Edwards on CBS: Face the Nation this morning

[liberal N proud]

10:30 EST

[midnight]

1. I know they are showing parts of the debate.

I didn't see it all, but what I did see he did well.

[itsrobert]

2. Be ready for the Hillary Keyboard Troopers

They are at the ready in order to twist anything Edwards says into negative spin.

[hijinx87]

17. you are going to be really unhappy

during both of her terms as president, aren't you?

[venable]

27. this is what the HRC crowd can say on her behalf: she's leading, nothing else

i am searching my memory for when an HRC supporter said, policy-wise, what are her virtues. instead, we are told she is leading, yuk, yuk.


do the math. there's nothing there but a vote-getting machine. like the republicans, who can't be honored for anything at all but their ability to fool voters.

[hijinx87]

37. you're right

we hillarybots are just in it because she looks
spiffy in pantsuits.

this new line that are peddling is just as
sanctimonious as it can be.

[venable]

45. again, cute reply, but what policy does she offer that you endorse

please, nothing cute, just a tad substantive would be refreshing.

[hijinx87]

50. calling your opponents empty is just lazy and lame. n/t

[venable]

56. oh, well, i guess nothing substantial is coming.

I'm happy to say why i support John Edwards, should you be open to other candidates. That's sort of why i come to a place like DU.

- full support of the union movement
- rural recovery act
- his green policies at the expense of corporate profit
- no money from lobbyists
- all troops, ALL troops, out of the Iraq theatre
- universal health care as a reality

I also don't feel the need to call people lazy and lame, just want to ask whay policies she espouses that you support.

[Cha]

38. If she gets in ..

and covers up bushit crimes..you betcha.

[Renew Deal]

59. You must not have a Dean supporter 4 years ago.

They learned that saying dumb shit like this isn't smart.

[liberal N proud]

3. Shiefer trying to make it all about Clinton

[itsrobert]

6. Sure is

Nothing about Obama or any other candidate.

[rodeodance]

9. but edwards good at bringing it back to his policies

[itsrobert]

4. So far Edwards said Hillary is electable and not corrupt

In around about way. In answering questions from Bob S.

[rodeodance]

8. yes. i heard that

[rodeodance]

5. He says trial lawyers and others have too much influence. yup

[hijinx87]

25. he would certainly know. n/t

[venable]

30. can you say something good about your candidate, besides she leads,

rather than make smug comments about other candidates?

[hijinx87]

35. a positive comment? here? during primary season?

is that even allowed?

[venable]

46. yes, allowed and requested. nt

[rodeodance]

7. talking of edwards ad-take away congress health care if not pass universal health for people

[rodeodance]

11. said he would use the bully pulpit to pound the issue. YES YES

[creeksneakers2]

31. That's not what the ad says n/t

[Evergreen Emerald]

10. we don't get the program here until the wee hours of the morning.

Cartoons are on now.

[liberal N proud]

12. Right back to Clinton

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary....

[itsrobert]

16. That's not fair to the other candidates. But it makes Edwards the alternate to Hillary

That's fine by me. I'm sure other candidate supporters are not happy with the way Bob S is making it Clinton vs Edwards.

[rodeodance]

13. schefer wants to talk about his differences from Clinton

[rodeodance]

14. saying he would get the combat troops out which is different from clinton

[Evergreen Emerald]

24. that is different than what he has said in the past

[rodeodance]

15. crap-shaefer saying---aren't you afraid of removing troops too fast!

[rodeodance]

18. John saying the US needs someone who can be electable in gen. election

[hijinx87]

28. says the only guy in the race that has lost a general election

:eyes:

[saracat]

33. Says the only guy that has ever beaten a favorite credible Repuke in the South

[hijinx87]

34. faircloth?

the guy was a monumental flake, even by repuke standards. barney rubble
could have beaten him that year.

my point, however, is that arguing presidential electability is a bit
unseemly coming from the last guy to be proven unelectable.

[saracat]

36. That is NOT so.Faircloth was a credible "real " opponernt, unlike the

weak unknowns that Hillary faced and Obama beating Alan Keyes of all people as examples.Edwards won a tough race as a Democrat in the SOUTH. The others are either easterners in blue states or easteners with "fake" opponents.

[hijinx87]

39. ok, even if that is true

(and I dispute it), he won running as a conservative democrat, very
different from what he is selling us today.

I have to agree with you about obama and hillary's opponents,
though. keyes is genuinely insane, and I don't even remember
the name of the guy hillary beat the first time, that is how
insignificant he is.

[mitchtv]

65. Little Ricky Lazio an Unknown??????

that's putting it mildly

[saracat]

40. Faircloth. Read below.He was a popular 2 term incumbent!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E07E6D61E3FF937A35752C1A96E958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/F/Faircloth,%20Lauch

In the race for senator, John Edwards, a telegenic trial lawyer who specializes in personal injury cases, defeated a two-term Republican incumbent, Lauch Faircloth, who made an emotional concession speech.

Mr. Faircloth ran attack ads picturing Mr. Edwards with the President and calling him a ''Clinton liberal,'' and arguing that Mr. Edwards had done nothing productive, only sued people. The incumbent also said the White House wanted him replaced by a Democrat to keep from having the Senate vote to remove Mr. Clinton from office.

[hijinx87]

41. I live in that neck of the woods

and people thought he was a lunatic. all edwards needed
to do was seem sane. honestly.

having said that, this is the same part of the country that
sent jesse helms to the senate for what seemed like a century.

[saracat]

43. But the point is, he was an incumbent and not an "unknown" and Edwards beat him.

Historically no matter how much a douchebag they can be , incumbants have only a 5% chance of being beaten.And Edwards beat him.As a Democrat, in a year the GOP was making hay with the Clinton scandal. And in his first race,ever.And Edwards also won against his Dem Primary challngers.

[saltpoint]

42. Incorrect. All polling prior gave the incumbent a comfortable lead, and he

was generously backed by the Helms machine in North Carolina after a string of victories over all Democratic challengers. Helms and Faircloth were the golden boys of their state and their clamp on county politics statewide was legendary and formidable.

Until Edwards penetrated it.

And won.

BNET articles research engine notes that:
_ _ _ _

North Carolina

"…Lauch Faircloth now shows every sign of becoming the first holder of this volatile seat to be reelected to it since the late Democratic Sen. Sam J. Ervin in 1968. The latest Mason-Dixon poll shows plainspoken conservative Faircloth leading millionaire trial lawyer John Edwards (D.) by 50% to 40%."

_ _ _ _

And for your casual exporation of Senator Edwards' life and times, here's the handy Wikipedia link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards

[saracat]

44. Thank you.That was my point OC.

[hijinx87]

48. it is nowhere near that simple

faircloth just wasn't the legend you are trying to make him out to be.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/11/03/election/senate/north.carolina/

[saltpoint]

51. I've added two links #42. The BNET article is subscription, but the relevant

polling two months out showed Faircloth with a 10% lead over Edwards.

As it happened, Edwards won with 51%, around 83,000 votes.

A big win for a Democrat in a red tobacco state where the Helms machine held forth and had for some years.

The claim that it was a decisive and uplifting and persuasive win by Edwards over an incumbent Puke is a sound claim.

[hijinx87]

53. that seat had changed hands 5 times in less than 20 years

I concede the power of incumbency, but that seat had
been a little unstable for quite a while.

[saltpoint]

54. Which to your mind diminshes the importance of a Democratic win over the

incumbent Faircloth?

It doesn't for me. I'll take a Democrat in any seat over a Republican in any seat any damn day of the week.

Is there a prohibtion at your house against acknowledging accomplishment? an 11% surge for the challenger against the incumbent, and a Democrat to boot.

What is it you don't like about that scenario?

[hijinx87]

57. I said nothing of the sort

this subthread started off about electability. somneone mentioned the
various spoon benders that obama and hillary beat. saracat, I believe,
argued that edwards beat a much tougher opponent. I suppose it could
be true, if only because it is pretty hard to be less tough than lazio
or keyes, but launch faircloth was widely regarded as a whack job in the
carolinas. it's a flat fact. and I'm not sure it matters what the polls
looked like a month before the election.

and I should be able to make a reasonable argument that edwards beat a
flawed opponent without it being implied that I would prefer that a
republican had won.

[saltpoint]

58. Understood. My target thought, though was why you could not find

affirmation in the larger landscape.

Our guy won that race.

He was impressive on tv this morning.

His campaign is energized and comprehensively prepared on the issues.

You can vote for whomever you wish in the primary.

But you're on these boards slamming Edwards left and right and up and down. I think that's the pattern that people are responding to in your posts, and not your perception of U.S. political life or the gears that run it.

[hijinx87]

60. I think a more persuasive argument

may have been to point out that a republican reclaimed that
seat after edwards vacated it. any argument that doesn't
include launch faircloth would seem more convincing to me.

and it is pretty hard to look for affirmation on any scale of
a guy that has been pounding on your candidate for weeks, and
it is probably a little less than reasonable to expect it.

[saltpoint]

61. Ok, well, you've returned to your basepoint of

dismissal.

Lauch Faircloth was indeed the incumbent. Polling -- his and Edwards' -- showed him ahead in the final weeks of the campaign. Edwards won the race with 51% of the vote.

No one is making that up. It actually happened.

You don't like Edwards' candidacy? Fine. Vote for someone else.

We're just fewer than 50 days away from the Jan. 3rd caucuses in Iowa. One of our 8 candidates will likely finish first.

Edwards is in the thick of that now-3-way chase, with Gov. Richardson and Senator Biden showing discerniable movement upward in recent weeks.

Kucinich, Dodd, and Gravel are still struggling in the low digits.

So if one of the 8 is going to be the nominee it's likely that there will be some elbowing under the basket. All 8 candidates can dish it out when the please, and they do, and that's how politics is conducted in most countries.

The long-term goal, IMO, is to beat the holy crap out of the Republican Party at all levels of the ballot, and Edwards is among the very best positioned demographically to achieve that.

[hijinx87]

62. I'm not dismissing anyone

I just don't understand how people can reasonably
make an argument about edwards being electable on a
national scale when there is recent direct experience
to the contrary.

[saltpoint]

63. Instances abound of people winning after one defeat or sometimes more.

Nixon was absolutely demoralized in the loss in 1960 and of course there was his subsequent temper tantrum with the press for CA gov. Quite a moment, quite a meltdown, and obviously a total loser, except that a few years later he became president.

There are political setbacks and electoral defeats in the resumes of many a now-established representative.

Reagan lost his primary run to Ford in 1976 but roared back in 1980.

Candidates lose one state but then go on to win nominations with compilations of delegates from subsequent primary dates on the election calendar.

McCain destroyed Dubya in New Hampshire in 2000 and was essentially out of the race a month or so later.

Jeb Bush, 2- term governor of Florida and brother to the Idiot President, lost his gubernatorial bid to Lawton Chiles initially.

And on and on and on.

There's no case at all for suggesting that one race at any level coming up short in votes is a disqualifying variable for future success in U.S. politics.

[hijinx87]

64. odd that all of those examples

are republicans. I am absolutely NOT implying anything by
mentioning that, but I wonder if nominating former losers is
more of a republican thing than a democratic thing.

[saltpoint]

67. Jesus, you're too thick to navigate and too thin to plow.

The Ignore Button lives and breathes, and you are out of here.

Adios.

[hijinx87]

68. I'm sure I am in disntinguished company. n/t

[saracat]

52. No one said Faircloth was a "legend". But it is not disputable Edwards won

and Faircloth was supported by the GOP and Jesse helms interests. Nothing is ever "simple".

[saltpoint]

55. Agree. The only thing that really is simple is pumpkin pie and whipped

cream, to invoke a thread I have up on the DU Lounge currently.

After that, you are exactly right. Everything's pretty complicated and politics is very complicated.

[liberal N proud]

19. Edwards did an excellent job

Got his position out in spite of all Hillary all the time.

[itsrobert]

20. Yup, as I said not really fair to the other candidates

Nothing but Hillary.

[rodeodance]

23. well, she is the frontrunner at the moment

[hijinx87]

26. politics ain't beanbag

and has almost nothing to do with "fair".

[rodeodance]

22. and not really any verbal dissing of her personally

[rodeodance]

21. commentator: Edwards got booed in NV for attaching clinton-Not attacking today

[creeksneakers2]

32. Edwards was put in his place, which is last. n/t

[venable]

47. hyuk, hyuk, you're a scream, you are

though what you say - it doesn't even make sense.

[venable]

49. he didn't 'ATTACK' in NV. he said some true things. which he also said today.

and the boos were, well, no comment is best here.

[tech3149]

29. I had the TV on for visual effect but was listening to KEXP

I know it might be a good idea to pay attention to this commercial media crap to know what the latest talking point will be, but I just can't do it. Besides the cost of replacing the TV when rage overcame reason, there are much better ways to spend my time. I bounced around the vidiot channels and the biggest joke of the morning was Little Timmeh his closing sales pitch for how great MTP and he are. George Snuffleupagus was a close runner up for offering the bile of David Brooks as being something that should be valued more than a cow pie. Fux Snooze can sell Huckabee from here to eternity, but as long as I've got two brain cells to rub together, I won't be buyin'. Shieffer might be the best of the Sunday morning crowd, but you have to ask yourself "Can I trust someone that considers himself a close personal friend of the Bush family?" If you hadn't guessed by now, my answer is no frikken way!

If you need some mental stimulation on the weekends that isn't corporate influenced, mindless horse-hockey, try these on for size.
KEXP Mind over Matters three hours with 1/2 hour or 1 hour segments on specific subjects. Many good interviews and coverage of ecological matters. The show is on 9-12 AM Sat and Sunday. WNUR This is Hell Saturday 10:00 AM - 2:00 PM EST. Some of the most informed guests and informative interviews you could hope for. In spite of the serious nature of subjects discussed, they manage to have fun and take on less serious subjects. KPFK Blase Bonpane and World Focus on Sunday from 1:00 to 2:00PM EST followed up by Ian Masters "Background Briefing" from 2:00 to 5:00 PM EST. If you don't check out any of the others, these two are definitely do not miss stuff.

[kentuck]

66. I got the impression that Edwards was changing his strategy...

towards Hillary. Shieffer offered him several opportunities to attack her but he declined. He said there were differences and the voters needed to know that and he pointed out the differences. I sense that he knows that if he attacks Hillary too strongly, it will backfire on him. I think that is a very wise change of course, if true?