The Progressive Dilemma, K, K, or E?

[katieforeman]

I'm trying to write a response to this very good analysis of an article on the front page of DU. I agree with the article's premise that Edwards is the most electable and more progressive than Kerry.

Here are a few more reasons to vote for Edwards:

John Edwards can do for Democrats what Reagan did for Republicans- articulate a coherent philosophy of government and define a vision that inspires a generation. Remember Reagan had his shining city on a hill. John Edwards has the dream of One America. Kerry and Edwards both have some very good policy ideas, but John Edwards is the only one who puts all of these policies within the context of a unified vision. A generation later we are still dealing with the Reagan true believers. John Edwards will create a generation of true believers in Progressive causes.

John Edwards has all of the hallmarks of a very popular President. His coattails will likely be longer. Because he is so articulate and likeable, John Edwards is the candidate best able to make effective use of the bully pulpit. Furthermore, a popular President has much more leverage with Congress and is more effective at pushing his agenda. Remember how cowed Democrats were when Bush was riding high.

John Edwards is the best candidate to help improve the tone of political debate in this country. He has a future-oriented, positive vision. An Edwards victory would demonstrate that it is possible to win without engaging in the politics of personal destruction.

Kerry's "bring em on" attitude is a mistake. First, it lets Republicans frame the debate. Second, Republican negative attacks are less effective against a positive, future oriented candidate.

If John Edwards is the nominee, the Progressive vision will be at the center of the debate. If Kerry is the nominee, the debate will be framed around divisive issues of the past like Kerry's voting record and Vietnam.

Finally, Edwards generally finishes much better than the polls indicate. Edwards usually has a stronger intensity of support, and this is not usually picked up in the polls. In SC, the las poll showed a statistical deadheat with Kerry. However, Edwards won by a significant margin. In Wisconsin, Edwards was way behind in the last poll, but he almost pulled off an upset.

[Fovea]

1. Good points

but because the election is in November, I am stickin with Kucinich.

[mdmc]

2. there is Sharpton also

He did great in SC.

[katieforeman]

7. Would you rather be voting for Kerry or Edwards in November?

Unfortunatley for the Kucinich voters, he really doesn't have a chance of being the nominee. Kucinich has already made enough of a showing to get his message out there, and he's been very good in the debates. Let's be satisfied with that and hand the torch over to Edwards instead of Kerry in November.

Besides Edwards and Kucinich are friends. Remember, the deal they made in Iowa.

[no name no slogan]

13. Not so fast

DK trounced Edwards last night in Hawaii, and beat him in WA and ME too, despite the media blackout.

DK will also do very well in at least one state on March 2, too. He still has a sizable campaign fund that's still growing, despite the media's attempt to make this a two-man race.

After all, Edwards has only won ONE state more than DK, and that was the state of his birth. And Dennis is STILL in this race, despite the attempts of the media and Kerry/Edwards supporters to drown him out.

I will throw my support to Edwards only if he wins the nomination. Until then, I (like many progressives) will continue to back the TRUE progressive candidate still in this race: Dennis Kucinich.

[Fovea]

14. I can answer that question after the convention if needed

But right now, I stick to my previous opinion.
I support Kucinich, because if enough folks like me think likewise,
he will be President in 05.

[RFK MLK PW]

3. Right On Analyis For My Preference

However, I do believe Kerry has been annointed by the DNC. Sad.

[katieforeman]

9. Don't give up though.

They don't have as much power as they'd like.

[RFK MLK PW]

10. I hope you are right because

I know Bush will beat Kerry; I just know it.

[katieforeman]

18. Let's work as hard as we can to convince other Democrats

before it's to late. I think a lot more people are starting to catch on.

[DuctapeFatwa]

4. Don't forget Edwards' neighborhood TIPS program

One of Kerry's few weaknesses is that he is in danger of being out-terroristed by Edwards if he's not careful.

[PurityOfEssence]

5. Kerry's handling himself well, but he's at a huge inherent disadvantage

Even when he makes his straight-faced and resounding dismissal of Bush living in a world that doesn't exist, he still comes off as Intellectual and Aristocratic. This is death in American Politics.

Much of the swaying that goes on in political campaigns happens rhetorically, and in this sphere, Edwards is a real winner.

There's also a deep practicality in his platform, tackling only what he feels can be achieved, and paying for it all with honest assessments of revenue.

More than anything, the moderates and even conservatives who wisely fear Bush's recklessness would like to reach out to someone else, but the tarring of the Massachusetts Limousine Liberal Elitist so prejudices them that they won't be able to make the leap of faith. With the backwoods populist, they would have no such fears.

There are many reasons. I wish he had actively campaigned in Utah and Idaho, because the "electability" issue gets worse with such situations.

Ah well, that's all passed now. I hope he seriously contests California, and if he's still standing after Super Tuesday, the following Tuesday is Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida.

Many people will find themselves able to reach out to Edwards who won't to Kerry. There will also be virtually no net loss of Kerry voters should Edwards be nominated.

Here's the corker, and I defy anyone to refute it: except for a small amount of veterans who would go for Kerry but not Edwards, Edwards will get all of Kerry's demographic and more. He'll get rural voters, Southern voters, non-voters, facile and superficial voters swept up with the "new" and pretty, independents and crossovers. Literally, Edwards will get more votes in a GE than Kerry.

[meegbear]

6. He'll get more "non-voters"?

How does somebody who doesn't vote, vote? If they vote, they're no longer a non-voters?

[katieforeman]

8. Well said, as usual.

Purity,
mayby you can help me. I'm trying to write a repsonse to the article on the front page of DU. But when I click on discuss article it takes me to the editorial message board, where I can't find the article listed. I wasn't able to find a way to respond at the publisher's site either.

Thanks,

Katie

[peaches2003]

12. Edwards has likeability

and that's what people vote for. This has been proven time and again- Reagan, Bush 43 (though he's not likeable to me at all, but is to at least 50% of the population), Clinton. Both Reagan and Bush 43 obviously knew nothing and were as intellectual and curious as a door, but people thought they were 'just like me' and voted for them. They vote for someone who is pleasant, not aristocratic. Edwards has that personality, not Kerry. Plus Kerry has too much baggage. Edwards is almost a blank slate and is the one I believe the Bushies fear the most.

[AP]

11. If Kerry gets nominated, and Bush wins, 30 years from now...

...people will write about how brilliant it was of Republicans to create a mood in the country which lured Democrats back to trying a formula which has been a proven disaster (nominating an old fashioned liberal from a traditional liberal state) and abandoing the smart strategy of which Gary Hart, Clinton and Edwards are examples.

[mr715]

15. Edwards v. Kerry

Uhhh what?

Kerry and Edwards have nearly identically liberal voting records!

[katieforeman]

19. But Edwards articulates a larger vision that will attract more

people to liberal causes.

[sangh0]

21. Is that all it takes these days to be a better progressive?

Talk a good game?

If Edwards actually HAD a larger vision than Kerry (as opposed to articulating one) wouldn't his record reflect that?

[katieforeman]

23. Edwards has a record of fighting for families.

How much has Kerry's time in the Senate advanced working families.

Most importantly, Edwards has a comprehensive plan and the political skills to get it done.

[sangh0]

25. Is that all it takes? Fighting for families?

Bush* fought for families (DuPont, Bush*, Harriman, etc) so I guess he's a progressive.

And all those gun-toting gay-marriage-hating Reagan-voting union members are progressives too.

[robertpaulsen]

16. I thought it was a good article too, but...

I'm voting for Kucinich. Kerry leads Edwards here in California 60% to 19%. Hard to see even Superman overcoming a 41 point deficit in 7 days.

Both Edwards and Kerry IMO are flawed candidates for different reasons. It's really hard to get a clear read of my crystal ball to see who has a better chance of beating Bush in November. Both beat him head to head in the polls now, so I'd be happy with either in November. But DK is light years ahead of both of them with his consistent leadership on progressive issues.

http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20040225/D80UDD7O0.html

[katieforeman]

20. But Edwards is the best one at persuading people to

buy into that vision. He will do for our cause what Reagan did for Republicans and what FDR did for Democrats. Edwards is a sea change candidate

Also I think Kerry's poll numbers will drop like a rock once the Republicans let loose on them. Edwards is much less vulnerable to attack.

Polls for primaries are notoriously innacurate. Let's not let Kerry's momentum take us off a cliff in November.

[sangh0]

22. "Edwards is a sea change candidate"????

WTF? WTO, anti-gay-marriage, pro-TIPS is a "sea change" of progressivism? Since when?

BTW, I like Edwards and would have no problem voting for him, but I would never confuse him with a progressive. A populist maybe, but not a progressive, and definitely not a "sea change"

[katieforeman]

24. Sea change in terms of articulating a competing

vision for this country. For too long the Republicans have been the only ones with a defining ideaology. That's why we've lost so much ground since Reagan.

[sangh0]

26. again

"WTF? WTO, anti-gay-marriage, pro-TIPS is a "sea change" of progressivism? Since when?"

Change that to:

WTF? WTO, anti-gay-marriage, pro-TIPS is a "sea change" of progressive VISION? Since when?

Edwards isn't a progressive at all. He's barely a liberal. Thirty years ago, he'd be a conservatice. It's laughable to suggest that Edwards is a progressive merely because he is talking about the gap between rich and poor.

[youngred]

17. you say K,K or E

but don't mention one of the K's???

[sangh0]

27. I guess

that must be "The Progressive Dilemma" :-)

[elsiesummers]

28. The article - agree except last line - Kerry will not pick Edwards as VP.

Kerry insiders keep suggesting Evan Bayh. Could also see a case for Gephardt, Graham and Clark. Richardson says he won't leave his current job.

The only way Edwards will be VP is if the DNC forces him onto the ticket - and I don't think Edwards would agree anyway.

Kerry can't pick Edwards because he has said out loud that Edwards can't bring NC. It is clear that Kerry's previous irritability towards Dean is now showing with regards to Edwards.

BTW - am still pulling for Edwards as the nominee - he surges at the end - and it's not over yet. Also, any anti-establishment movement, such as that of Dean and Kucinich, will be dispersed with a Kerry presidency. Edwards will offer more than lip service to the movement for change and reform.

[katieforeman]

29. True, I don't think Kerry will choose Edwards either.

Unfortunatley, Bayh and Graham have some serious charisma deficits of their own and we could be in real trouble.