John Edwards for President in '08

[boston bean]

No one here talks about it.

I supported him in '04 and will again.

He is the dark horse, he has been working hard the last two years and I think he deserves some support.

Who else here agrees?

[Nozebro]

1. Give us an argument for why we should support him--other than "hard worker"

nt

[boston bean]

3. umm, he has been working against poverty all over the US

He is southern, he is smart, intelligent.

John Kerry didn't use him enough in '04.

He has the right mix. He has been out of dc politics for the last two years. He is a good man for the middle class.

Go over to http://oneamericacommittee.com/

you will learn more than I can tell you.

[ClassWarrior]

2. He's one of my personal front runners.

NGU.

[ogradda]

4. I agree,

I've always thought he'd make a great president.

[boston bean]

5. Not many here on DU agree tho. I have often wondered why?? nt

[Clark2008]

14. Because he helped author the PATRIOT Act, voted for the IWR

and used to be a staunch DLCer.

[Mass]

24. Edwards co-sponsored the IWR.

[readmoreoften]

34. What's the IWR stand for? I'm stupid today, thanks.nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

38. Iraq War Resolution.

[readmoreoften]

39. Ahhhhhhh. /nt

[1932]

50. A cite for the staunch DLC'er argument (and for you Pelosi quote, and for

the mill manager claim while you're at it)?

Dan Schorr said on NPR in 2003 that the DLC did not support him because of his votes against free trade bills.

[Pithy Cherub]

25. Because he's a Johnny-come-lately to progressive values.

IWR cheerleader, NCLB, DLC devotee, and on and on...

[MelissaB]

32. Wait a minute! Even Kennedy supported NCLB. It isn't what it was supposed to be.

BTW, this comes up for renewal in 2007.

[BruceMcF]

35. He seems to have become steadily more progressive over time.

He has always been concerned with poverty, and his actions after the Presidential campaign, when his wife had been diagnosed with cancer and it was not clear that he would be pursuing political ambitions in the near term future was to accept the position as Director of the Center on Poverty, Work & Opportunity at the UNC Law School.

And the more he has learned on the issue, the more progressive he seems to be. However, it is true that he is more focused on what need to be done to eliminate poverty in thirty years than in any form of ideological purity. He is, for example, more concerned with how many people HUD serves than how many bureaucrats they employ while serving them.

He voted for the Iraq War Resolution, but in the period when most high profile Democrats were dithering, he was the first to say forthrightly that his vote for the IWR was a mistake. So for those who make their decision primarily on the IWR, he will always be in the second tier, behind those who opposed the IWR from the start, and ahead of those who dithered longer (or, like Saint Hillary, continue to dither).

And of course, he helped carry Ohio, and when Blackwell stole the election argued for fighting against the rampant voter suppression, supported by outright election fraud, but the top of the ticket decided against proceeding with the fight. On the other hand, according to State of Denial, Carville tipped of the White House that the Kerry/Edwards campaign was considering a fight, so that process may have been more complex than it at first appeared. He certainly has one of the stronger chances of carrying enough Republican leaning votes in the Ohio River Valley and rural central Ohio to color Ohio blue, especially notw that we have an honest Secretary of State in Judge Brunner.

Indeed, Kerry is a gift that seems to keep on giving to the Republicans in Ohio ... one can only wonder whether we would have taken two more seats here if he had handled the gaffe more adroitly, so that it was gone one or two news cycles earlier.

[TAPat]

6. Issues that surround and cause poverty

are #1 on my list. I dig Edwards and the work he's been doing.

That said - My wish is that in the future we would have a President who is strong in foreign policy and a VP who is strong in domestic policy, or vice versa, and that they would work as more of a team, or Co-Presidency, if you will.

The example set by this misadministration - VP behind the scenes pulling the strings - has at least set a precedent for a stronger role for the VP. It's not just for funerals anymore... ;)

In my scenario, I would be ecstatic having Edwards as *President of Domestic Policy*!

[B Calm]

7. I like Edwards.. He has never forgotten that he came from a working

class family..

[KittyWampus]

8. He'd never be able to cut defense spending... thus no real solution to poverty

would begin under him.

[Selatius]

11. Well, that wouldn't be entirely his fault, since Bush started the damn war

The first administration after Bush would be busy undoing all of Bush's damage. It may end up taking two terms to undo the damage. Then maybe in 2016 he could run again, after the US leaves Iraq and demobilizes the military with a peace dividend being created as a result of demobilization.

[BruceMcF]

37. The thing is, he really does know the issue.

That means that he can put forward programs that will be effective, rather than just throw money at the problem.

If there was a Republican House, I would be more worried on that score, but with the ability to hold House hearings on waste, fraud and abuse in Defense spending to drive the political climate, it should certainly be possible to trim $10b's from the Defense budget.

[Stephanie]

9. I would support him

I like Gore but I'd be happy with Edwards.

[ogradda]

15. I like Edwards

But I'd be happy with Gore. :)

[AlinPA]

10. I like him, along with Clark, Feingold, Vilsack, Hillary, Obama. We have good

people and the media will paint their picture early. Right now they see Hillary, but she may be a little too radioactive early on for independent voters mostly because of the media's treatment of her. They will say "Vilsack who?", "Feingold is too liberal", etc, and will create this "unbeatable" McCain figure (they already have done a lot for him) I'm afraid the media for the most part controls presidential races.

[Jacklyn75]

12. I really like him a lot and his wife

personally, I wish Gore would have picked him to run with in 2000. I think it would have helped him a lot.

[Clark2008]

13. No.

No foreign policy.
No red-state support.
No experience in leadership.

No.

[boston bean]

16. You're just jealous cause he didn't win primaries and wasn't chosen as VP.

;-)

playing around here not 100% serious.

edit sp

[Clark2008]

18. Actually, he beat John Edwards in five of the nine primaries

in which they both competed - but that's beside the point.

And, I'm also fully aware that Clark did not want the VP role for Kerry - he said he refused to be anyone's "Cheney."

So... that said... the only jealously I harbor is that Edwards got so much press when he actually didn't do as well as Clark. :)

[citizen snips]

20. funny that you should mention press coverage

Because at the beginning Edwards received no press coverage. As for who did better in the Democratic primaries Edwards had more delegates then Clark did.

[Mass]

23. Because he stayed on longer. You cannot know what would have happened if Clark has stayed on as

long as Edwards.

[Mass]

22. Clark won as many primaries as Edwards when it mattered. He won OK.

Edwards won SC the same day. Latter, AFTER HE CONCEDED, he won NC, where Kerry did not fight because it was pointless to fight.

He came second at least as often as Edwards while he was running.

[citizen snips]

26. Did Clark win his home state?

[Mass]

28. Clark was out of the running when AK took place and Edwards won NC when it did not matter anyway.

There is nothing to be proud of in Edwards's victory in NC. He HAD ALREADY CONCEDED. So, please, give us a break.

Clark at this point was already working HARD for Kerry while Edwards was working hard for his own glory. Sorry, there is no photo for me, even if none is my favorite.

[dalaigh lllama]

43. Agree with you

I think Edwards is great, but doesn't have the experience necessary to clean up the mess we're in. He reminds me of Jimmy Carter (who I consider a saint) -- he wouldn't have the wiliness to deal with all the D.C. b*llsh*t, no matter how well-intentioned he is.

[pooja]

17. I agree. I really like this man.

For the last couple of years he's been in the slums mucking the rake... I think that his background and his work that he is doing now will be useful to remind him where people need the help.

[citizen snips]

19. works for me

he is on the top my list right now and with Warner out of the way Edwards is going to do good in the south.

[jazzjunkysue]

21. Yes! He'd be a great president, and he can win. Yes! Go John, go!

I think that's why he's been so quiet these past years. Better to show up with a clean slate and not be connected to Kerry.

I think John is our best hope. What a great diplomat. Great with spending. Great with the gop.

Wouldn't you like to hear from him all the time instead of the boy king?

It would be like The West Wing, FOR REAL!

[LWolf]

27. No, thank you.

I want someone with more experience.

[Blackhatjack]

29. If you want to know Edwards qualities, ask his enemies ....

... in North Carolina, all the insurance defense attorneys will tell you they respect Edwards over all other plaintiff attorneys because he was ultra-prepared, absolutely loyal to his clients, refused to accept anything other than the truth, connected with the juries because of his plain spoken honest style, always helped people who had been injured and abused by the powerful to have an advocate to represent their interests, and generally never ingratiated himself in the rich and powerful clicks that first generation wealth often induces.

I do not know if he will win. I do know if he did, the shakeup in Washington would tremendous.
Poverty would be a front row issue, and restoring government to the people would not be far behind. As to Iraq, there is no solution to that problem which will not be painful, but the solution will have to be supported by Congress and the people, as well as the White House.

And if you want to know who would likely do the best job of representing the people of the United States just look at how they are treated by the Republican Party. They have spent many dollars countering Edwards, and that should tell you a lot.

He basically is who you see. ANd that scares those who have presently have a hold on power....

[chimpymustgo]

31. Love him and Elizabeth. Look forward to seeing them in the White House!

It will happen. We've got to fix America. Gore/Edwards...Edwards/Obama...

[skipos]

30. I like Edwards, but I would like to see more non-senators from flippable red states

in the 08 mix. We have had 2 senators elected president in about 100 years, they are too damn easy to slime. We need all the electoral votes we can get, and I see no evidence he could win North Carolina. It is too red.

[w4rma]

33. Senator John Edwards rocks. I think he is fantastic. (nt)

[dooner]

36. I think he's the one.

I just don't see anybody else with the right combination of personality/charisma, and democratic ideals that it will take to win this thing.
No way is it Hillary, or Gore, or Kerry I'm afraid.

[high density]

40. Gawd, I'd rather have Hillary!

My first impression of Edwards was good. I continued to watch him speak on C-SPAN throughout the early primary season and the more I watched him, the less I liked him. I was really stunned and annoyed by his campaign to be vice president. Right now I don't like anything about him, and looking back I'm kind of surprised that I went through the hassle of seeing him at a Kerry/Edwards rally up here in Maine (I think Kerry ignored us completely during the campaign season.)

[earth mom]

41. I like Edwards...

Though Gore or RFK Jr are my first choices. Edwards comes across as someone with integrity which is big in my book. Someone upthread said he's DLC which would be a deal breaker unless he's kicked them to the curb in recent months. I can't stand Hillary or Obama because they are DLC Dinos. IMO, we need REAL dems in office who will look after the middle class, the working class and the poor first-not the corporate bastards first. I do know that Edwards does seem to care about the people more than the elite/rich which works big time in his favor. We'll see...

[Wiley50]

42. He has Charisma like Clinton did. A Natural Populist..

But, instead of being dead set on helping the corporations,
He's all about helping the poor.

Being in the latter category, I support him.
Unless Gore steps up.
Gore got screwed in 2000
He deserves it if he wants it

[flying_monkeys]

44. I think NC would help tank his campaign....

A lot of folk weren't too pleased with him as a Senator because he ran for VP and missed representing the state to its satisfaction. He'd probably carry most of the cities, but the rural areas would tank him so I don't think he could carry even his own state.


He also has zippy experience in foreign affairs, he is young, and the Repugs fear him (so would dump a LOT of money to try to take him out of the race). His votes would hurt him (like signing on for the War, even though almost all the other Senators did, too, based on the bad info they were given - - but that alone would look bad in a TV ad ("John Edwards helped write the Patriot Act and sponsored going to war - - Has he flip-flopped????"))


That said, he does have charisma and good ethics - - so I would be happy to help support his campaign in Charlotte - - but I don't think he could win the enchilada. But what do I know :)

[mnhtnbb]

45. John Edwards can talk religion to Southerners and they will believe him

John Edwards has the 'likeability' factor. Hillary doesn't have it.
Feingold doesn't have it. Clark has it--a little bit--but he can go off on strange tangents. Edwards is 'one of the people'. He's been working the poverty issue, and I think that's going to resonate with a lot of people by 08.

I wasn't an Edwards fan in 04 (original Deaniac), but I think of all the people being mentioned--other than Gore--he has the best shot of winning across the country, including the South.

If Al Gore would run the way he's been talking for the last two years, I think he'd be unbeatable, too.

[upi402]

46. The last 2 were stiff as boards. EDWARDS would be GREAT!

I'd support him.
I'd like Clark but he may be too careful appearing.

[Ignacio Upton]

47. I'm considering him

But I have two concerns:

1. He only served one term in the Senate, with the last two years (2003-2005) being spent campaigning for President. While his experience isn't as much of a problem as it is with Obama, it will likely be a liability. I'm also not impressed about how he performed in his debate with Cheney in 2004.

2. Being on a losing ticket does not help him, although he is not as tarnished as Kerry. Some point to FDR as an example of someone who can come back from this situation (he was James Cox's running mate in the 1920 election and his ticket got trounced by Harding and Coolidge.) But he served as Governor of New York before running in 1932. Edwards doesn't have a period of recovery like Roosevelt did.

[Zorra]

48. He would be an excellent candidate, IMO. n/t

[chimpymustgo]

49. A winner. He's got the message, the charisma, the brains and heart.

He connects with people...and voters are in a populist mood.

[Poiuyt]

51. John Edwards would be a great counter to John McCain

Youth and vitality vs the man who (if elected) would be the oldest person to take the office.