I might have some bad news for liberals and progressives

[mdmc]

I really like Gore and Kucinich. I really do.
I have been talking about 2008 with my test group of swing voters. I have about 11 friends that aren't dems or pukes, they really are swing voters.
They supported Bush in 2000, and were split over him in 2004. This group successfully called NYS unexpected victory of Pataki over Cuomo, and Spitzer's victory over Pataki (prior to Pataki bailing).
I don't often like what I hear from them, but they seem to reflect popular opinion.

Well, they don't like Gore. And they don't like Kerry. Of course, they have never even heard of Kucinich.
They hate Bush. They want a change in 2008.

Do you know who they like? John Edwards!

I've never been a big Edwards fan. However, this result shocked me. I never thought that this group would like Edwards. I thought that they would like Clinton or Wes Clark... And they do like Clinton and Clark. But they want Edwards to run, and they think that he can win.

When asked, the best they can explain this Edwards love is like this -- "I know what Hillary and Gore are about, I don't know what Edwards is all about."

I've been picking the brains of these 11 people for over 10 years. They are almost always right about elections, they are almost always able to predict the winner. And they like John Edwards.

So, you heard it here first, DU. While I am a big fan of Gore, Dean, and of Kucinich, I am thinking of supporting Edwards. I think that he might just beat McCain.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

1. Fair enough. How far out did they predict their

previous miracles?

Almost always pick? how many times have they been wrong?

[mdmc]

7. They have never been wrong, except locally

It really doesn't mean anything... But I was amazed by their Edwards love... I mean some of them voted twice for Bush!

Their best call was Pataki over Cuomo. Cuomo was ten points ahead a couple days prior to election day. My group of 11 kinda felt "tired of being told to pay taxes by Mario" and wanted "change":eyes:

Locally, they do a pretty good job calling the winners, but it is not as consistent as the state wide or nation wide predictions.

They also called Kerry winning the primary in 2004. They never thought Dean (who made all the noise and excitement) or Joementum (which had all the big NYS dems behind him, including new Gov. Spitzer) would make the cut. I must admit, in 11-2003, I thought they were nuts.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

9. interesting. I am not sure even rabid GOP

psychotics were calling for Pataki to beat Mario that first time.

thank you for your observations.

[mdmc]

25. It was after that election, as I started to become a pol scientist

that I kept track of these people.

Peace and low stress to you and thank you for your posts.

[rodeodance]

2. Edwards was my first choice last time and will be again.

[William769]

3. Funny my circle of friends don't like Edwards.

And he has to make it through the primaries before your friends have a say.

[mdmc]

8. My circle of friends dig Nader, Kucinich, or Hillary

These are swing voters, mostly friends of my family. My buddies are all radical progressives.

[William769]

15. But they voted for Bush in 2000?

[mdmc]

23. No, they voted for Nader

it was my swing voter test group of 11 people that voted for Bush in 2000. Some of them voted for him in 2004 (cause they didn't like Kerry:shrug: ). Now, in 2007, they hate Bush. They dislike Gore, Kerry, and Clinton. They like Edwards.

[Ken Burch]

98. "Radical progressives" who voted for Pataki? yeah right.

And now "radical progressives" who want a Democrat who's still, despite his pretty talk about poverty, still basically a tight-budget, pro-free trade and anti-worker kind of guy?

[aquart]

4. So you're saying Edwards is neither liberal nor progressive?

And no liberal or progressive would be happy supporting him? Is that what you're saying?

[Shakespeare]

14. I think what they're saying is that he's more populist than he is any other label.

And THAT is why he seems to have appeal across lines that other candidates don't. Edwards is going to be a fascinating and exciting candidate to watch; I'm not sure who I'll ultimately support yet, but I do like Edwards an awful lot.

[aquart]

55. He's a white, Christian, southern-sounding, congenial, tall man.

He must look like a damned oasis to people scared shit of Hillary and Obama.

[Shakespeare]

57. Oh, sure, let's disqualify him for that.

Good gawd. :eyes:

Edited to add: I'm still trying to figure out where the fuck your response came from. I'm suggesting that Edwards' appeal is that he's very much a populist--and that has nothing to do with skin color or gender. For the record, my dream ticket is Gore/Obama, but Edwards wouldn't break my heart, either.

[Ken Burch]

99. What's his height got to do with it?

Remember, Bush is shorter than Kerry, and a height advantage didn't do the Man from Massachusetts any good in '04.

And are people who are "scared shit"(which means what, they're so frightened that they're constipated?) of Hillary and Obama from the right really going to disagree with the GOP on anything that matters? Or even think of voting against the GOP at all?

The best thing would be for Edwards to adopt Kucinich's program. That would be an unbeatable combination.

[mdmc]

19. Kinda, but not at all

Edwards is a great guy, just like Hillary Clinton is a great woman.
Those of us that identify as progressives (or liberals) more so then Democratic Party Members, those that oppose preemptive war, drug war, death penalty, free trade (I know Edwards is on board with us here), and universal medicine, well, we might not be exactly thrilled with an Edwards candidacy.

Within the last month, I have posted a pro Kucinich + Gore thread, and a "I will support liberal John Kerry before I support any triangulating DLC lame-o".

I am now rethinking this big time. I really think that Edwards has the best shot at winning at this time.

[Taverner]

5. I have always said this: Edwards would win the election easily

Remember that optimism Clinton had that made so many Republicans vote for him? Edwards has that.

Winning the nomination will be tough for him though...

[JDPriestly]

6. Edwards has broad appeal and he is presenting himself

effectively. I like Gore and Clark and Edwards. It is too early to choose which one I will ultimately work for. I want to see how they make their ways through the land mines that will be placed in their ways during the primaries.

[tblue37]

72. Since I don't think Gore will run, and I think the media would savage him if he did,

so that he wouldn't have a chance, my dream ticket is Clark/Edwards.

[cali]

10. Interesting, but I don't see why this would be bad

news for Progressives. Edwards has a populist/progressive message, from healthcare to the environment.

[mdmc]

26. I think of progressive as the Nader crowd

Progressives dig Kucinich, Sharpton, Braun crowd. I was thinking that Edwards would be too moderate for my progressive crowd.

[cali]

33. My friends

all identify as either very liberal or Progressive, (and in my state we actually have a Progressive party and reps from that party in the State House) and although none of them has chosen a candidate yet, none of them are considering supporting Kucinich. Call them pragmatic progressives.

[mdmc]

37. I think that I am pragmatic too

peace and low stress to you cali. Thanks for your input here and in DU land in general.

[cali]

50. Back at you, mdmc

and a very good new year to you and yours. Keep us apprised of your predictive friends.

[dogday]

93. I would of loved to see Russ run

but I do like Edwards, always have.....

[SmokingJacket]

11. Edwards is a good person, I think -- could be worse.

Hopefully we'll have a better sense of what kind of leaders all of them will be in the coming months. I hope there's more focus on policy and LESS on personality this time around. (Won't hold my breath, though.)

I still haven't made up my mind -- I'll support whoever survives the primaries. Gore deserves it, though. (Popular vote AND amazing activism in the years since!)

[mdmc]

27. See, I am a BIG Gore fan

I was shocked that this group hates Bush so much, but didn't want the chance to make this right. They felt that Gore was "the broken oldie" and Edwards was the "new hottie".

[SmokingJacket]

61. Well, those people are shallow.

Edwards has lots of good things going for him, to be sure -- but that he's the "new hottie" is an incredibly dumb way to analyze his strengths.

Are the majority of Americans going to dismiss Gore because he's an old "loser"? If so, maybe the majority of us deserve Bush after all.

[mdmc]

77. Perhaps that IS his only strength

Surely you realize that America deserves w.

[marmar]

12. Why would it be bad news for liberals or progressives?

Is it any more "bad news" than it would be if they preferred Clark or Clinton? :shrug:

[mdmc]

28. No more bad then Clark or Clinton

Perhaps I meant "radicals" instead of liberal progressives. This was aimed at the Gore/Kucinich/Nader crowd (with the "Gore" crowd hoping he runs better then the 2000 election).


Peace and thank you for allowing me to clarify.

[LWolf]

13. I have 2 thoughts:

First, that a group of "swing" voters is not going to make my choice of candidate for me, or influence that choice in any way. I'll choose the best candidate from my perspective.

Second, that if the voters are tired enough of republican rule, it is the party's job to run a good, clean, strong campaign and convince those swing voters that they've got the right person on the ticket. Not the other way around.

[mdmc]

32. Thank you for checking in lwolf

I think that you know that I am mad liberal, a near Green, yet still very active in the Dem party.

Kucinich is my kind of guy.

Anyone we run will be better off with the support of Kucinich. I don't want any part of a campaign that Kucinich could not support (such as if Zell Miller won the 2008 nomination).

If we run anyone on a progressive ticket, we win, even if we lose. You fight the fights that need fighting, not just the fights that you can win.

This group has made me see something - something that I have overlooked.

[LWolf]

42. I agree with your assessment.

But not with Edwards. I have trouble with his support of the IWR and Patriot act, among other things.

He might be able to tempt me if he were in the Senate this year when NCLB comes up for reauthorization, so he could vote against it. That's one of the issues that will make or break my support, after the last years having it decimate my profession.

I'm sure we could present any number of people well in '08, if the next Congress does a good job. Just about anyone who ran on DKs platform could get my vote, if they convinced me that decisive action would match the words.

[mdmc]

46. I just need Edwards to oppose NCLB, not vote on it

Take it to the streets, take it to the press, to the campaign. If he vocally opposed NCLB, that will be good enough.

This is why the OP is "bad news" for progressives (NCLB, Iraq war, drug war, death penalty).

[krispos42]

95. Like Randi says...

Fall in love during the primary, fall in line during the general election.

[Rosemary2205]

16. I hear Hillary and Edwards quite a lot.

I am partial to Obama at the moment (I'm known to change my mind as the race goes on) but listening to all my swinging family and friends any combo of Edwards and Hillary is possible.

[cornermouse]

17. I think people are sick and tired of the widespread corruption

and greed. They know they've been losing economic ground, but its finally getting serious and they're tired of being Bush's punching bags.

[mnhtnbb]

18. I am not surprised to hear this. Having just seen Edwards in

person at his return rally to Chapel Hill on Saturday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3008687

I can tell you the guy is loaded with charisma. He is out front in acknowledging his mistake about supporting the Iraq War--which gives
Bush supporters permission to forgive themselves for being duped, too.

He's also up from the masses--just like Clinton. No silver spoon in his mouth. He's suffered the loss of a child. His wife is his best asset.
Elizabeth is smart, comes from a military family, and looks and acts like your neighbor.

Universal health care is at the top of his list--that's a big issue.

He understands that patriotism is not just about war.

He is drawing attention to the economic/social divide in this country that has only widened during the Bush Administration, something that makes a lot of people uncomfortable.

And best of all, he is challenging everybody to start taking action now to solve the problems in our communities. He is talking about empowering people--not to wait for the election--which is reminiscent of
Howard Dean's "you have the power".

I think the guy could go all the way. Would I rather have Gore?
In a heart beat. But unless Gore makes up his mind pretty soon, I'm going to start supporting the guy with the fire in his belly for the fight to take the White House back in 08. And we know it's going to be a helluva' fight.

[PA Democrat]

20. Recent poll shows Edwards beating McCain

Check this out:

Regarding the next presidency, however, the poll suggests that the 2008 field is open — but it's led by a few familiar politicians. U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., leads the Democratic pack as the choice of 37 percent of Democrats. U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., follows her at 18 percent. Next is former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards at 14 percent, and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry at 11 percent.

In the GOP field, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani leads the way as the choice of 34 percent of Republicans. He's narrowly followed by U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., at 29 percent, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at 10 percent, and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at 8 percent.

In some head-to-head match ups, McCain leads Clinton by four points (47 to 43 percent) and Obama by five points (43 percent to 38 percent). But — in an interesting twist — the Arizona senator trails Edwards by two points (43 percent to 41 percent).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16189893/

[Warpy]

21. Edwards is gaining because he has noticed

that 95% of us haven't been doing well under either party and it's getting worse every day. That's what he's basing his message on.

That is what is going to bring him support. Whether or not he's able to escape the clutches of the DLC election management team remains to be seen.

Kucinich talks a good fight but he's still failed to learn how to organize a broad based, grassroots organization.

Edwards does have a chance of beating McCain. He's a pit bull trial lawyer who will take no shit from the noise machine, if he's not hamstrung by well meaning but election losing DLC handlers.

[mdmc]

34. Perhaps he needs some lefties to work out those DLC kinks for him

:toast:

[Demit]

22. I should think that after this debacle of a presidency people would be hungry

for a president with knowledge and experience again. If we are beguiled by the "fresh face" thing again, the cult of personality thing again, I mourn already for—and dread—the next eight years. Another eight years of somebody who looks good or talks good or you'd like to have a beer with.

No offense to your friends (who are so knowledgeable they "of course" have never heard of Kucinich?), but I want a president who knows what he's doing— because he has experience doing something, and not merely the experience of running for office.

[Little Star]

30. No one has 100% experience in everything.

I have always thought that if any candidate surrounded themselves with the right advisees they could make good decisions. No man is an island.

[Demit]

44. I'm not sure what you think you mean by 100% experience.

Kind of a meaningless expression, that.

When I say experience in something, as I did (not experience in "everything", whatever that means), I mean experience in foreign affairs and experience in government, whether in administration or legislation. With enough of a record I can look at to gauge how the person might function in the most powerful office in the world.

The candidate's advisors aren't running for that office. The candidate is. We vote for candidates, not their advisors. Good God, haven't you had enough of a president who can't function on the world stage? Who 'goes by his gut' because he has no grounding in the complexities of geopolitics? The office of President of the United States is not a figurehead, ceremonial office yet. If we show that we'll accept another president without demanding that he prove he knows what he's talking about, we are doomed.

NOT just anybody can step into such a position. Neither you nor I could do it "with the right advisors." Get real.

[mdmc]

35. They don't get more experienced then Rummy and Cheney

Or as H. Pat Moynihan used to say, "There are some mistakes that only a Ph.D. can make." I think that this neo-con group has been the most 'experienced' group we have ever had in the white house.

The last thing we need is more "experience" like we already have.

[Demit]

52. We didn't vote for either of them, did we? They didn't run for office, did they?

The know-nothing idiot boy king George Bush is the one who holds the power of the presidency. Besides, are you honestly saying that we must choose inexperience this time around because it is the opposite of the bad experience (of the president's manipulators) we are having now? That inexperience is the natural corrective to bad government?

And neither Rummy nor Cheney had experience being in a war, much less running one. If they had had, things might have gone differently.

[cali]

36. Umm, let me guess

Clark supporter? In any case, Edwards is far more than a fresh face. And no one has the "right" experience to be President. Yes, experience in government is important, but of at least equal experience is intelligence, the ability to surround yourself with people of excellence, the ability to listen to many different viewpoints and choose the best options in any given situation, and the ability to synthezize information. Experience doesn't necessarily bestow any of the above.

[Demit]

56. Your guess is wrong.

Kind of telling, your need to 'uncover' what you assume is an agenda on my part. But leaving that aside, all the attributes you cite, I agree, are important to look for in a person who might hold an office of such fearsome power. But how to gauge whether the person has them? A campaign is pretty much an extended interview with potential job candidates, right? You can be mightily impressed with how well someone handles himself during the interview, but aren't you more reassured with the job candidate with experience on his resume demonstrating he has the attributes you seek? Yes, you can choose the guy with the lightweight resume who interviews well, but you are making a decision based on intuition. That's what the American populace did last time, and I hope that the next chance we have we err on the side of caution.

I like John Edwards. I do. I worked for his VP campaign. I'm not sure this is his time, to be on the world stage. Ditto Barack Obama. I feel the need for some kind of absolutely fresh start too, something somehow diametrically opposed to the disastrous presidency we are suffering through. But I think that casually accepting inexperience as no barrier to performance is not the way to go about choosing our next President of the United States.

[Little Star]

59. You said it MUCH better than I.

What you said is really how I feel.

[Parisle]

24. This is actually the kind of "polling" I trust,......

--- I can believe only too easily what you've reported. I would prefer a Gore-Edwards ticket, myself,... but I must admit that I have been thoroughly impressed with the recent live coverage I've seen of Edwards. The guy has all the down-home populist trappings, and has the humble background that so many politicians lack. I want to throw the entire upper class out of politics,... as well as making it a crime for corporations to participate in politics in any way.

[mdmc]

38. Thank you for your post

Couldn't say it any better.
Peace and low stress to you and yours.

[Capn Amerika]

29. John Edwards is very Kennedy-esque

I hope I don't get flamed for saying that.:hide:

[bobbolink]

83. Welcome to DU, Capn Amerika!

:toast:

[Adelante]

31. "I don't know what Edwards is all about."

Interesting, mdmc, but the above statement as the basis is rather puzzling. What happens when they learn? They may keep the love or lose the love, don't you think? So the prediction value is not firm as yet.

[mdmc]

40. Exactly

This might change. This group used to be very pro-McCain. They no longer are, cause they know what he is about.

Frankly, Edwards has the opportunity to let them find out exactly what he wants them to find out. I doubt that Edwards had ever been to a neighborhood like the ninth ward in his entire life. He now has the opportunity to go to the hood and learn something.

He still has control of his image and message. My group didn't think that Gore, Kerry, or Clinton had this luxury.

[XOKCowboy]

39. OK Lets look at this like a non-political person

Edwards is handsome, is a passionate speaker (even if they're not listening to WHAT he's saying, he just looks good saying it) and he doesn't carry the Hillary/Gore/Kerry/McCain baggage. I like him also but we'll see how he handles the test of time. Now that he's the front runner (in some polls) Fox and the RW machine will start to work on him.

[mdmc]

41. Good way to look at it

we are discussing politics here, not policy. Politics is about getting elected.

[mitchtv]

47. Some DU'rs have started on him too

I just wish they would promote their own favorites instead. It's too F'n early for me to give a rat's ass.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

94. My nonpolitical self likes Clark better, but has nothing against Edwards.

Clark looks intelligent, AND down-to-earth, a killer combination.

[Kahuna]

43. They like Edwards because they've been TOLD to like him...Likewise

they've been told to NOT like Al Gore. As soon as the M$M tell them it's okay to like Gore, they will.

[mdmc]

48. Yes that is correct.

They also once love w., now they hate him. Not sure if the MSM was led by them, or them by the MSM.:shrug:

[Kahuna]

49. LOL! Listen. I'm not dissing Edwards, whomever the sheeple will

like enough to deny McCain the presidency is okay with me. If that's Edwards, then fine with me. Though I really do think Gore is the best man for the job.

[mdmc]

53. I hear that

I used to think that people would want to correct the selcetion of 2000. Perhaps they still would. I would be down.

[mondo joe]

80. Yes, because anyone who disagrees with you is a meat puppet on the

strings of the M$M without an idea of their own.

[mitchtv]

45. I like Gore,I like Edwards

My friends are seniors, and they like Gore and Edwards, quite a few will happily settle for Hillary, All Dems, all quite liberal, but not political junkies. Obama is just a ripple now. We are in Calif, so really we get no say.

[helderheid]

51. Edwards was my 2nd choice after Kucinich last time around - Happy to have President Edwards n/t

[struggle4progress]

54. Edwards is smart, organized, articulate, and a fast learner. He's a poor kid

from a working class family made good, and he's charismatic. He's also fundamentally decent and sincere.

That said, he doesn't seem to have a radical bone in his body: his analyses of political situations will tend to be naive and his basic worldview seems to be highschool-debater-now-grownup.

His political experience is limited and he's not cynical -- so he'll be influenced by whoever has access to him.

I think he's electable. He wouldn't be bad in office -- but he would still be a disappointment in some ways.

[LiberalEsto]

58. Technically, Edwards is a fresh face

People didn't get to learn much about him during the Kerry campaign -- they were focused on Kerry and the Chimperor.

Now the rethug/corporate media is working to make Hillary and Barak Obama seem like old news by focusing on them so heavily. I suspect they are hoping that by the time the primaries roll around, the public will yawn at the sight of them.

Edwards has wisely kept a fairly low profile since the 2004 election, building his base among unions and other groups. He is now emerging as a fresh new face with new ideas, and this is one reason people feel excited by his candidacy.

I'm saying this from having followed presidential primaries since 1972.

[Dems Will Win]

60. Sadly the media will have Gore and Kerry for LUNCH as before

They clearly do not deserve a second chance. Don't forget how terrible Gore was in the campaign and the debates and GORE PICKED LIEBERMAN FOR VP.

Kerry was even worse. He could have won the election merely by patting Bush on the back and feeling the Receive-A-Cue radio transmitter he knew he was cheating with and calling the Moderator over to inspect Bush's back and have the cheating device removed on National TV.

But he didn't.

Edwards voted for the War, which will let Obama beat him. Obama will win the nomination and then take Edwards as VP to unite the party. Obama will win because of his BEING and his AMAZING legislative record in the Senate.

But Edwards will come in second. Gore knows he can't beat Obama in the end, so he will not even run. I'm sure Edwards knows that too. Kerry is too stupid to know that and will try anyway!

It will all be over after the first debate, when Obama intones "I spoke out against the Iraq War in 2002, I called it a Dumb War". All Hillary and Edwards will be able to do is pedal backwards as fast as they can.

Looking like Obama/Edwards to me, which is great because those are the two best speechifiers since Big Dog AND they apparently keep their pants zipped too!

[shrike]

62. Edwards has voiced support for universal health care

Which is a good start.

[mike_c]

63. it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the national party nominates Edwards...

...but I will be hard pressed to vote for him. I'll have to see who the Greens run. Edwards not only voted for the invasion of Iraq, he co-sponsored the authorization bill. That's not the sort of person I want running the executive branch.

[w4rma]

64. Good news for this progressive. Sen. Edwards is very progressive on economics. (nt)

[smoogatz]

65. Hillary beats McCain in a couple of recent polls.

If that's your basis for picking a candidate, why not support her?

[mdmc]

78. I think that she can win

I really do.

[bobbolink]

84. With Hillary we get...

..NO poverty platform--willing to screw poor folk if it will buy more status

..NO Universal healthcare--just more of the same Corp"Health"

..Politics of convenience...say whatever is good at the time

Nope, we've had enough of that

[mdmc]

91. Sounds like the DLC wet dream

CORPORATIONS UBER ALLES !!!

[cui bono]

66. Another Repug will beat McCain first. n/t

[Redstone]

67. I'd vote for Edwards.

Redstone

[RevolutionStartsNow]

68. I just want someone who will put the right people in the right positions

As much as I'd like to see a charismatic candidate who I adore become president (don't have one yet but I'm sure a favorite will emerge), I think it's important to remember that a president is only as good as the rest of his administration. Bush is a dangerous moron, but mostly because of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ashcroft, etc. Not to mention the terrible tragedy he allowed by trusting Brownie to run FEMA.

Of course I want a great president, but I also want someone who will put great people in his cabinet and in other key positions. This probably means we need a candidate who doesn't owe a lot of favors to potentially incompentent people.

Just something to think about.

[lovuian]

69. I like Edwards but I also like Kucinich and Gore

we will have to see in a debate where they stand

[bobbolink]

81. Amazing how much more support for Kucinich now than 3 years ago!

I like it, but really puzzled as to why...

?

[seaglass]

70. In 2000 Gore got more votes than Bush so they were wrong. n/t

[MadHound]

71. First, it is two plus years away, a lot can happen between now and then.

Secondly, rather than letting swing, or independent voters decide the Democratic primary race, let us embrace the idea of having Democrats, conservative, moderate and liberal, decide the Democratic primary:shrug:

[mdmc]

73. this is about my support only

I am a big Dean / Kucinich / Gore supporter.

[LSK]

74. I was sold on Edwards with his interview on This Week last Sunday

[JNelson6563]

75. Very interesting

I have a special interest in feedback from the trenches as it were. Thanks for posting this and do keep us updated on the political views of this group.

Julie

[emmadoggy]

76. I have a sister who has said she is a Republican...

If it comes right down to it, though, and someone tested her views on a list of issues, I suspect she would come down more as a Democrat than a Republican. Probably just slightly left of center.

She is not a political person - pretty much your average citizen. She votes in Presidential elections, probably not always in the mid-terms, and usually votes based on image, personality, and just an overall impression of likability, with a tiny sprinkling of knowledge about where the candidate stands on a couple of issues that are important to her.

She voted for Bush in 2000. However, in 2004, she ended up voting for Kerry/Edwards - not because of Kerry, but because she LOVES John Edwards! I recently found out that in 2004 she actually CAUCUSED for John Edwards!! (We live in Iowa). Just to explain the significance of that a bit - I was never political either, until this abomination we've been stuck with for the last six years came along. I have never participated in the Iowa Caucus (looking forward to it in '08!), and as far as I know, no one else in my family has ever participated in it. In fact, I'm sure there are people I know who have participated in it, but I have never "known" anyone to participate. (sad, huh?). So the fact that she felt strongly enough about John Edwards to do that impressed me.

I guess it means that Edwards has a broad appeal. Personally, I like John Edwards but my favorite is Gore. Even though, based on his voting record, Gore is actually more centrist, while I am more liberal, I just feel like Gore has the perfect resume, intelligence, and integrity for the job (and he's OWED!). I think Edwards would be much better in the VP role first. If he ends up being the nominee, though, I will happily support him.

It's going to be a very interesting couple of years. I think we actually have a handful of good candidates on our side (while the Republics' candidates seem to be losing their luster at a steady clip! :P )

[bobbolink]

79. I *AM* "progressive" (aw, hell, I'm an old-fashioned radical!), and this is GOOD news!

First, "radical" is from the word meaning "root", so I think a true radical is a GOOD thing. :)

Second, as a poor person, Edwards is the only one I can whole-heartedly support, so this is VERY GOOD NEWS for me!

Thanks for posting this! :thumbsup:

From your friends' keyboards to God's monitor! :)

[mdmc]

82. peace and low stress --- and happy new year!

[helderheid]

85. Kucinich lived in his car - I love them both

[bobbolink]

86. Yes, but Kucinich has dropped poverty as an issue.

Edwards has STEPPED UP his efforts.

Big difference to poor folk like me.

[helderheid]

87. Kucinich dropped poverty as an issue?

Really??

[bobbolink]

88. You don't remember??????

[helderheid]

89. I don't (but i'll be the first to admit my memory sucks)

[Ken Burch]

100. Kucinich has NOT dropped poverty as an issue.

He is putting an emphasis on ending the war first because it goes without saying that we can't fight poverty and STAY in Iraq as an occupying force.

There is no such thing as "hawkish liberalism" anymore. The money isn't there for it. If you are a hawk, you are giving up on fighting against poverty.

What is Edwards saying on the war?

[GreenPartyVoter]

90. I like Edwards. He's not numero uno on my list but I wouldn't say no to him either

[mdmc]

92. peace and low stress to you, gpv

hope you have a great new year:kick:

[aein]

96. by golly, shuck willickers, if a random anecdote says so, then Edwards must be the nominee

[mdmc]

97. yes