you, and choose not to acknowledge it?


and fyi - he simply did not cave last night. what a bizarre read on the person who stood straight, made principled points, and didn't whine that people were being mean to them. methinks that hrc is as afraid of Edwards as the republicans are. interesting, that.

[Cameron27]

24. I didn't call him out for doing what the front-runner wanted,

I'm talking about his performance in what he actually did. HRC could care less about John Edwards, he's a one note attacker who's ugly negative campaigning has only served to help Obama. As a matter of fact, according to some political analysts, it's better for her if he stays in the race and splits some votes with Obama.

The real angry populist took aim at your guy last night, and scored some big points. He not only pointed out the hypocrisy of someone aggressively attacking Clinton while ignoring his own record on the same issues, but he also pointedly brought up his own truck driving, union card holding father, while identifying himself as the true hero of the working class.

[venable]

29. couple of points

one, I disagree entirely with your assessment of HRC's fear of Edwards. I'm pretty sure she's very worried about him. My opinion is based on private anecdote and analysis - ie if she is threatened, it's going to be by the person who calls her 'corporate' the loudest. that is true of her, and it is her weak point, especially amongst dems.

Dennis did seem angry with JE last night, but if you recall he was even angrier at Dean last time around. Why? I think it's because his candidacy is so unfairly dismissed, that he has every reason to wonder why last time HE wasn't the darling of the anti-war crowd, and this time HE isn't the darling of the progressive populist crowd. He has good reason to be annoyed, but he gets annoyed at the candidates he is most like and are getting attention that should be shared with him.

You do recall that last time around he told his supporters to switch to Edwards in Iowa if he, Dennis, was clearly not going to win a caucus.

[Cameron27]

30. Of course you disagree with me,

but I'll leave it at that, because no matter how many times I respond, we'll still be in disagreement.

[blm]

49. NC was stolen - no doubt about it to those paying attention. McAuliffe's DNC let the RNC

steal a a number of states for Bush.

McAuliffe let the RNC go uncountered for 4 years while they gained control of the election process at every level where the votes are allowed, cast and counted.

TeamClinton was strong enough within the Dem party from 2000-2005 to undermine and backstab every Democrat sticking their necks out to oppose Bush.

Hillary2008 has been operational since 1999.

[Ninga]

3. Edwards is very, very tough. The dynamic of the debate was startling, unprofessional

and a distinct disadvantage, with Blitzer sphioning off the time clock with his pompous blithering.


But if you are going to run with the big dogs, then you better be ready to handle the intruders that join the pack. (the MSM)

[saltpoint]

6. Faircloth was a nasty piece of work indeed. Had John Edwards not defeated

him (and you're right about Helms' hand behind the scenes), my personal hope for Lauch was that he fall into one of those sinkholes that occasionally open here and there, helpless in a locked sedan, the gurgle of mud and dirt overtaking him and the vehicle sinks into oblivion...

Edwards wasn't supposed to win that race. He did.

Battle-tested against Helms Inc is a point in Edwards' favor, but I am even more drawn to his domestic policy and the earnest preparedness toward its implementation. His campaign lieutenants are an impressive bunch. After the 9/11 hogwash, there's nothing to Giuliani but a backalley thug, whereas Edwards and his team have been fiercely comprehensive about domestic issues.

I'd like Edwards on domestic policy and Biden on international affairs.

Also I'd like them to start work by noon today.

[Rabo Karabekian]

8. Good Ticket

That would be a good ticket, Edwards/Biden, I think because of Biden's foreign policy knowledge he is probably on a short list for VP (for many of the candidates).

[saltpoint]

11. I'd be pretty thrilled with it, no matter the order. Bush has damaged our

relationship with government here at home in petulatn, cruel acts such as abandoning New Orleans, and he's pretty much wrecked U.S. foreign policy generally and in the Middle East especially.

There's some fence-mending that needs doing. I'd as soon as put Edwards and Biden to work on it as nearly anyone around, and as I said, they can start at noon today.

[geek tragedy]

7. One election victory in his entire life.

He lost twice in 2004.

Meh.

[Rabo Karabekian]

9. How Could He Lose if He Didn't Race?

He didn't run in North Carolina, Erskine Bowles did.

[geek tragedy]

12. He lost the Dem primary and he lost in the GE as Kerry's VP. n/t

[1932]

16. He did better in the primaries than anyone other than Kerry, which is impressive

since he was only polling at 5% nationally 8 weeks before the first primary.

[karynnj]

21. That's partially becasue he stayed in longer - well after there was no chance

Ignoring Iowa, Clark did as well as Edwards for the period that he stayed in the race. Kerry was polling at 8% and lower 8 weeks before the first primary as well. Dean, Clark and Edwards were all pushed as media favorites at some point in time, though in Dean's case the positive media was later replaced with negative media. The main coverage of Kerry in December was on when he would drop out and articles that he had to mortgage his part of his Boston home to finance his campaign.

The media also really pushed Edwards after Kerry won Iowa and New Hampshire. In Iowa, he got 32% to Kerry's 38% with the endorsement of the Des Moines Register and the agreement with Kuchinich where Kuchinich recommended that his supporters caucus with Edwards if he didn't get the needed 15% in the caucus.

In NH, he got 12% to Kerry's 45%. Then in the first multi-state day before which many of the news magazines printed stories on Edwards, Kerry won 5 of the seven states. the states were states that Edwards should have won if he was going to take the nomination. (MO, ND, AZ, ND, OK, SC, and DE) None were great states for a New Englander. The media clearly anticipated the possibility of a Clinton-like sweep by Edwards. Even then the media called it as a victory for Kerry and Edwards (even though Clark did as well as Edwards.)

Edwards stayed in long after he was viable and the media played it like there was a contest. The NYT had an op-ed in the last week in February which said that it was known the Democratic nominee was named John, but not whether it was Kerry or Edwards. At that point Kerry had won 16 primaries, Edwards 1. There were many big states voting the next week - including CA, MA, and NY - where Kerry was up around 20 points in each. Kerry won all of that day's contests except VT, which Dean won.

Here is a link to pollingreport.com. You can see that after the Iowa caucus in mid January, Kerry was always substantially (ie Kerry in 30s - 40s versus Edwards in teens.)ahead. There are many polls here - it doesn't matter which you look at.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

[1932]

60. Please. He was gaining support over the last few days of every primary while everyone else was

losing support.

He came pretty close in Wisconsin and had a real chance in Ohio.

And in all those races up to Ohio, he was going in with 5-10% polling a week before the primary, and doubling or trippling that by primary day.

It would have been insane for him not to fight through Ohio.

I also have to STRONGLY disagree with the claim that the media pushed him after Iowa. The big story after Iowa for a whole week was Dean's scream and his poor result. There was no room for discussing Edwards.

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. Edwards was elected to the Senate running as a centrist

He is no long pretending to be a centrist. Or perhaps now he is pretending not to be a centrist. Either way, the candidate running now is not the same one who won in 1998.

[1932]

15. Maybe that's how you win both races?

[liskddksil]

23. Actually he ran as a populist in 1998 and 2004

2004 he spoke of Two Americas, one for the haves and one for the havenots. He also argued that wealth is being treated better in the tax code than work. He made poverty a centerpiece of his 2004 campaign just as with this one. Is he more aggressive this times, yes. But this is not some 180 degree transformation.

[hijinx87]

14. this is actually humorous

edwards is battle tested the same way custer was after
little big horn.

[Rabo Karabekian]

17. If Not Edwards Who?

Who in the field is battle tested then?

[hijinx87]

18. gosh. let's see

if winning elections is your metric, then how about that
biden guy, who has been in the senate for a quarter of a
century? or that dodd fellow?

my point is that "battles" don't just happen on the campaign
trail. they happen in the halls of congress, and all over
capitol hill.

[venable]

20. not funny and wrong. nt

[hijinx87]

22. um. need clarification

was it wrong because it was unfunny, or was it both wrong
and unfunny simultaneously?

I just need to know if I should argue with you or apologize.

[Cameron27]

25. lol

[venable]

27. both simultaneously

so you should argue

[hijinx87]

28. then I apologize.

because I agree.

:evilgrin:

[venable]

32. did you just judo me?

I thought I landed a punch, but you didn't flinch. now I'm all confused.

[hijinx87]

35. ah, I am slippery

I also a supreme prestidigitator.

*poof*

I am now wearing your hat.

[venable]

38. that's where you're wrong

that hat belongs to my wife.

[hijinx87]

43. I am bailing out of this otherwise fun and enjoyable subthread

before my bizarre sense of humor and big mouth combine
to say something that I do not mean, and otherwise gets
me in trouble. ;)


(but it was something about pants)

[venable]

55. enjoyed the break from the usual. thanks. nt

[mtnsnake]

26. I think John Edwards is the only unelectable candidate we have

If by some miracle, he got the nod, I don't think we would even hold onto many of our blue states, let alone win a single red state. I've never met anyone, Democrat or Republican alike, who trusts him.

[hijinx87]

31. he is, in fact

the only candidate in the field that is provably unelectable in a
national election.

[Cameron27]

33. Don't be too quick to judge,

Mudcat's rounding up the bubba vote for him. :+

[last_texas_dem]

58. But the way you are judging electability in a national election doesn't make sense

Losing as a VP candidate proves very little. For example, FDR lost an election as a VP candidate before going on to win four Presidential elections. But by your standards, he had already been "provably unelectable in a national election."

[ihavenobias]

34. Well then

you need to meet some new people.

[hijinx87]

36. my activities in the various hillary sabotage task forces

take up too much of my time to get out very often. so many candidates
to explode, and so little time, ya know?

[ihavenobias]

40. Hillary

is a terrible candidate. Even *if* she were brilliant on everything else, the issue of how much money she's raised (an enormous negative as far as how it will influence her) and *where it came from* ruins her, completely in my mind.

Health care is the perfect example. People keep saying she's great because of how much experience she has fighting for it. Yeah well, that's great, except that back then she wasn't being influenced by the health care industry (obviously).

Now she's taken more money from the health care industry than ANY other candidate, democrat or republican.

Do I want someone that can win? Yes. But considering just how much the country despises republicans at the moment, why are so many of us so terrified that we're willing to choose Hillary just because we think she'll win? I think almost ANY of the major candidates could win in this context. It's not like Bush is at 60%, or even 30%.

The guy is at 24%, the matching the lowest approval rating in US history, even more incredible when you realize he's tying Richard Nixon *on the day he resigned*.

[hijinx87]

46. first of all, bush isn't running

and you can't assume the other side will nominate a bleeder.

and if you are just determined to find faults, I would observe
that john edwards is running a rather distant third in iowa,
despite the fact that he has spent the last four years of his
life in that state.

[ihavenobias]

47. BS!

Edwards is slightly ahead of Obama in Iowa, and all three are in a statistical dead heat!

Unless it's changed from yesterday, it was something like 25/23/22 (HC/JE/BO)

[hijinx87]

50. well, hell.

I have stumbled into one of those potentially bottomless poll
discussions.

he is running second in ONE SINGLE poll, and third by various
margins in all of the others. if you average them all, my statement
is valid; he is "a rather distant third".

[ihavenobias]

53. Dueling polls

The point is that Edwards is gaining ground while Hillary is losing it as we come closer to primary time. That is more relevant than his relative position *for now*.

Also, Hillary is consistently #1 in another important poll...the one that asks which candidate is *least* favorable.

[ihavenobias]

37. That's a HUGE endorsement in my mind

Thom Hartmann is the single most well informed person I have *ever* heard in my life with regard to politics and political history and economics. Listening to his show is like auditing a university level course.

He's also incredibly progressive, and the fact that he is supporting Edwards (has been for some time now) gives me even more confidence in the guy. He has no vested interest.

www.thomhartmann.com

[IA_Seth]

39. Edwards IS battle-tested...

He's been forced to argue BOTH sides of most issues due to his post-2004 policy makeover.

Ha ha.

[ihavenobias]

41. Well then

who do *you* support and why?

[IA_Seth]

42. I am still undecided..

I have, what, 48 days remaining before my caucus? Being in Iowa I try to stay open minded as much as possible...

Biden, Clinton, Obama..

Those are my top 3 at this point. Edwards is my least supported among our candidates.

[ihavenobias]

44. As I've said before on Hillary

How in the world can you support the candidate who is, *by far*, the most beholden to special interest money?

People applauding her fund raising efforts need to realize what a double-edged-sword it is.

Is it really something to be proud of you when your candidate has taken more money from the health care industry than ANY other candidate, democrat OR republican? And you trust her to reform health care to the benefit of most Americans, why, because in the early 90's (when she was NOT influenced by all that money and payback potential) she fought?

There's also that matter of taking money from the defense industry, I wonder where she ranks on that...

At any rate, even *if* you think Hillary has the best ideas (a very big if in my mind, particularly when Iran is the topic) she simply can't be trusted to represent the will of the people in light of her funding. *That's nothing against Hillary on a personal level*, that's something against ANY politician of ANY party at ANY level. It's the oldest story in politics.

[Chrisy5558]

45. I for one do not support Hilary

I do not think Hilary Clinton is the best Candidate. She seems to flip flop on the issues. She takes a large amount of money from interest groups. She is a good politican that knows how to promise people the moon and the stars to get elected and then forget about them when elected, but who when the next election comes makes excuses why they didn't deliver on the promises they made. I also think we need fresh blood and not just go between two families(Bush,Clinton,Bush,Clinton?)

I do not vote for the lesser of two evils. If she is nominated I will be writing in the person who I think can get this country back on the right track, who is honest, and would make the tough decisions. I will be writing in RFK jr. I am not the only Democrat who wants Bobby Kennedy Jr to run. Their is a movement to draft him as their candidate. This country needs him at the helm and not another bought politican like many of the other Democrats that are running.

[IA_Seth]

52. And you, and your children, will pay for that vote. n/t

[Renew Deal]

48. I think that's a fair point.

Edwards should be a tougher campaigner.

[FrenchieCat]

51. Edwards '98 ran to the right of his '07 self......and so whatever the

results were in 1998 have no bearing on a presidential race in 2008.

Remember that Edwards lost his home county in 2004......and at the point he was running center to his currently left leaning positions.

In other words, winning depends not simply on the individual, but what the individual is saying. In the case of Edwards, what he is saying now is what night is to 1998 days.

So Hartmann's theory leaves a whole lot of contextual facts out.

[Ninga]

54. As Biden said last night.....yesterday doesn't matter, what are you going to do now....

[asdjrocky]

56. Edwards...

The Peoples Candidate.

[laureloak]

57. I hadn't thought of that. Edwards is a fighter and it shows.