Edwards is the MOST ELECTABLE Democrat. Period!

[Krashkopf]

Ok, enough with the BS "let's not talk about electability" idea that seems so prominent in the left-wing blogosphere. This isn't 2004, Kerry isn't the "electable" candidate preparing to cruise himself into the ground. It's almost 2008, we've got a different crop of candidates, and the most electable of the three top candidates is Edwards. This has been clear in poll after poll, the latest of which is CNN's poll, which shows Edwards crushing Republicans.

Versus McCain: Clinton loses by 2%, Obama is in a dead heat, and Edwards wins by 8%.

Versus Giuliani: Clinton wins by 6%, Obama by 7%, Edwards wins by 9%.

Versus Romney: Clinton wins by 11%, Obama by 13%, and Edwards wins by 22%.

Versus Huckabee: Clinton wins by 10%, Obama wins by 15%, and Edwards annihilates Huckabee by 25%.

Basically, current polling shows the popularity of the candidates in direct inverse relationship to how well they poll against Republicans in a general. Edwards polls better than Obama who polls better than Clinton.

Edwards is also the most liberal (or progressive, if you prefer) of the three of them. Democratic primary voters are supposed to be left-leaning, but they seem to support the most centrist candidate of the three -- Hilary Clinton, the woman who won't even say she'd shut down torture without exception.

Now, as long as we're talking turkey and breaking taboos, let's say the rest of what needs to be said.

Clinton has the highest negatives of any Democratic candidate, by a large margin. She's also a woman. Everyone plays up how that's an advantage, and sure, Americans claim they'd vote for a woman. But there's a well known polling bias on such social issues: people don't want to say they're sexist on the phone, but we all know sexism hasn't gone away. Some of Clinton's theoretical support in a general election is probably phantom popularity. It might only be a few percent, but given she already has razor thin margins against many Republicans, that could be the difference between victory and ignomious defeat.

And then there's Obama. Bill Clinton wasn't America's first Black President. Obama, on the other hand, would like to be. I fully expect a chunk of Obama's support would simply evaporate at the polling station, because a lot of Americans, no matter what they say, aren't voting for a black man. Shoot the messenger if you choose, but everything I know about America tells me America is still riddled with racism.

Edwards is male, southern and telegenic. He has run a populist campaign. He is probably as left wing as someone can be in the US and still run for President. He has been a friend to unions and to the poor. He has had the guts to admit he was wrong on the war and while his anti-war platform isn't as strong as I'd like (he should commit to pull out) it's better than Clinton's or Obama's.

He's electable. Of the big 3 candidates he's the most progressive.

And he's in third place.

This isn't 2004. Voting your beliefs (the poor and middle class are getting screwed) and choosing the most electable candidate aren't in opposition to each other this time.

So what I'm asking Democratic primary voters is to take a good hard look at Edwards again. Stop accepting the media's narrative of Edwards as "the number 3 guy". Look at the numbers, look at his positions and realize that this time you can have it all -- you can have a progressive candidate and you can have a nominee who will absolutely wipe the floor with the Republicans.

Vote your heart, but by all means also vote electability. And don't let political correctness blind you to political realities. Because the country simply cannot afford another 4 years with a Republican president.

Ian Welsh December 12, 2007 - 6:00am
http://agonist.org/ian_welsh/20071211/edwards_is_more_electable_period

[SoFlaJet]

1. That's the way I read it too

and hopefully he can win in Iowa and make my vote for him count down here in February

[monmouth]

2. Egads....Never in my world...n/t

[Krashkopf]

3. What have you got against PROGRESSIVES?

After all, as you note - GOD is progressive.

[monmouth]

7. I love Progressives, can't stand Edwards, it's really quite simple...n/t

[Krashkopf]

17. What good is an "n/t" post?

As the old saying goes "Opinions are like assholes . . .everybody has one." If you can't even be bothered to explain the rationale behind your thinking, you are just bloviating.

[monmouth]

21. Well to tell the truth Krash, Edwards is so unappealing to me on so

many levels I'm just not in the mood to go much beyond the n/t. For your benefit however, my opinion of Edwards is and always has been if he wasn't a lawyer, a used car salesman would serve him well. He's a follower, not a leader. Sorry, he just has no redeeming quality that would make me look at him for more than ten seconds...Okay???

[waiting for hope]

23. "He's a follower, not a leader."

You are so wrong - Edwards has come out with his policy platforms way ahead of the other two, and he's are more detailed then the others. Used Car Salesman? I'd truly like to know the rational behind that - Mark Penn is The Used Car Salesman of the year and Edwards is in a class totally above that.

[Radical Activist]

76. Yes, Mr. Johnny come lately

has liberal positions NOW. Its nice that he finally figured out how liberal he is during the Democratic primary after years of a moderate record in the Senate. Some of the candidates have always been there.

[Andy823]

90. Actually

I think Penn makes used car salesmen look good! :evilgrin:

I got a real laugh out of the comment about Edwards being a "follower" not a leader. Heck he has lead the race on the issues from day one, and Hillary and Obama have been "following" his lead all the way. One thing John Edwards is not is a "follower"!

[Krashkopf]

27. Better . . . still wrong . . . but better

At least now I know where you are coming from.

Sounds to me like you have bought the GOP "evil trial lawyers" b.s. "hook line and sinker."

Like the brave Pakistani lawyers who were literally fighting in the streets to defend their rights, and their Constitution, I KNOW that LAWYERS are a Democracy's the last line of defense against tryanny.

Did you ever even stop to think WHY GOPers are so in favor of TORT REFORM? It is because, after 20 years of Reaganism (which stripped the government of any regulatory or oversight responsibilites), the Corporatists know that the "evil trial lawyers" are the only thing that stands between them and complete UNACCOUNTABILITY.

To me, the fact that Edwards is a trial lawyer is the BEST THING he has going for him. America NEEDS a tough trial lawyer like John Edwards in the White House . . . who BETTER to fight for the "common man, and woman"?

Krash

[monmouth]

30. I come from a family of lawyers, I just don't, in any fashion,

like Edwards... Okay? Geeez.

[Plucketeer]

66. I have Edwards....

....stickers on my truck. I had a fella say to me (the other day in a parking lot); "You're not voting for that AMBULANCE CHASER, ARE YOU???"

In a unmistakeably sarcastic tone, I replied: "NO! I just needed a sticker to cover the obscene sticker about Bush!"

Ambulance Chaser. Doesn't that say it all about the intellect of the inquiring Bozo? Probably has his radio permanently fixed on the local outlet for LimpJaw. :puke:

[youngharry]

54. Edwards as trial lawyer

Monomouth, you mouth runneth over. Edwards made his fortune defeating Corporations. They are frightened to death of him. If you are so stupid not to know that the real problem in America today happens to be the Corporations, then you know nothing. This is no longer a government of, by and for the people, but government of, by and for Corporations.
It is time for a leader to bring democracy back to America and Edwards is the man. As was said, monomouth, the empty barrow makes the most noise. Keep yaking your noise.

[Vickers]

63. "If you are so stupid "

Only assholes use language like that on DU.

[JAbuchan08]

55. If Edwards is insincere he's no worse than the other two, if he's sincere he's better

that's about the sum of it in my opinion.

I'm a single issue voter, that issue is having the spine to fight back.

[Hieronymus]

29. Surely, you don't think Hillary is Progressive.

[monmouth]

31. I certainly don't, no. HRC is a corporatist.. She never made my radar.

[BlueJac]

77. Clinton was no progressive.................

NAFTA was his down fall......he was the best Republican president in the last 30 years!

[Egnever]

4. Then why cant he get any cash?

If he has so much support wheres the campaign contributions?

I dont buy those polls for a second mostly because of the fact that he cant raise any money.

[Donnachaidh]

9. he's not a coporate suck up like the others.

DO pay attention dear. He's not writing out IOU's for Corporate Backers, like Clinton does.

[Krashkopf]

13. Bingo!

That is my biggest fear with Hillary. She has raised more CORPORATE money than any candidate of EITHER party. I just don't see her standing up to Big Business.

[bvar22]

35. Hillary is "Their Girl"!!

A Hillary nomination is bad news for Americans who Work for a Living!


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[lisainmilo]

41. Bingo! Again!

That is exactly right. He is the only one willing to change the corporate bull, they own us. Until the money is out of Washington, nothing will change. That is alot of favors.......millions of dollars of corporate favors being spent on this election. Hillary tops both Democrats and Republicans.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/11/politics/main3358116.shtml

[Egnever]

37. Obama is a corporate suck up?

The majority of his cash like Deans comes from small donors. Which according to your theory Dear should make Edwards financial situation a whole lot better than it appears. I see tjough you gicve the same answer the campaign does.

Maybe you should try paying attention babe.



http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/01/389131.aspx

But when asked about the fact that Obama is not taking money from PACs and lobbyists either in raising money, they turned it back to Clinton and even said, "Obama in his Senate race did take PAC and lobbying money."

Earlier in the call, Deputy Campaign Manager Jonathan Prince was more complimentary toward Obama's fund-raising efforts.

"There is tremendous grassroots enthusiasm for change," Prince said. "He’s obviously had a very good quarter. We’re happy with where we are. We continue to grow our contributor base. Another 50,000 contributors this quarter. We have plenty for what we need."

[Hieronymus]

84. Think of how refreshing it will be to have a president who is not

beholding to all those corporate interests .. medical insurance .. oil.

[rAVES]

91. would be..unfortunatley

[Stop Cornyn]

32. He's got more cash that the combined total of Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel and Huckabee

[robinlynne]

58. what?

[robinlynne]

59. You want the candidate who gets the most cash? Are you series? That is the last thing

we need/want in the white house.

[denem]

5. Edwards is Tanking

The media will kill him>

[ChiciB1]

10. The Media AND D.C. Elites Hate Him!! The Answer To The Tanking

question! It's something I've posted many many times, and something I've heard from National Journalists on National TV quite a few times! It's sick but he's not the one who supports Corporate Whores or Lobbyists and THEY intend to make him pay!

That DOES NOT mean he's not the BEST candidate! I'm a very strong supporter of Edwards and will remain so! Save your nasty comments, that's how I feel and I'm STICKING TO IT!!!

[denem]

14. If the media doesn't like him. he's not the best candidate

That's it. You can't change it. You can't be taking me seriously either.

[kimmerspixelated]

15. same here!

[Stop Cornyn]

39. You should try to read up on the issues before you post.

[Labors of Hercules]

6. The BEST ticket we could have is EDWARDS/OBAMA.

I just feel it in my gut.

[skipos]

11. People who want experience probably wouldn't like that ticket

I know, Lincoln & Washington didn't have much experience, yadda yadd yadda. However, there are plenty of voters that still need to feel they are getting experience before they pull the lever.

[kimmerspixelated]

16. I've thought about this a lot..

And I don't think Obama is best for VP. I see Edwards picking Richardson or Biden.

[Stop Cornyn]

33. That's the most ELECTABLE ticket, but the BEST ticket would be Edwards/Kucinich!

[Hieronymus]

82. That would be an awesome pairing.

[skipos]

8. Maybe.

I think all the candidates will have plusses and minuses in a general election. Biden seems the most electable to me. He has the speaking skills, the foreign and domestic experience, an interesting back story (youngest senator ever, 2nd poorest senator, taking public transport to DC and back everyday, etc). He doesn't offend too many on the left, moderate Repubs and indy's might even prefer him over the Huckster or Mittens.

The best the GOP will be able to do is distort his record, like they can with Edwards, Obama and Hillary. The miscredited speech "scandal" would be a big yawn.

Edwards and Obama are going to need VPs with perceived experience. Biden could chose whoever he wants... Obama, Richardson, or almost any female or male governor or senator.

[rAVES]

12. the old tail is wagging the dog again.. awful politics..

[kimmerspixelated]

18. Terrific post!

Kicked!

[Prophet 451]

19. Edwards is the least UNelectable

Essentially, he has the least negatives. Hillary is a woman and, worse, a Clinton. Obama is black, I don't know if that would make a difference to enough people to swing the election. I'd like to hope not but I couldn't say.

Edward's main weaknesses are that he's a trial lawyer and the public have been trained to dislike trial lawyers and he's perhaps a little too slick.

One thing though: He's Southern. What is it with the US where most Presidents have been Southerners or Southern by adoption?

[Stop Cornyn]

26. That's the least unclear thought on the topic...

[lisainmilo]

48. Lets look at some facts

I found this post on DU....thanks asdjrocky


Here is an indepth analysis....check it out.


http://www.skirsch.com/politics/president/comparison.htm

[Prophet 451]

89. Thanks, some useful info there n/t

[onehandle]

20. Edwards would be our strongest winner. A strong winner brings more House and Senate seats.

A larger margin in Congress makes for a stronger and BRAVER Democratic party.

[southtpa]

67. Exactly

The point everyone is missing is the legislative seats we will lose in the south with Clinton or Obama at the top of the ticket. Ford lost in tn. Obama can't get further right than that. The anti-Hilary operatives have been out since before Bill was a front runner for president. The same kind that cost Claude Pepper an election by claiming he and his wife practiced celibacy before marriage. Obama as vice-president may lose a little in the south but gain enough elsewhere to more than justify any risk.

[FrenchieCat]

22. Edwards although most electable in the Dem Primaries, will not be necessarily most electable

during the General Election.

Edwards has been pretty much ignored and left to his own devices throughout the primary season till now. He was always always mentioned as part of the top tier, and never totally forgotten by the media; but he was simply never highlighted for the attributes he brings to the table.....but that is all about to end.

It has always been glaringly obvious that a media story featuring Edwards as the great White Hope in the sense that he fits neatly the historical legacy of what constitutes a winner in Presidential politics; the good looking White guy from the South.....was not being suggested nor promoted by the media. This was purposefully done so that he would not peak too soon....because whatever "flaws" he has will not be discovered until "later". The Dem base have grown to love him, partially because the media ignored him and his attributes, and because Edwards has had nothing to lose in his campaign rethorics of promises......and has had everything to gain; including a solid base at the progressive end of the democratic spectrum...and these folks vote in primaries in the majority!

The well publicized media storyline of "Obama vs. Hil" rumbles have cleared the way for an Edwards rise just in the nick of time (funny how synchronized it all is).

Now, please know that Edwards will not be rising because of anything special that he has recently said or done, but rather because he is now the underdog waiting to come on the scene who can provide Iowans another choice other than the over-reported candidates; Obama and Hillary.

Going forward on, for the next two weeks, Edwards is about to garnet much more press, most of it positive (as he did in 2003-04 in the last two weeks prior to Iowa), because Edwards' been weakened significantly by his acceptance of matching funds, which makes him a more acceptable candidate to the Corporate Media......as it could lead to an exciting and "against the current CW" GOP victory in the general election (which the Corporate media prefers at the end anyways....cause they are...corporate, after all).

The Powers-that-be don't "want" Edwards for President, but they do want Edwards as the Dem nominee. He will be the easiest to beat based on his acceptance of matching funds which will hamper his campaign, his effeminated demeanor (watch "Terror Scares" come back to prominence shortly after he is chosen), his lack of judgment on past National Security issues (co-sponsored the IWR), and because of all of his stance reversals and his "I made this mistake and that mistake" clips and soundbytes they have of him.

Certainly, Edwards has the advantage of being the only white southern male in the Dem primary race (and most find that to be his most "electable" traits above all), but these same qualities will become liabilities in the GE because he won't be able to use the fact that he is "status-quo" as an excuse as to why he is being unfairly portrayed by the Republican Noise Machine (and that is what will happen) and its operative media. Hillary and Obama as the nominee would have to be attacked very carefully and calculatively due to possible backlash on any attacks that they could relate back to their gender or race. The media has never been faced with having to be "careful" based on such volatile and sensitive traits, and so, they aren't quite sure exactly how to do it without coming off looking obvious. With Edwards, there's nothing to be careful about, as he is no different from those they have always smeared at a predetermined time in a presidential election. One thing that the media/GOP smear machine wants is predictability and assurance that they will have control over reaction based on events that they create.

All in all, Edwards only appears strong in a Dem race, but most of his perceived strengths will be turned into weaknesses very soon, but not before the primaries are over.


But till then, Edwards is now ready for his close up in the primary story line.

[Czolgosz]

38. You have it backwards. Edwards is general election gold, many downtrodden Republicans like his

theme of making us One America again.

[cali]

52. They won't. Not after the repukes run the

ads they'll surely run, framing him. I can guarantee you they'll run devastating ads on any dem candidate. And he's a particularly easy targer. They don't have to worry about backlash with Edwards.

[Froward69]

24. Then why

didn't edwards applaud when Obama gave "testimony?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOXzyTGsC1c&e

[Stop Cornyn]

25. Importantly, he's the most electable in the GENERAL ELECTION. Others don't understand this point.

[Egnever]

40. or just dont buy it

Especialy after the kerry fiasco.

[Tejanocrat]

28. Awesome photo!

[frogmarch]

34. If Edwards wins the nomination, even if by just a hair,

I think he'll win BIG in the general election.

[rndmprsn]

36. nice post...k+r

[ooglymoogly]

42. I have come to agree with you.

[niceypoo]

43. Electable?

I am always amazed when TV pundit talking points somehow morph their way into peoples realities. The power of the media to brainwash. John Kerry was the, "Most electable," last time around I recall. Meanwhile, Howard Dean would have wiped his ass with GW Bush.

[harmonicon]

51. BRAVO!!!

What the fuck is wrong with us when we can no longer discuss politics, but only the politics of politics? Words like "electable" shouldn't mean shit around here, because..... whoa, hey! ... they don't mean shit!! Just brain storming here, but what if we chose our candidates based on..... wait for it.... their platforms!!!

[mod mom]

44. It gives me confidence that the corporate media remain silent on him.

I met John & Elizabeth several times in Ohio during the '04. I was impressed with them and felt their passion for the country was heart felt. We need a populist and I believe edwards understands this.

[autorank]

45. You are 100% correct.

As far as the public is concerned, the Democrats did a "bait and switch" in 2006. 'We'll elect them and they'll figure out a way to end this thing in Iraq. We're sick of it. it's wrong!"

Then they got the nonstop, relentless, and DISINGENUOUS lie that stopping the money wasn't an option.

That's the only thing that holds Edwards poll numbers down in the comparisons you showed.

Edwards got suckered in the Iraq War Resolution. He admitted that.

But Edwards began his campaign with the theme of helping the poor and economic justice for the people who do the hard work and the smart work. Quite a stand at a time when we're experiencing the greatest wealth transfer in history from working people to the uber rich.

He's on target with the needs and he admits his mistakes, moves to correct them. That's what people like.

Besides, he's married to one of the most genuine people I've ever seen in public life. That's a very high recommendation.

[cali]

46. That poll- like any national poll at this point- is only a snapshot

it does not tell you that Edwards will be the most electable possible candidate at the time of the election 11 months from now. No one can predict that. Please, vote your heart, but use your brain about polls like this one.

[onehandle]

47. Yeah, those warnings and that advice was spread far and wide in 1999 and 2000.

How's President Nader working out for you?

[cali]

50. What are you talking about. This has all of zip to do with Nader

Of course one should vote for who they believe is best in the primaries. Never heard the old "Vote your heart in the primaries, vote your head in the general election"? And sorry, national polls of this kind demonstrate nothing but a snapshot, not an accurate forecast. I can't believe anyone would even try to argue otherwise. But it does give me a laugh.

[lisainmilo]

49. Indepth analysis

Check it out: http://www.skirsch.com/politics/president/comparison.htm

[PATRICK]

57. My early

on Bush was a lot simpler and arrived at the same conclusion that usually applies to ALL Presidents. Your past behavior does not change by moving on up. It usually becomes entitled and worse. I tried preaching that in vain all over the place in 2000. Empirical evidence shows exactly how Bush will misbehave, and yes, oh boy, did he get worse, closing on the Imperial madness model which his tiny soul cannot handle. Along with Cheney the real doer, of course.

In vain against the meme of "honor", charm and being a "nice guy" with a super "team" to make up for his simple corporate delegating ways. All the Dems in fact salivated in being able to influence and "work with" the good old boy just like his handlers in Texas. So bad was/is that judgment behavior by Dems it becomes taint by association, justified by the evidence always(yes Bill, schmoozing with George I tells it all. Yes, Hillary, piling praise on Powell is even worse than believing his lies about Iraq in the first place.) If there was anything to the lies against Gore that succeeded, they were trivial to serve the greater lies about Bush. Almost mathematically elegant. Who needs polls of the gulled and the crapped on? Just look. Period.

Hillary and Obama go out of their way to accept Third Way lunacy despite ALL evidence and results. Such a minor thing as yet ANOTHER study of video game violence shows exactly the kind of nonsense two of our leaders will engage in as President/ The poster digs into the iraq funding votes and polls. Just keep looking at words and behaviors and opinions so fixed they proudly, gratuitously, offensively parade them out for no special political reason at all worth the telling. It could be just trivial politics, but that is a bad sign too. Looking into their lives and past is not the chamber of horrors you see easily with the unpunished Bush crime family. But it is proudly consistent and will drive their presidencies. Into the ground if the GOP can't prevent their election.

What is inconsistent? The memes are inconsistent. Now with Edwards it becomes difficult to paint consistency because of his learning curve and Senate record and residual good will to his peers and the traditions of the system. The most revealing thing he has said lately was that he presumed everyone in his various careers at the outset, were smarter than he. So his fault was trust and perhaps not having over-weaning self-confidence. After that, what reasserts is what he preaches now. Powerful advocacy for the little guy and change. he was tentative in 2004 and Obama is now when it came to advancing the message and the means. Even then he quickly reasserted to progressive banner carrying. Obama is still following the middle way model with consistent life experience philosophy. He will never be that progressive or fee of the establishment.

What you get with Edwards is not the one term Senator but the experienced anti-corporate lawyer. That is the tougher sell for my take this time around, but it is simple. Very very simple. And people enamored of other candidates will simply ignore it in their zeal, and will get what they ignore, and will not like it, and will never admit they should have known better. Edwards failings will be in the early learning curve as president and then will only get better.

[harmonicon]

53. complete failure

Not the candidate, but democracy. I've laid out my sincere hatred for all of the Senators running for president, but I won't do that here (no one's been able to give me a cogent reason why candidate x is better than candidate y without using some bullshit new-speak anyway), because I now realize that we have a much larger problem on our hands than electing criminals. If a tv bullshit word like "electability" is enough to get supposedly free-thinking people on a liberal message board fired up about a candidate, we're completely fucked. We're screwed. Game over.

[cali]

56. oh dear

Just how old are you? I want to give you a pass on the basis of youth.

You seem to be a classic black and white thinker- someone not comfortable of the reality of shades of grey. Calling the Senators running, criminals is a real stretch. That is NOT a defense of their IWR votes, btw. But big a deal as it is, it doesn't and shouldn't be the sole means of judging the capabilities and characters of those Senators running in the dem race for the nomination.

I distrust black and white thinkers. And I can think of one very prominent one who has fucked this country and the rest of the world- in part because he has such a black and white world view.

[harmonicon]

60. I am not a "black and white thinker"

You really want to know? I'm 29 years old. I should top bitching about how I hate the candidates so I could actually get the answers I want, which isn't happening. If people like these candidates because of their platforms and their voting record, I think that's great. I'll disagree with them forever, but I don't mind. However, all I see around here is stuff about "electability" and "experience" which means nothing to me at all. In fact, I think those things are complete bullshit, and we're a failed democracy if we pretend these things matter - especially if we base our votes on them. To me, thinking we all should make our own choices in all elections and respect the choice others have made is the opposite of your so called "black and white thinking", where as saying we should give up our principles to back one party member over another because of what TV or some pollster told us is even worse than black and white. I think whoever the nominee is will beat the republican. If others aren't willing to think that and back whoever is picked by a legitimately democratic process, we're in deep deep shit. That's my point.

[cali]

64. OK. That's fair, but I want to note something I discovered

long ago- we largely see what we're looking to see- even if we're not conscious of doing so. Yeah, there are a lot of electability threads but there are a lot of threads about why an individual poster is supporting any given candidate. And experience is part of the mix. That's not the same thing as electability- at least it shouldn't be. But none of this is new. It's been the case for a very long time that people will try and persuade other people for the candidate they support. There's nothing inherently wrong about that. And people who support Edwards have generally been very clear that they do so because they believe he's progressive on issues they care about.

Democracy isn't some pure thing that once existed in the past. It's a human construct, and thus a flawed one- and it always has been.

And the reason I said you were demonstrating black and white thinking was your insistence that all four democrats in the race, are simply criminals. that's a rather one dimensional view, no?

[harmonicon]

68. democracy is flawed

If I was an idealist, I wouldn't support democracy. I've seen it work far better than in the US. I was in France the night Sarko was elected. I was among the thousands who took to the streets to make our opposition known. Then we went home and went to bed, because people understood that the election was fair in the end - the majority had just made a choice that a very large minority disagreed with. Thankfully his election won't effect me greatly, not being a French citizen, but I saw a real election happen with people having real emotions about it. I don't think all of the Democrats are criminals, but I think a lot of them are - maybe one day there will be charges filed and it'll be sorted out. Until then I think I have every right to say they're criminals as anyone does to say Bush and Cheney are (yes, those two are worse, but it doesn't mean their enablers are squeaky clean). As for "experience", yes, people should judge them based on their real life experiences, which will be different for everyone. None of these people have been president before, and I reject the idea that there's a job that would prepare someone for it. Some of our great presidents had little or no experience in government. The way the word "experience" is used in the media (and I'm afraid that's how it is used here) seems to have more to do with fame (experience being a public figure) than one candidates actual experience(s).

[Plucketeer]

61. I'm with you!

If we're gonna stir into a hissyfit - go to our room and slam the door - that serves NOTHING! Short of a 1776-style revolution, we'd better learn to deal with what we've got. Cracks me up - some of the "That's it! It's Over!!!" tirades here. This might be a conveneient chalkboard to unload your frustrations, but sayin' "it's over and we're screwed" gets us nothing in return. Zip, Zilch, Zero - with a few nadas thrown in.
Man, I've made some mistakes in MY life - maybe there's some here that haven't. But to call the current field of Dem candidates all "criminals" is criminal in itself! Legend has it that the last perfect person got nailed to a cross before he reached half my age. Consequently, I'm gonna give these 8 folks real consideration. My money's on Edwards, but I could back another if I had to.
Throwing in the towel altogether is the same thing as voting for a guy from that other crowd. There'll be folks who intentionally do that and I feel sorry for them. But no sorrow extended for someone who says screw the whole thing! :grr:

:kick:

[harmonicon]

69. I just want people to give them ALL consideration!

What I don't want is for people to not consider certain candidates because they're not "electable", and I definitely don't want someone to vote for a candidate that they are strongly against, just because people have bullied them into thinking that they have to vote for them or the Republican will win - I guess I still have a little faith in people to see the real differences and vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is. Someone who's not going to vote for Clinton, Obama, etc. isn't going to vote for Kucinich, etc.

I'm trying to say "don't throw in the towel!", which is what I think people are doing when they stop discussing the problems facing this country and the best ways to solve them, regardless of the face behind a platform. I've made my views known, and I won't back down - I don't expect others to back down about their convictions either, but I would greatly prefer they tell me why someone would be a better president than tell me who had the best sound-byte on some cable news show or has such-and-such lead over so-and-so from asshat-pollster3000.

[waiting for hope]

62. Wow cali -

you really do believe what you type for the moment. I've seen you reply dozens of times that Edwards IWR vote is a huge black mark against him. You have just become the most entertaining poster here on DU for me, your rational sometimes borders on hysterical. :hi:

[cali]

65. *sigh* I've said that the IWR vote is a huge black mark against all

those who voted for it. I've said it for over 5 years. I said it in the post you responded to. I've never said that any of them are criminals. It's really very, very simple and completely consistent, even for people who are somewhat limited in their ability to think logically.

and the statement "your rational sometimes borders on hysterical" is not only poor English, it's nonsensical.

:hi:

[harmonicon]

70. I think they meant "rationale", though it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense

But more importantly, I think I now see where we differ. I'll agree with "black mark", but don't mind taking it further. I think saying a vote for the IWR was a "black mark" is like saying extraordinary rendition, gitmo and torture are "black marks" on this administration. Shit, it was the same in 2004 and I sucked it up and voted for Kerry (though I sure as hell didn't vote for him in the primary, even though by the time my state got around to voting the media had told the voters their choice was Kerry), so please calm down with the name calling, insinuations about my thought processes, etc. People take their support for a candidate too personally - if I say something about a candidate, it's not about their supporters. I want discussion, not flag waving or name calling.

[cali]

71. Well, I think there are varying degrees of culpability within the

ranks of those who voted for it. John Kerry's vote for instance, disappointed me more than almost anyone's, because he'd always been a strong voice against war. I can only deduce that he voted for it out of sheer political ambition, and that is unjustifiable. I think others were stupid enough to fall for the faux evidence. I too had to suck it up to vote for him in the general. But here's the thing, calling them criminals isn't supportable. It's not true. They violated no domestic or international law. So what's the point? You can say you consider them morally bankrupt. Why doesn't that work?

And I don't have a candidate. It's heretical around here but I don't think any of them would be all that different from the others. And you have insulted the intelligence of others here. Read some of your own posts.

I'm perfectly willing to engage in substantive discussion, but I don't see things simplistically or in highly dramatic terms.

[harmonicon]

72. all I can do is give my opinion

I don't think any of these people running are stupid - they are either hawks, or voted IWR as a political move - I'm not sure which is worse. I think supporting something against international law (a war of aggression - the war would have been illegal even if WMD were there) and violating that law are more-or-less the same thing.

I don't have a candidate either, since there's no point being from Michigan. I think that's part of why I'm so fired up about this now... I can't just sit back and relax knowing at least my vote will be counted. As for insulting someone's intelligence, hey, I'm sorry.... there you go. Sure I've done so to make a point when I get attacked and called stupid because I've made my own reasoned decisions, but that's just being a smart-ass, which is a habit I can't break.

I don't see things simplistically, but I do see them in highly dramatic terms, because I think these decisions are very important.

[disndat]

73. At the time

when HC, Kerry, and Edwards voted to allow war, voting 'no' would have been the 3rd rail for Democrats with presidential ambitions. Although, HC is the only one not to apologize for it with 20/20 hindsight. That's why she is not an acceptable candidate now.

[cali]

74. You may think that voting for war to further your political ambitions

and then apologizing for it later is acceptable. I think it's contemptible. If that's why they did it, they get no pass from me, apology or no. As if an apology could possibly wash the blood off their hands.

[EV_Ares]

93. This is an exccellent post don't you think. I am glad to see that

you have seen the error of your first concern with this post.

[harmonicon]

78. That doesn't pass for me.

How much better off would they be now if they had voted "no"? Politics should never be a reason for a vote, especially one that is so important. Voting "yes" was the real 3rd rail. Political reasons for doing things change far more frequently than right and wrong.

[Radical Activist]

75. flip-flop, flip-flop

Just wait for it at the Republican Convention. John Kerry all over again. No one who voted for the Iraq War is the most electable.

[harmonicon]

79. shhh! (they'll hear you)

[democrat2thecore]

80. His enormous wealth from personal injury trial work would hurt him -nt

[annie1]

85. it's too bad that actually works against him. He was a great lawyer...

from what I understand. It's funny how they can that and his money against him. People are so lame that they would let that affect their judgement of him. sucks.

[balantz]

88. It's a shame, not all lawyers are evil.

Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer for twenty something years before he was elected to the presidency.

[midnight]

81. I will vote a Democratic ticket this next election. That said I hope

Edwards is on it for President. He brings his outstanding skills on negotiating, and he has already made it clear, that the poor will have a seat at his table. I don't understand how health care will work if Insurance Co. are able to block treatments that they say are not medically necessary. Can anyone explain how health care is going to work under Edward"s presidency. All I remember is that he wants treatment for people with mental illness to be seen the same as any other medical illness. I'm just afraid that insurance co. will say that it is not medically necessary. This is just a very confusing area for me.

[harmonicon]

86. it's not confusing to me

if insurance companies are involved, healthcare plans are total crap. Single payer universal healthcare is the only option. It's the right choice, and we have many working models in other countries to model ours after, so it could be the best in the world. Yeah, we'd have to raise taxes, but would you rather pay (say it was even as much as you pay for insurance) for health insurance, or pay that same money in taxes, knowing that you could never lose your coverage, and your money was going to help those less fortunate. For me the choice is clear. Maybe there are more important issues for you, but I think single-payer universal healthcare should be the Democratic party and the country's top priority.

[surfermaw]

83. You GO Ian Welsh....You know your stuff.

Couldn't have written a more truthfull article my self

Surfermaw Dec. 15, 2007

[forsberg]

87. He has an electable image

And I sure as hell would vote for him....but other than being a 2 term senator (who's been out of office since 2004) he hasn't done much. I remember his debate performance vs. Cheney was subpar as well. If only he was a current governor or even still a senator this would help. His wife's illness may be viewed as a distraction to him (and who can blame him really, he must be under a ton of stress) by the general public as well that might interfere with presidential duties.

But he's still a darkhorse and he's still hanging around, should Hillary collapse completely I think most of her support would flow to Edwards.

[pampango]

92. Is it not the "right time" to run a female or black candidate?

If people pretend not to be sexist or racist when the pollsters call, will that change four years from now? Eight? Twelve? Will someone notify us when a future election is not "important" enough that we can run the risk of nominating a female or Black candidate?

I like Edwards, but is the reason he is more electable than Clinton or Obama precisely because he is a white male? All candidates have their flaws and if you prefer one to another because of policy or experience reasons, that is fine. I do have a problem with the contention that we need to nominate a white male, again, because this election is too important to risk nominating a minority.

[EV_Ares]

94. Good Post, Edwards has shown his electability and by the margins

he defeats the republicans over his rivals gives us something to think about as who would be the toughest opponent for the republicans.