I don't understand why so many DUers are convinced that Edwards is the best bet

[cali]

in the General election. He's not doing terribly well despite his having been actively running for the last 3 years. If he's not doing well with the dem base, what makes you think he'd be heralded by the rest of dem voters and independents?

He's undergone a remarkable shift on many issues over the past few years. This shift may be genuinely heartfelt, but how is he going to position himself in the general? Despite the conviction of many DUers, there is a large number of voters who are not aligned with either the political left or the political right.

He doesn't bring any area of the country into play for dems. He's not popular in the South.

He's accepted public funding. That in itself is a huge deficit. How will he be able to compete against a Romney or Guiliani? He won't. He'll be silenced for months while the repukes batter him on nationwide TV.

He'll be slammed by the repukes just as hard as Clinton would be. Don't think so? Look back to 2004 and multiply by 100. He doesn't have a stellar record to run on, and he's certainly no more experienced than Obama.

Personally, I think he's less electable than either Obama, Clinton, or even Biden- despite Biden's long Senate record. I just don't get why people think he's so electable.

[monmouth]

1. I certainly don't and can't wait for him to step down and make room

for one of the "second tier" people to step up. Many of us have fatigue and it's not the first tiers fault really. This campaign started early and we know what they think, their opinions. Can't wait for Iowa to be over.

[frogcycle]

10. I want Biden to make a deal with him

I'd take Edwards as veep or atty gen

BIDEN is the most electable of the lot, AND the best qualified to roll up sleeves and fix things on day one.

[monmouth]

14. Edwards would be a great VP. Style, class and smart. Can't beat that combo..

[Tellurian]

25. Edwards in New Hampshire

Does Edwards look a little "stiff" or is it just my imagination?

[slick8790]

38. It's just your imagination. (Or your selective pulling of photos).

Anyone can find awkward looking pictures of any candidate.

[rateyes]

72. Doesn't Clinton look like

a Republican, or is it my imagination? (No, it's not my imagination.)

[MADem]

2. I have to admit, I haven't been focusing on him as much lately.

I will say that he didn't help himself at this last outing. I thought he sounded a bit stressed and angered. And not in a good way. He also seemed a little rougher around the edges. There was a contrast from previous appearances that was sufficient enough to be observed and noted.

The other thing I noticed, and I noticed it specifically because I saw a few runs of his campaign commercial for the NH market before and after the program, was that he kicked his accent up a notch or two out in Nevada. He sounded much more 'Carolina' on that stage than he does in his ad. For whatever those observations are worth....!

[frogcycle]

11. accents can come and go

I subconsciously "turn southern" based on to whom I am talking or where I am. I can also turn hillbilly or even Brooklyn. I never mean to, it just happens.

[1monster]

22. I had a friend in college who spoke cut glass English... until she had a drink or two.

Then this deep south Pensacola, almost Alabaman, accent would creep into her diction.

She told me that she had worked very hard to get rid of the accent, but it would sneak back in and surprise her every now and then.

[MADem]

45. I probably wouldn't have noticed it, but the contrast with his campaign ad was almost stark...

I also have an aural nature at times--I am very cognizant of stress or anger or irritation in a tone of voice. He wasn't a happy camper out there in Nevada. It was a sharp contrast to his other appearances. Made me wonder if he had something on his mind...

[orpupilofnature57]

3. His Ethical history, and lately Obama is as much of a whore as the rest...

save Kucinich, who because of imaginative solutions doesn't stand a chance.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. maybe because Clinton is such a poor alternative?

I suspect that a good deal of support for others, Edwards included, is based partially on knowing exactly how bad she will be for party, country, etc.

[cali]

5. I don't know. I'm really just talking

mechanics here as much as anything else. I'm also not convinced that Clinton is the boogywoman so many have constructed.

[orpupilofnature57]

6. But we know she's not Eleanor, Does she?

[cali]

7. huh?

No, she's not Eleanor Roosevelt. I don't see what that has to do with anything.

[orpupilofnature57]

12. Self image as opposed to the perceived being.Allegiance needs to be...

inspired by Action and Culpability ,NOT BOUGHT OR CAJOLED .Shrub had it made, his followers for ambiguous reasons are all blind,it's a little harder for Our candidates. http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/09/03_hard.html

[Zorra]

8. I think many of us are concerned about the misogynistic tendencies

of a large segment of the voting population.

There are a whole lot of racist, homophobic, misogynistic 'Murkans out there that absolutely will not vote for a woman. This includes most republicans, a good number of Independents, and even a few Dems.

Since I know too many of these sexists personally, I am concerned about Senator Clinton's electability in the general election.

[cali]

9. OK, but what about the points I raise in my OP?

I'm not convinced you're right to begin with. I think there are more Americans willing to vote for a woman or person of color than not. But outside of that, what makes you think they'll vote for Edwards? If you think his strength is simply that he's a white male, why is anymore electable than Biden?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. A Question

If Mr.X won't vote for a woman because he believes in archaic gender roles why would Mr.X not vote for a man he preceives not to fit into the same archaic gender roles?

Look at Chris "Goofball" Matthews...He's always waxing orgasmically over Bush* in a flight suit, the odor of musk that emanates from Fred Thompson, and Ghouliani's tough guy image... These gender roles work both ways...

[orpupilofnature57]

17. Would you say Hillary has any Misogynistic tendencies?Benzair Bhutto,

Indira Gandhi,Corey Aquino are all heroes of mine ,I was the first kid on my block to subscribe to 'Mother Jones'!!!! But if a person doesn't inspire ,point Kerry ,an intelligent, loyal ,Rich man can't win on Credentials and Ideas, I seriously doubt Sen. Clinton will.




P.S. I will vote for her in the end.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. No

I think he's saying there are a lot of men and probably some women who won't vote for a womam because she doesn't conform to their idea of how a woman should act...That being said, why doesn't that line of thinking also lead one to believe that these same people won't vote for a man because he doesn't conform to the way they expect him to act...

I like candidates that are "tough" but empathetic... However I don't see "toughness" as unique to males...

[MADem]

46. Are you talking about the "X" percentage requirement?

Harold Ford noted that, in order to break even as a black man in his state running against a white guy, you had to poll fifteen percent ahead of what you actually need, because people will LIE to the pollsters/exit pollers so they don't come off as racist, but in the privacy of the voting booth, the ghost of the white sheet and hood comes to the fore....

[tekisui]

28. When I talk to people about who they are liking,

No one ever says Edwards. Usually it is "the unelectable one" or Hillary. Any criticisms of Hillary are qualified and resolved with, "I want to be part of history, and vote the first woman president."

But, everyone says A Democrat.

I don't think that any of them would lose, honestly. I appreciate that Edwards positions have "evolved", I think it is as much a marker of the desire for progressive ideals in the country, as his desire to win.


edit: spelling

[Yuugal]

76. and Bingo was his name-o!

I cant speak for anyone else, but you are exactly right in my case. My support of Edwards is mostly because he is the only one besides the Kooch and maybe Biden who says the right things. If I was an Iowan I would vote for Edwards even though I like others better because Edwards actually has a chance. Many people on DU think Edwards' recent conversion to the populist fold is an act but I would still rather have a guy talk the right game and give me half of it, than a Hillary type who talks the corporatist game and gives me all of it.

Hillary is going to be bad for the party because she is going to lose. She will bring the reps out in record numbers against us while simultaneously keeping progressive dems uninterested and thus home or voting 3rd party on election day. The saddest part of this is our party leaders, who cant seem to grasp that alot of poor people like myself just aren't going to vote against our interests anymore. If progressives are going to keep losing and things are going to get much worse before enough people see the light then so be it. I'm waiting for the dawn to come and Hillary is just a night light in Nome, Alaska in January.

If we give her a chance to be the corporate boot licker she is as president, then we waste 4-8 yrs on her and 4-8 yrs on the rep toad-ie that will follow her........or.......we vote our conscience now and lose......but maybe in 4 yrs we get another shot at a real progressive to win.

So just to sum up: Hillary lovers, there is just no way I can vote for your Goldwater Girl/Walmart board member. I'm not voting for a war monger, I'm not voting for a corporatist, and I'm certainly not voting for anyone who thinks outsourcing is a good thing. We already made that mistake once and we ended up with NAFTA. His name was Clinton too.

[saltpoint]

15. If he did not represent meaningful reform the media would be pimping him.

They're plainly in no hurry to promote him as a politician, as a person, as a president.

The mainstream media's response to a candidacy is often a very reliable gauge of the degree that candidacy threatens their position and influence.

Edwards' domestic agenda positions are startlingly progressive and have a hard-earned earnestness to them. I haven't seen comprehensive preparation on domestic policy like this since Robert F. Kennedy. Robert F. Kennedy won the Indiana primary in 1968. Think of that. A Northeastern liberal winning in Indiana, and this over a favorite son governor to boot.

Edwards' campaign is cut from that cloth.

The MSM wants to manage political choice and they do this in part by dumbing the nomination process down to a sporting event. "In this corner, Hillary Clinton. In the other, Barack Obama." They pointedly downplay or ignore outright the other 6 candidacies.

There are a lot of very progressive people on DU and on KOS and on other blogs who are supporting Edwards in the primary.

I don't think that's happenstance.

[orpupilofnature57]

19. K&R

[OHdem10]

16. Edwards represents most closely the values of Progrssives.

"You will not get change by rplacing Corporate Democrats for Corporate
Democrats".....John Edwards

[annabanana]

18. I think you've hit on it.

He isn't a corporate candidate. I admit that his accent grates on my ear. I would rather be supporting a Gore candidacy. But I think that his progressive bonafides surpass the other "leading" candidates.

With that qualifier, my heart is with Dennis. I am looking harder at Biden.

[Dawgs]

73. Then why in all of these online 'who'se your candidate tests' is Edwards always below Obama?

Every time I take one, my first choice is Kucinich; and usually my second choice is Gravel and Obama. And, I see similar results from everyone else.

I think many DUers want to believe Edwards is the most progressive, and maybe they think saying it all of the time will help, but his voting record and current positions prove that not to be the case.

[cali]

21. Whether that's true or not has absolutely nothing to do with the

points made in the OP. How come they're so hard to address?

[orpupilofnature57]

23. Post 15

[cali]

24. no it doesn't address the points I made.

It's advocacy for Edwards and vaguely links Edwards with RFK, but it doesn't address his funding problems, his inability to rise in the polls or anything else.

[orpupilofnature57]

27. I think not playing the role for MSM ostracise's a person from both..

Popular Opinion which is as flimsy as Polls ,And Mu-la speaks for itself.

[Tellurian]

30. You mean Progressives* asked Edwards

to VOTE for nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mtn?

to Vote for a Bankruptcy Bill that throws Middle Class America into poverty?

to Vote and Co-Sponsor The Iraq Resolution?

to push and lobby a Vote for Free Trade with China? (tainted dog and human food, toys painted with poison paint?)

to post his support for the Iraq War on Bush's WH website?



could you post a link related to the Progressive Values representing Edwards Senate Votes?

[eridani]

68. Actually, Kucinich does. Edwards is the closest of the front runners, though. nt/t

[Adelante]

26. I think you are right

But there is something to his teflon level that allows him to get over with a lot of people who would be unwilling to overlook his record and the soft deception he practices in any other candidate. I don't think this ability would work in a GE, because he wouldn't be in a position to get away with it as he is here, but I do think it partly explains why the belief can exist in the face of the realities you point out. If he can get hard nosed DUers to look the other way on so much, he's got a talent.

[zalinda]

29. You want point by point?

He has been largely ignored by the media, except for the haircut. If you turn on TV, you hear about Clinton or Obama, rarely Edwards. Hell, even the haircut didn't last a week, his wife's cancer lasted less than a week, so he's gotten maybe all together about 3 weeks of press. Clinton or Obama, on the other hand, have had an enormous amount of press, Obama, not as much as Clinton. You've heard the old saying, if a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound? You talk to people and they say Edwards who? It's not for his want of trying. He's the hardest working candidate I've ever seen.

As for his positions, when he was a Senator, he was a representative of his state, which was a red state, so his job was to vote they way his constituents wanted him to vote. Of his run in 2004, he sounded basically the same as now, but not quite as focused. When he was running as VP, he had to abide by the Kerry campaign's wishes, so he was spouting Kerry's positions.

I certainly don't know that he is not popular in the south. It has been said that he crosses party lines and that some think of him as a conservative. This can only help the dems. You have more of a good old boy network down there, and I don't see a woman yankee or black yankee doing any better than a white southern man.

As for public funding, he has run a good race so far, which flies in the face of "underfunding". He has not taken the easy way out and just run commercials and spent the money. He has worked the ground, meeting people which means to me, that he would hopefully, spend OUR money more wisely when in the White House. He hasn't been bought by the corporations, so he doesn't have the big bucks. That doesn't mean that the DNC can't run ads, or 527's. It doesn't mean that people can't volunteer to do things for the campaign. There is such a contrast between him and any repub, that it wouldn't take much for him to gain ground.

What he has for experience, is the experience of running before. If nothing else, this man seems to learn from his mistakes. He would not have been a successful lawyer if he didn't. This is a man that I think people will say, damn he's saying what I've thought all along. I hope he will fight for me, because I feel invisible. He is bringing hope to people who have been ignored for too long. If every person who made less than $97,000 voted for him, he would win in a landslide never before seen in this country.

As their jobs are going overseas, people are looking at CEO's not with admiration, but with disgust. Greed is no longer valued. Al Gore has a lot to do with turning this country to a more greener mindset, but also with a mindset that we are all in this together. Edwards speaks to those people.

zalinda

[Beaverhausen]

36. Great post. You summed things up very well.

Doesn't look as if the OP has seen it yet.

I support him mostly on the issues he is addressing. Issues like the porblem of poverty that so far no other cdandidate really even bothers to bring up.

Anecdotally, I have talked with several republicans who, out of all the democrats, like him the best. One thing they mention is how strong his family is and that they admire Elizabeth.

Also anecdotally, amongst the more active democratic groups around the country, Edwards always seems to be leading, at least in things like straw polls. That shows he would have a large grassroots organization in place for the general, and have lots of volunteers to get out and work for him.

[dmosh42]

44. I couldn't have said it as well as you did!

This is just another bullshit subject by someone who thinks he has the right to question other opinions.

[surfermaw]

49. I agree with you Zalinda

Ihve never see a candidate be left out where the Media is concerned, I think Wolf Blitzer and CNN, shoud be looked at, why are they so against Edwards?

[hisownpetard]

31. I am equally puzzled. No Edwards supporters I know have been able to really say why

they think he can win the General Election. I do not think he's the man,
esp. after the last debate.

[rucky]

32. He has a good message...

but not enough substance to back it up. Sure he's had some success and is no doubt qualified for the job, but he keeps turning on the way-back machine to tout his achievements.

What has he done for us lately?

[Cameron27]

33. K&R

All good points cali, and I don't get why people think he's so electable either.

[butterfly77]

34. I have always wondered this ...

every since the 2004 election. When I heard he was running again I wondered why? Yes, he states the two americas' and what bush has done or not done but,I don't really see any substance and lately all he does is seems to talk louder. As I have said in previous posts,"I don't see it" what ever it is his supporters seem to be seeing. How do his supporters think he will do with foreign policy or in the debates with repubs can someone paint me a scenerio of him slapping down a CON or him standing up against some foreign leader. I just can't picture it and what I do picture is not very favorable. The other night he looked like a deer caught in the headlights when Kuchinch call him out...

[hfojvt]

35. first, we are not picking our candidate entirely or even majorly,

based on electability. Nor am I basing my disgust at Clinton on her electability, although I think that will be a big issue.

Belief of his electability comes from polls. As far as his performance and such, in the two debates I have seen, they basically never let him talk about domestic issues - it is all Iraq/Iran/Pakistan; social security; immigration; health care. Hillary, of course, stole his health care thunder by copying his proposal.

Edwards has been unable to raise money? If it was not for Clinton and Obama's stellar performance, Edwards' fund-raising would be setting records. The fact that Hillary raises money, like she did locally, with $500 a plate dinners, does not impress me, at all. If big money is for her, that is yet another reason for me to be against her.

It is kinda scary and disgusting though, that the media has been able to take him down as easily as it did Dean. I wonder if that would hold true though, if it was not for the monster that ate New York, and her own mighty wurlitzer.

[ihavenobias]

37. THIS Is Why Edwards Gets My Vote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs8YFaQCD0k

Now, I know a lot of you don't believe him when you watch that clip above, but of the so called "top tier" candidates (the ones who stand a chance of winning within the context of our flawed system), can anyone tell me who is promoting these brilliant ideas?

Paper ballots? Public funding of elections? Citizen Congress? Voting on some other non-work day (common sense on that one)?

All of these things go FAR beyond *this* campaign. These are ideas that should be embraced outside of Edwards, they should be embraced by ALL of us, regardless of who we think we're voting for.

These things are all about improving and restoring our democracy, on a fundamental level, and I can only hope whoever wins the nomination has a platform half as good as this.

[cali]

40. You miss the point of the OP

I'm not saying there aren't good and valid reasons for supporting JE.
I'm suggesting that saying he's the most electable is not one of them. And I see that a lot here.

[ihavenobias]

42. A Cynical Response

You want a cynical response to why he's the "most electable"?

Putting his great ideas aside (the ones I mentioned in his previous post, the populism that has broad appeal and is historically what democrats stand for), there is something that he has going for him that unfortunately appeals to many ignorant people in our country.

He's a white, male Christian, who also happens to be attractive.

Are those superficial reasons? Yes. Is that the template for our presidents going back as far as I can remember? Yes (except the attractive part, that's debatable I guess, but a clear bonus unless you except the right wring "pretty boy" frame which many here apparently have).

Also, he's got a bit of a southern accent, which also (right or wrong) seems to be the template for our recent presidents. You have to go back some years to find a president without one.

Again, please no angry responses. I am NOT by any means saying those are the reasons *I* like Edwards and I think it's absurd that those things make him more superficially electable to many people. But I believe it's true.

I think it's intellectually dishonest to suggest that there is a lot of racism and sexism in America but then to also say that those things somehow won't influence voters. What, all of the sudden racism and sexism will be put to rest come election time? Please. You can't have it both ways.

Finally, don't say "well, the people who are racist/sexist won't vote for a democrat anyway". While I agree this is *generally* true, it assumes all people who vote democrat are immune to some degree of racism/sexism (don't forget so called moderates and independents who claim no allegiance to any party). I've heard dumb people say they wouldn't vote for a woman president during a time of war because we need "someone strong". Obviously I'm totally opposed to Hillary, but NOT because of her gender. But you get the point.

[cali]

47. no I didn't want a "cynical" response.

I think your post is essentially nonsense and fairly offensive. Who are you to tell me how to respond and what to respond to? That's not the way things work.

So if Edwards is this template of electable virtue that you tick off; why isn't he doing better among the dem base? Why has his fundraising been so lackluster?

Of course I've never said the things you caution me not to say, but let me address racism and sexism for a moment: I can't think of anything more cowardly than giving into it and not nominating someone because of their gender and color. Just :puke:

My arguments against John Edwards as the most electable are far stronger than yours for him. Again, he won't have the bucks to compete effectively, his record works against him, he's positioning himself in a way that'll make it harder for him to attract centrists in the general, and all the other points I brought up in the OP. Sure, I think he could be elected, but he's definitely not the most electable.

[ihavenobias]

48. Non-sequitur

Offensive? I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "who are you to tell me how to respond and what to respond to". Honestly, it's as if you're responding to a completely different post.

No really, did you read my full post or did you just skim it for keywords? My WHOLE POINT was that *I* find it totally ridiculous that someone would not vote for someone primarily because of their gender or skin color (I also find it ridiculous that some people *would* vote for someone primarily because of their gender, skin color, accent or any other superficial factor).

But once again, simply acknowledging the fact that we *do* in fact have plenty of racism and sexism (and superficial judgment) in America (that is not likely to magically disappear during elections) does not equate with "giving in" to those things. Your comment reminds me of conservatives who (absurdly) say that discussing contraception is akin to promoting promiscuity.

Edwards has the best populist message of the top tier (top tier based on funding and polling BTW) candidates, and it's not even close. Populism has broad appeal and used to be the bread and butter of the party before the wave of DLC, corporate democrats took over. THAT is why he *should* be the most electable and is why *I* find him to be electable. I was also simply pointing out that unfortunately, there are stupid reasons why he also electable, the superficial reasons I went over.

If you disagree with this general point, explain all the people that voted for our current fool of a president because he seemed like a good guy to "have a beer with".

[Basileus Basileon]

39. Three words: White. Male. Pretty. nt

[ihavenobias]

43. Don't forget the accent

Which I mentioned in my other post. How many years ago did we have a president without a southern something or other in his voice? Exactly.

It's a winning formula (ridiculous, but true).

[michaz]

71. And what?

Do you think that people are stupid? Do you really think that is why some prefer him over the other candidates? Gee, it might come as a shock to you but some people actually like him because of what he stands for. That is there right just as you might choose another candidate and have the right to do that. This remark is demeaning to the intelligence to some people!!

[CyberPieHole]

95. Bingo! n/t

[mtnsnake]

41. Maybe they think he's the best bet to derail Hillary or something in the Primary

Other than that, the guy is virtually unelectable, IMO. If he ever got the nod by some miracle, we'd be looking at 4-8 more years of a Republican WH with some asshole like Gulini inhabiting it.

[Glimmer of Hope]

52. I think his polls are actually pretty good against Guiliani. Probably better than other Dems.

[illinoisprogressive]

50. I like Edwards and his passion and sense of justice.

[Divine Discontent]

51. Not attacking, just saying - broken record, that's not (cough) mudslinging.

There's much more "hate" of Hillary in this country than John. By far. I stand in groups where I work, and the men are constantly complaining, for years now, about Hillary, and as the election draws near the hate of her blossoms into daily bitching about her. If any one of her backers, including yourself don't think she invigorates a sick and unexcited GOP base to come out and vote unlike any DEM candidate, you're living in a dream world. Of course they'll attack any of OUR candidates, but she inspires thousands of hours of TV/RADIO and interpersonal hatred and discussion daily.

Thanks for today's comment by you against John, however. I liked it enough to respond.

[cali]

54. oh for pity's sake. this is hardly a slam. just my perspective on

oft repeated meme by many Edwards supporters. and I wish people would grasp the very simple concept that there personal anecdotes are fucking meaningless.

[Divine Discontent]

55. OK, it's your perspective, I understand that

I also tell ya she's found to be an obnoxious and disliked politician in major portions of this country and she'll do as poorly in the GE debates as she's doing in these with her nervous and inappropriate laughter, and totally turn off DEMS like me if she blows the big debates like she's doing with the party debates. I don't know where you live, but I'm not in an NE state or CA, so she's gonna get hammered in the type of states I'm in that aren't too liberal - we need someone that doesn't excite them to vote and that stands up for our DEM beliefs and can win it, and that is Biden, Edwards, Gore, or maybe even Obama or Richardson. As each day progresses I feel she's a horrible debater and is gonna inspire millions more in donations than any of those other five I mentioned.

[cali]

56. well, we disagree. I think any of the dem candidates can win

and I suspect you're projecting and so many here at DU do when it comes to Clinton. They let their own feelings get in the way of any kind of dispassionate analysis. And as I'm not a Clinton supporter or a passionate supporter of any other candidate, and I actually research things, I'm probably in a better position to look at things than someone like you.

[Divine Discontent]

60. you lose any argument

when you say things like, "I'm probably in a better position to look at things than someone like you."

I have no idea your situation, nor do you know mine, and what information I am privy to, nor do I know what you're privy to. All I will tell you without saying I know you're wrong and I'm right with the tone you take in your last comment is that you must take into consideration that in many battleground states she is not well respected, and the keyword is well, I'm not saying she has staunch support, but when you look at negatives, her's are much higher than anyone else's on the Democratic side.

Remember, electing a president is all about passion and the way a candidate appears - so I will not take that out of any analysis I have discernment in reviewing, and I feel they can all win, but she will have the biggest battle and frankly, I don't feel we need to be risking it when B*sh has sucked so badly.

[frogmarch]

53. I'm not against any

of the Dem candidates, but I like Edwards the best. I also think he has a better chance than the other Dem candidates of beating whomever the republicanz choose as their nominee. Anyway, he would if my town were representative of the whole country. Where I live, two things Edwards has going for him are that he's white and a man. I myself like him despite his being white and a man. Kidding. With regards to my choosing him, his race and gender don't factor in.

[Guaranteed]

57. He's certainly our best bet out of our choices.

The difference between him and Sen. Clinton is that Edwards has come to terms with his previous mistakes. He has disowned his IWR vote. Clinton has not, and will end up in the same quandry as John Kerry. Even with his apology he will at least relate to a substantial portion of the population who supported the Iraq War in its inception, but then felt betrayed later on (thinking of the low, but not low enough Iraq War support levels of today).

If you want to see 2004 all over again, support Sen. Clinton. Edwards has at least addressed what happened, and should be able to put the issue to rest. Clinton, on the other hand, is going to get nailed with that vote over. And over. And over.

"Flip flopper" all over again.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

58. I don't think he should have run again

[harun]

59. Likeable, white, male, southern accent, nuff said (n/t)

[Divine Discontent]

61. the repugs would have loved to have a candidate like him n/t

[harun]

96. If he was a closet racist they probably would have recruited him (n/t)

[babylonsister]

62. Damn. You can't understand Edwards, you think Obama made a

big fat blooper, Kucinich is your choice but he won't win, your MO is clear.

[cali]

93. Yes, of course, little miss psychic,

to people who labor under the illusion that they have mind reading abilities, I'm sure my OP is clear. Allow me to puncture your illusion with a couple of links: Yes, I'm really a stealth Clinton supporter and that's why I post unfavorable things about her- just to confuse people like you.

I've criticized all the candidates. What can I say? I'll vote for any of them if they get the nomination, but yeah, I think they're all flawed. I'm voting for Kucinich to endorse his ideas and send a statement to the party (if enough people vote for him, it will be a real statement). I don't think he'll win the nomination: How negative! How shocking! How disloyal! Oh yeah, and I don't think he'd be a particularly effective president either- *gasp*.
I'm a wonk, not a particularly a partisan to any ideological ship- not to party or anything else, but my own issues and ethics. I don't buy my ideas wholesale- unlike many folks.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2173028

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3636023

[saracat]

63. Actually, he does better in all the GOP matchups than do any of the other

other Dem candidates and he is the only candidate to actually "win" a competitive election in the conservative south.He actually WON against a "real" candidate and GOP favorite Faircloth and he did it his very first time out!.Clinton ran in a blue state against a weak unknown and Obama ran against Alan Keyes who was literally "imported to Ill and is a joke.! Edwards did very well in the 2003 primaries and came in second. As as far as money goes, I am not sure he has accepted "public funding"' for the general.If he opts out for the general and has won Iowa, we see a very different picture. Edwards is a populist and that message plays very well across the board.He has the lowest negatives of all the Dem contenders, contrasted with Hillary who has the highest.

Unlike Clinton, for whom many have a visceral hatred, people like Edwards.He has a good back story and people love his wife.He has the appeal of both the common man and the Horatio Alger story of the American Dream.And he doesn't offend anyone.As for the polls, the media has been spinning Clinton all the time.She is the candidate they want for the horse race.Edwards has been too obvious in his attack on the corporations.They do not easily give air time to their enemies.Most of the public is not yet paying attention, but they will begin after IOWA.The race has already tightened there and I believe Edwards will take IOWA.He is very well liked there and relates to the rural population like none of the other candidates.

Edwards is very electable because he is speaking for most of America and he is speaking across the divide. America doesn't identify with ivy league educated elitists and they don't identify with DC insiders.Edwards is the one they would like to have a beer with this cycle.He asked them to listen to their heart and I think they will.

[JohnLocke]

64. Populist, awesome persuasive/communication ability

[Froward69]

65. um well

I just don't feel comfortable with Edwards. Insofar as electable no he has the same experience as Obama, ad what experience he has, is dry powder for the rethugs. I met him once a little more than a year ago. He came across as a an arrogant used car salesman. Running for the Presidency for his ego more than anything else. Watch this and tell me he doesn't come across as arrogant. The "Ive never thought about that" part.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071020/OPINION/71017035/1001

for asking the same electable question he has experience and been through the back halls of congress more than anyone. a friend of mine in Iowa said he was nearby when he heard Joe Biden tell an older gentleman. "I have dirt on a lot of republicans, they wouldn't dare tempt me to use it." the older guy laughed and said you are my guy.

all my republican friends ask if we dems are going to nominate hillary as they feel they can beat her in the Ge. where as if Biden is the candidate most would vote for him. now my friends are not neocons. just as I am not leftest. we agree beneath it all, we are all Americans. To them Joe is the best FOR American middle class, and I agree.

[saracat]

67. Wow, you met him "once' and came away with that? I have met him many times and he has always been

kind, sincere and interested.He is about as genuine as it gets and very humble.Your link, if it was to the 10 questions posed, made me like him even more.Joe Biden, whom I like, is the one with an ego problem.He has always been that way.Even the quote you use illustrates that.
But each to his own.I disagree with your Edwards assessment. Most othe Republicans in my red state say they would vote only for Edwards! They can relate to him.

[Froward69]

77. Then why isn't Edwards

Still a senator?? insofar as my support for Edwards the day I met him it had snowed so the photo opp could not be outside. his staff arrived first and bossed us all around. upon his arrival he was clearly agitated and proceeded to complain about everything. suddenly when the cameras showed up he was likable and personable just the same as on tv. his departure was abrupt and as I was showing him out the back door. (insisting to go that way like he was going to get mobbed, acting like some spoiled rock star when th focus was on our current governor and state senators.) he grumbled about how happy he was to get out of this hick state. I felt betrayed and angry and realized he needed to go back to lawyering. Now if I met Joe Biden sometime through this year and he behaves the same. I will drop my support for him. no one is above anyone in this country. Edwards arrogance was astonishing.

[saracat]

80. May have just been a bad day.As I said, over the years I have met him many times

and I have NEVER seen him any different than what is seen in public. And I don't believe Elizabeth would ever remain with an arrogant man.Actually, there is a side to him that is a even little bit shy.Joe Biden , OTOH, though I like him' is well known for being arrogant. He actually announces that he is the smartest person in the room and everyone else is just stupid.I think he is a hoot but he is certainly conceited.But hey, whatever floats your boat.

[Froward69]

83. it just seemed that

Edwards on that day, was not happy without all the attention in the room. just my take.

[saracat]

86. Well, all I know is that on several occasions I have seen him perfectly happy to be on the sidelines

and it surprised me. One of those times he walked into a cocktail party preceding a presentation he was doing on healthcare and quiety stood alone on the fringes. I was stunned to see him walk in without any kind of entourage , even from the people that had asked him to speak. He was so unobtrusive no one but me noticed him. I walked over to him greeted him and offered to get him a drink. He said no he would get his own in a bit and we chatted about Elizabeth. I offered to get some of the event people and introduce him around but he seemed happier just observing and talking.He really seemed to not want a lot of "whoopla" but that was just my take.

[Froward69]

89. I concede

possibly, I caught him on an off day. but I just haven't been able to regain any respect for him since.
if he were still a congressman possibly. but really he has been running for prez for 3 years.

[saracat]

94. Thanks.It is okay to differ.

[saltpoint]

66. Here's an interesting article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chase-martyn/new-report-edwards-on-to_b_73119.html

[Yukari Yakumo]

70. An OP from a site well known for not liking Clinton. Pass. {nt}

uguu

[saltpoint]

78. Ms. Huffington is a true blue liberal. I read her site all the time.

Probably will keep reading it.

It enjoy it.

It's good.

[Yukari Yakumo]

69. I have to agree with you there.

I find him phonier than a $2 Rolex. He does one thing, says another. Is there an issue that we truly know where he stands? This is one of many things the ReThugs are going to slam him on. "Can Edwards be Trusted?" would certainly be of their memes.

Though the public financing bit is the real killer. Do we want months of unopposed RW slime on national TV?

What I find is that most people here would rather gloss over the details when it comes coming to grips with Edwards's negatives.

[ihelpu2see]

74. He and Obama beat all Republicans in a GE while Hillary struggles to break

even. So, when looking forward to a GE and especially if Calif. electoral votes get split up, Hillary loses.

[Mass]

75. Easy: "a white man from the South that is not a senator".

It plays on every single cliché that the DUers have accepted as true for the last 8 years:

- You cannot elect a woman. (exit Clinton)
- You cannot elect a non-white person. (exit Obama and Richardson)
- You cannot elect a senator. (exit Biden and Dodd)
- Only a Southerner can win. (exit Kucinich)

So only remains Edwards and Gravel.

Does not matter that all what you said is right. You will be slammed for talking the truth.

[mmonk]

79. Easy. They think his populist stance is popular and that people

have had enough of the status quo. Only time will tell if they are right.

[Trajan]

81. I am convinced a DEMOCRAT will be our best bet .....

Any of them will be fine with me ......

Good thing I don't put too much stock in the rampant smears in DU, otherwise I would hate them all ....

CMON General Election ......

[saltpoint]

82. I'm sorry, Trajan, but we just can't have any posts such as yours which

are intelligent, insightful, inclusive, practical, sound, balanced, conciliatory toward purpose, and pro-Democratic.

Please apologize.

[Trajan]

84. OK .... I apologise .....

Now I hate them all, as I should ....

Hey: How bout that Ron Paul fellow ? .... He seems pretty nice ....

:evilgrin:

[saltpoint]

85. LOL!

Now dammit, I was trying to get through the day without a reference to that squirmy little racist Ron Paul.

[Trajan]

87. Good luck with that ....

It appears we have run out of 'good' Democrats to vote for .....

I was hoping Kinky Friedman will reconsider ... fat chance though ....

There is still brush to clear on ranches all across Texas ....

:sarcasm:

[saltpoint]

88. LOL.

[1932]

90. 50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong

[Honeycombe8]

91. Will be interesting when either he or Obama steps down & their supporters go to someone else.

Wonder who Edwards' supporters, or Obama's supporters, will go to? Should be interesting.

[mtnsnake]

92. cali, things aren't always as they appear

This forum has become a magnet for any Hillary naysayer out there who wants to come to a place where they're in so much similar company.

Think about it....

What group on DU just happens to be the most vocal when it comes to lying about Hillary? The Edwards group.

What political group of people hates anything Clinton? The neocons.

So if you're going to come to DU to slander Hillary, which candidate is going to most resemble what you stand for? John Edwards, who supported the neocon agenda more than any other candidate when he was a Senator in Congress.

Don't think for a second that the sentiments on DU reflect the real sentiments of Democrats across mainstream America. They don't at all.