My 1000th post: Edwards can win this country back.

[DjTj]

This post by ChiefJoseph reflects something I've said before and something I wanted to emphasize in my 1000th post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x406483

We can debate "electability" all we want, but the truth is that nobody knows whether Kerry's "Massachusetts liberal" meme or Edwards' "not enough experience" meme is going to be a bigger liability for the General Election. That is months away and it's impossible to predict what might take hold for November.

I think they both can win, but the reason I support Edwards is because I like how he would win.

Kerry has said that he doesn't need to win the South and the truth is his campaign would probably be smart to write off a large segment of the country. If Kerry wins, it will be by swinging Missouri, Ohio, New Hampshire, and/or Florida. The Senate candidates running in Oklahoma, Louisiana, North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina, and others will be largely on their own to win their seats.

Bush knows exactly how to run against Kerry, and Kerry knows exactly how to run against Bush. It will be old-school attack politics - dredging through old records and painting their opponent as extremist and out of touch with ordinary Americans. They will focus on the swing states and pour money into them. Both sides will wake up in January bloodied and angry, and if Kerry wins we will likely face at least two more years of a Democratic President battling with a Republican Congress.

However, if Edwards wins in November, it will be by reaching deeper into the South and winning the swing states because he has forced Bush to protect his base. There wouldn't be a bloodied focused battle, but a broader campaign on more national issues taking place on multiple fronts. He would appear on the stump next to Erskine Bowles, Brad Carson, and Inez Tenenbaum and their fates will be very closely tied to his. If Edwards wins, it will be with a mandate and maybe even a Democratic Senate.

I don't think anybody has a really good idea of what an Edwards vs. Bush campaign would look like. It will surely have its share of attacks too, but there is far less substance to criticize about Edwards. Inexperience isn't exactly a meme that has a lot of depth to it and while they can repeat it many times, there isn't a lot of fodder to feed into it, while Kerry has a new incriminating vote that the Bush can campaign trot out every week until November. Of course Republicans would be angry if Edwards beat Bush, but it wouldn't be as nasty as a Kerry win. A Kerry win would only deepen the political, cultural, and geographic divide that has grown under Bush. Our leadership would be from the left, but we would still be divided in two Americas.

Kerry and Edwards can both win the White House, but Edwards can win a lot more. He can win this country back.

[citizen snips]

1. Congrats DjTj.

Go Edwards!:toast:

[ChiefJoseph]

2. Excellent post, DjTj

I agree with virtually everything you said.

What's really funny is that I don't remember having a strong feeling about Edwards until the last couple of months. Did you watch him the night of the South Carolina primary? I thought his speech was absolutely riveting. I was glued to the TV, almost hypnotized, I thought he was so good. I like his life story, I like his looks, I like his thoughtful, moderate responses to questions... There really isn't much I don't like about him. And I can't believe Kerry is beating him!

[DjTj]

5. I loved the SC speech.

I think it was his finest moment in this campaign so far. In fact, I handed it out as a flyer in Virginia:

http://join.johnedwards2004.com/join/advocacy/tjou-111552

[JohnLocke]

3. Congratulations and a great post!

:toast: :toast: :toast:

[Liberal_Andy]

4. congrats, DjTj!

:toast:

[katieforeman]

6. Congrats, and a few more points.

1.) A John Edwards' campaign would be framed around his vision of turning "two Americas" into "One America." John "bring it on" Kerry's capmaign would be centered around divisive issues of the past like Vietnam and Kerry's voting record.

2.) John Edwards and John Kerry both have some very good policy ideas. However, John Edwards' policies serve a larger vision of "one America." For too long the Democrats have been the party of policy grocery lists and the Republicans have been the party of true believers. John Edwards would do for us what Reagan did for Republicans- define a coherent philosophy of government. For Edwards the role of government is to extend opportunity to all Americans.

3.) Edwards elevates the debate by framing the problems of poverty and racial division in moral terms. He gives Americans a cause larger than themselves to believe in. I am a fan of Bill Clinton's, but I think uder his leadership and the DLC, the Democrats had a tendency to pander to the middle class. It was a pragmatic strategy. Edwards combines pragmatism with idealism.

[BradCKY]

7. Exactly DjTJ

Wonderful post!!

After all nobody knew what to do with Clinton, and he came out of nowhere I hope Edwards can do the same thing.

[PurityOfEssence]

8. Thank you for all your efforts; you're absolutely correct

Regardless of happenstance and whatever else, Edwards is not only the most electable, but the best alternative to heal the nation and the world.

It's rather unfair to someone like Kucinich that he's tarred as too far left and thus unelectable, but it's the truth. His election would have the right wing galvanized and out for blood. They'd be even more obstructionist at every turn and things would be a mess.

It's unfair to Kerry after a long and vigorous career, generally as a champion of what's good in the face of overwhelming force, to not get the mantle of power.

Let's be serious, though: NOBODY DESERVES THE PRESIDENCY. It's not an award for long service or for shining and pristine ethics. It's also not to be seized by those factions who feel they know better than anyone else WHAT TYPE OF PERSON SHOULD BE OUR LEADER. This is the thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. The President has to reflect, represent and be approachable by as many people as possible. One can interpret that many ways, but one very simplistic and honorable way is to find the person that most people will be able to deal with.

This is why Edwards is such a gem: Lefties, Centrists and some non-rabid Conservatives will feel that they can deal with him. The rest of the world will find him approachable. Yokels and non-voters will feel some kindred feeling with him, and above all else: he's an embodiment of the Horatio Alger American Dream/Myth who celebrates the essential spirit (cynics would say propaganda) embodied by the country.

It's not just that he's the guy I like and have supported for three years. It's not just that, as a contrarian, I like the underdog. It's not just that he's pretty. It's that he's for real, and at the same time, knows when to pull his punches and play things close to the vest. That's called politics. You simply can't say and do exactly what you want and get enough people to cotton to you; Dean learned that in a big way, and I think Kucinich knew it all along.

He has finesse. He has an inner strength and an inner softness, and the two of them are as comfortable with each other as he is with an audience.

This kind of thinking is what made me so enraged about the Florida thievery of '00: there's a sanctity of the vote, and to fuck with it is a crime against the covenant of decent society. Just getting what you want is not a good thing. Being a part of something bigger than you is the important thing, and we all have to suffer in our little life's paths as we learn and try to do what's right. The bottom line is that we're in this together, and life is a series of trade-offs. Yes, when one gets in the habit of compromising, one may lose one's way (e.g. Gephardt, and to a lesser degree Daschle) but to not be able to compromise and bend is to put oneself above society and scorn humanity itself.

We need a time of healing, and for that alone, there's simply no candidate anywhere near as approachable by and palatable to as wide a swath of mankind than John Reed Edwards. The spitting anger of those who can't get past certain votes and actions has poisoned them to the big picture.

Hell, I'd like to reinforce the separation of Church and State, tax churches, abolish faith-based organizations, legalize Gay Marriage, Tax net worth, means-test Social Security, immediately have Socialized Medicine (here's one for you Dennis: "Medicine for money is murder; even Hippocrates figured that out"), have public ownership of all utilities, legalize drugs, abolish public monies being used for sports and generally piss off everyone in the Universe. I'm not going to try a frontal assault like that, but within the constraints of reality, I want to move in those directions. We ARE moving in those directions.

John Edwards is the best candidate this party's had in forty years, and he's the best hope for the biosphere that exists on earth today. It's dismaying how we in the Democratic Party are hellbent on throwing it all away because of pissy parochialism, inflexible wedge issues and various ego-frenzies that boggle the imagination.

Any vote for anyone other than John Edwards is a vote for John Kerry. He's going to have a hell of a hard time in the South, and even if elected, is going to be met with more opposition than is sensible to leave oneself open to, and have a generally hard row to hoe. What with the economy imploding, an embattled one-term Patrician Limousine Liberal could be left holding the bag, and the monarchists will lie in chorus to sweep back into power to stay.

Thank you DjTj; you've been one of the stalwarts, and you've brought us all lots of thought, information, hope and joy.

Happy fourth digit.

[DjTj]

10. Thanks Purity.

Seeing your posts encouraged me to start posting on DU in the first place as an Edwards supporter.

I am very afraid that everything in your post will be right. I think it reflects the mindset of a lot of the Democratic leadership, which is that Kerry has paid his dues and if they're going to take a shot on with someone, they might as well go with the safe choice: a polished and experienced politicians who has earned his spot at the front of the party.

I am in favor of all those liberal ideals too, but I believe America deserves a bigger vision, and they'll need an inspiring leader to bring them there.

We don't need to elect a package of issues and talking points, we need to elect a leader that can take this country in a new direction.

[SangamonTaylor]

9. congrats djtj!!!

nice post.

[spooky3]

11. Congratulations, DjTj, and please keep on posting!

[Cuban_Liberal]

12. Excellent post, and congratulations!

Well said, DjTj! :thumbsup:

[Adelante]

13. Congratulations on 1000, DjTj

:toast:

[lams712]

14. Congrats on the 1000th POST

And you are right that BOTH major candidates can win in November. Although I support DK, I can easily support either one if they keep up their primary rhetoric in the general election. My fear is that they will move to right during the general election. That would have a negative effect on my motivation. I would still vote for them, but my motivation level would be lower (probably no volunteer stuff, less $$$$ contribution, etc.).