John Edwards is the most electable

[Eric J in MN]

John Edwards is optimistic, charismatic, and has a lot of ideas.

He could compete in the South.

He's moderate enough to hold together the left and right wings of the Democratic Party.

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/home.asp

If Wesley Clark is the candidate, the left-wing won't provide much support.

[stickdog]

1. Andy, Opie and Gomer all rolled up into one politician! (NT)

[Eric J in MN]

2. Edwards has his proposals on his website.

Edwards has his proposals on his website.

Take a quick look at them at least.

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/home.asp

[Hawkeye-X]

3. No, and I'll tell you why

He hasn't apologized for his IWR vote, which he did approve the blank check.

He isn't electable. He's still wet behind the ears. He should have stayed a Senator and ran for re-election.

Hawkeye-X

[Eric J in MN]

4. A year from now, the Iraq situation may be much better.

A year from now, the Iraq situation may be much better.

Clinton was elected with a mixed position on the first Iraq war.

John Edwards opposed the $87 billion.

[chimpymustgo]

5. Ah, let me guess: Dean supporters?

Edwards is definitely among the most electable in the field. And he's not a hot headed evangelist.

He's got great ideas, optimism - and there's more to experience than that found in a statehouse or House or Senate Chamber.

[Hawkeye-X]

7. Then he should remain a senator

He's only been a senator for his first term -- he's jumping the gun, and has very little political experience governing the people of North Carolina much like Senator Kerry has lack of experience governing the people of Massachusetts.

I prefer someone from the outside of the Washington mainstream because 1) Governors do have what it takes to become a President, although Chimpy was a very poor example, but the point is still there. 2) Dean has balanced budgets in his 12 years as a governor, plus he has given healthcare to 96% of the Vermonters, and 3% have the option of getting the health care. 3) Vermonters has the lowest crime rate, and Dean's NRA ranking is "A", because he believes in the state's choice on how to control their gun laws.

Insiders don't know what their people REALLY wants, and they just believe on what the principles of their consitutents and has to favor their corporation masters. Dean has taken less than 1% of corporation PAC money, and his $25M money is already increasing daily.

Edwards decided to stay with the public $$, Dean opts out, Kerry opts out (a mistake IMHO), Clark stays with it -- the only real challengers to Dean are noone except for *.

Thus, John Edwards is much better off being a Senator, and should have dropped out already and prepared himself for re-election. He has the funds to do it, and he should take the advantage that * is becoming increasingly unpopular to re-take the Senate and perhaps the House.

Hawkeye-X

[a_lil_wall_fly]

20. Yeah and Dean is the Washington outsider..but almost 20 years.......

in the political machine..He aint no outsider.

Dean political career
State Representative, 1983-87; Lieutenant Governor, 1987-91 (elected in 1986, re-elected in 1988, 1990); Governor, 1991-2003 (elected in 1992, re-elected in 1994, 1996, 1998 & 2000); Chair, National Governors Association, 1994-95; Chair, Democratic Governors Association, 1997.

What activitism that he did befor 1983?

20 years in the loop shows that he is part of the machine.

Plus his great work got Vermont now in the hands of the Republicans...hmmmm

[peaceandjustice]

42. activism before 1983

Dean was involved in expanding parks in his hometown before he began his political career.

[AP]

45. Are you talking about buying up rail road tracks and making bike paths?

If you are, I have a story about that.

[DemDogs]

50. This thread is about Edwards

That said, you keep posting about Dean so here it is

Edwards is outside the Washington mainstream. But he knows enough about Washington that he would never say that the Democrats on whom he will have to rely as President will scatter like cockroaches when he gets to Washington. (Can anyone say "Jimmy Carter?")

Edwards has been elected to represent 8 million North Carolinians. Dean has been governor of a state about 600,000 people in 2000. (The mayor of Jacksonville Florida governs more than 100,000 more citizens.)

Edwards spent his lifetime fighting the abusive power of big business and insurance companies against individuals and he has never taken ANY money from PACS or Washington lobbyists. Not so Dean. You admit he has taken PAC money, but its even worse than that. He takes money from exactly the people he was supposed to regulate. <http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/43125.html> which quotes Dean himself as saying that the contributions buy access: “People who think they’re going to buy a contract or buy some influence are mistaken,” Dean famously said during the debate over a campaign finance reform bill in 1996. “But they do get access — there’s no question about that. ...They get me to return their phone calls.”

SO, if you really care about these issues, you should be with Edwards, the perfect candidate on these and other issues AND the most electable candidate in the Democratic Party.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

6. What makes you think that Dean is the most electable?????

:eyes:

There are other candidates out their too! Why is there such a monopoly on Dean???

[Hawkeye-X]

9. See my answers above

I've explained why Dean is more electable than Senators or even Representatives. Washington insiders do not win Presidential elections.

[w4rma]

19. Election 2004: Why Dean Can Win, September 2003

TO: Moore Information Clients & Friends

FROM: Hans Kaiser & Bob Moore

RE: Election 2004: Why Dean Can Win, September 2003

A recent article by David Brooks left readers with the distinct impression that Republican pollsters are all of the opinion that Howard Dean cannot possibly beat George Bush. We regret that he didn’t check with us first, as it is our belief that Dean has the potential to be a formidable candidate who could give the President a very difficult race.

The conventional wisdom that has some Republicans giddy about a potential Dean candidacy is not only misguided, it is counterproductive. Writing off a candidate like Dean by selectively sorting statistical gobble-de-gook and mixing it into a broth of “empirical” sociological evidence ignores the political realities of our time.
…
The difference between Howard Dean and the rest of the Democrat candidates is that Dean comes across as a true believer to the base but he will not appear threatening to folks in the middle. More than any other candidate in the field, he will be able to present himself as one who cares about people (doctor), who balances budgets (governor), and who appears well grounded while looking presidential. To be sure, he doesn’t look that way to the GOP base, but that has no bearing on the election, because they will never vote for him anyway. He can appeal to the middle and Republicans can ignore his candidacy at our peril. We are whistling past the graveyard if we think Howard Dean will be a pushover.

Howard Dean’s appeal is closer to Ronald Reagan’s than any other Democrat running today. Granted, that’s not saying much with this field, but there are similarities here. The Democrat party used to chuckle about Reagan and his gaffes which they believed would marginalize him to the far right dustbin of history. But when his opponents tried to attack him for some of his more outlandish statements, the folks in the middle simply ignored them. Voters in the middle looked to the bigger picture where they saw a man of conviction who cared about them and had solutions for their problems. Howard Dean has the potential to offer a similar type candidacy.
…
http://www.moore-info.com/Poll_Updates/2004%20Election%20%20Why%20Dean%20can%20win%20Sept%2003.htm
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf?/base/editorial/106829671744920.xml
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=709103

[a_lil_wall_fly]

18. Dean has not full apologized for his statement either and as well.....

so :wtf:

Dean is sorry for hurt the various people feeling...load of #@!*...I think it was staged for other of candidates to attack and Dean becomes the po'lil martyr.

[DemDogs]

49. Edwards makes no mistakes

Here's how you tell that someone is too "wet-behind-the-ears" as you say: He says stupid things without thinking about the impact they have. He hasn't got the depth of ideas he needs to be a serious candidate so he just lifts ideas of other candidates. He talks about process instead of ideas. He talks over people or at them instead of to them.
We need a particular set of abilities to win in 2004, and Edwards has the complete package. He is THE MOST electable candidate.

[joeybee12]

8. Two weeks ago I might have said you had a point, now I think

Edwards is one of the worst.

His grandstanding over the so-called Confederat Flg controversy shows you that he is merely a self-serving political whore, who stand for nothing.

Oh yeah, and thanks for your lack of support of civil unions, you hypocritical toady.

[AP]

14. "grandstanding" "hypocritical"

Edwards was the first to say it was over with the apology. However, the guy seriously cares about race, so he's gonna talk about the implications.

Only a Deaniac would be pissed at Edwards over this. If you care about race, I don't see how you could criticize Edwards.

I think Edwards's position on civil unions is going to result in more progress for gay rigths than any position that would be more dramatically to the left of it. And how is it hypocritical? When did he say one thing and do another on civil unions?

I listen to Edwards and I think, "yeah, this is gonna work."

He has a framework for his political positions that is rock solid, and totally logical.

As a trial lawyer, the guy clearly know how to frame the facts in a way that really makes sense to a jury of my peers.

[a_lil_wall_fly]

21. Edwards platform is very solid....

Deanics/Deanites have to let other speak!!!! So stop lambasting other candidates follower if you dont what us to lambast Dr. Dean.

[DemDogs]

48. Stronger every week

When you make a comment like that, it is clear that you never liked Edwards as a candidate. And you are wrong. Edwards did not grandstand. He wants to beat Bush and he knows something that some other candidates don't seem to get: you can't insult regions or minorities that are pivotal to the Democratic Party's success and expect to win. The way Edwards understands this and relates to people is the reason is THE candidate who can beat Bush.

And, I don't know who you are talking to about civil unions, but every major candidate has exactly the same position on this issue, so get real.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. Many in the Dean camp

like Clark a lot as their second choice, and Dean's activist base includes many on the left. There is a thread running elsewhere on DU where Clark's liberal credentials are explored and he is getting a lot of respect from Kucinich supporters there also (after their man of course). Michael Moore is positively intrigued about Clark. Don't write off the left for Clark. I am a leftist who is backing him. I think Clark fits the same bill that Edwards does for many non leftists regarding potential appeal also, but his military service trumps Edwards there. I do like Edwards, but we disagree on who is more electable.

[Eric J in MN]

11. speaking just for myself

I'm skeptical about Wesley Clark's commitment to the Democratic Party.

He said he's running as a Democrat because "I had a choice between being a happy Democrat or a lonely Republican."

Will he defend civil liberties? Will all of the judges he nominates be Democrats?

[a_lil_wall_fly]

22. Good point Eric

Your statement too me is very true.

[Kathleen04]

12. I think that John Edwards..

provides the least ammunition for the GOP to use against him in attack ads.

For Howard Dean, they're going to bring out the Confederate Flag statement, they may try to paint him as being "too liberal", qualify his successes in Vermont with the fact that he's "only" the former governor of a small New England state, and they may even try to turn his opposition to the Iraq war into being "unpatriotic".

For General Clark, the "unpatriotic" theme definately would NOT work, but they can bring out the statements made by Hugh Shelton and Tommy Franks about "character and integrity issues", they can point out that he's never been elected anything, or bring out the soundbytes of him praising President Bush.

With, Edwards, I think they'll bring up that he voted no on the 87 billion, saying that Edwards didn't vote to "support the troops", but John Edwards has already countered this by saying in effect that if everyone voted no on the 87 billion that our troops would not go without, but that it would pressure President Bush into coming with a much needed plan.

I'm not sure what they would use against Gephardt or Kerry, but I do think that John Edwards would leave them hard pressed to find something to attack him about that would really resonate with the voters.

[leyton]

13. Trial Lawyer

Unfortunately, they would attack him for being a trial lawyer and for the fact that a great portion of his campaign warchest has come from other lawyers.

But I think Edwards would do the best against Bush in a debate, the rest of the campaign aside. He's an outstanding communicator, and he's likeable and calm. He makes his points incredibly clearly, but they aren't simplistic like Bush's.

[lastliberalintexas]

46. Yep

I like Edwards (even after his behavior over the confed flag flap), and think that he will be wonderful at some post in a Dem administration if he doesn't win the nomination. He's a great asset to our party (IWR vote notwithstanding).

However, as a trial lawyer myself, I can tell you that my profession is not that easily defended in the minds of most Americans. It can be done (must be done in fact), but that is an effective tool that can be used against Edwards. I don't think it would be a fatal attack though, and I think he would do very well in a debate against Shrub. (as long as the bar wasn't set too high for him, since he is an orator!)

[DemDogs]

52. Read Edwards book and see how little GWB has to work with

Edwards book tells about four of his cases, and it might as well be a warning shot across Karl Rove's nose. It is fantastic. Even people who think they hate trial lawyers are going to love it. You can get it at Amazon.com or from the Edwards campaign.

[AP]

16. I like Clark...

...however, I guarantee you that if he were the nominee, they're going to try to Manchurian Candidate him, like they did McCain. Or maybe it'll be more like George C Scott's character in Dr STrangelove -- they're going to make his psychology an issue.

Edwards can't be painted that way, obviously.

I'm sure they'll try the trial lawyer angle, but that's actually a strenght of Edwards's (as his senate race proved).

[Kathleen04]

17. You're both right...

about them trying trial lawyer angle, but it really seems like a non-issue. Edwards can counter that, and in a sense already has, by saying all the things that he's proud that he did as a lawyer, "standing up to big companies", etc.

But on the GOP website, the section called "Democrats in Depth", they claim he "says he's a moderate Southerner, but votes like a Northeastern liberal" and list a series of votes, but I also think that those would also be easy to counter, assuming each vote has good reasoning behind it. I can envision attack ads where they claim "he voted for ____" and John Edwards countering that with "because..." and laying out all the reasoning for it.

[lastliberalintexas]

47. Hmm, like it didn't work against Max Cleland?

"For General Clark, the 'unpatriotic' theme definately would NOT work"

My, what short memories we seem to have these days. NOT A ONE of our candidates will be immune to Shrub's attack ads on so-called security issues. Not a one.

[AP]

15. When it comes down to it, I think I lot of Democrats aren't going to like

the idea of being led around by a guy in a uniform.

It's not that they'll actively reject Clark. It's just that Democrats tend not to fall in line, and I think they think of the military as something that the executive branch orders around, rather than as something that should be running the executive branch.

I think there's a reason that the long list of Democrats who have served in the military don't run "in their uniform" as it were.

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. In all fairness

The rest of the long line of Democrats who served in the military did so when they were young, before they embarked on their adult careers, and while some have been heros none gained the type of experience that Clark had in the military, meeting with heads of state, and leading the NATO Alliance in War. Even so, Kerry for one sure seems proud of his uniform. It's very different to "run in your uniform" when the uniform is that of a 4 Star General, and the nation is at war. Clark wasn't a yes man in the military, he helped formulate policy and spoke up about it.

[AP]

24. Fair enough. One more thing.

The logic of running a general is this: they fought successfully in a very important war, and electing them is like saying thank you for what you did to save America. Here's a retirement president. Lincoln, a lawery, led America through the Civil War. US Grant got the presidency as a retirement gift, at a time when America wasn't in crisis.

Career politician FDR led America through WWII. The electorate gave Eisenhower the gold watch of the presisdency during a time of piece.

I'm not sure that Clark fits either half of the equation.

Although Clark did great things while he served, I wouldn't say that Yugoslavia was a defining moment of crisis for the US. Furthermore, this isn't the time of peace after the war.

The logic of Clark is that Bush has so scared the shit out of us that we need the liberal military guy -- our Smedley Butler -- to save us from the fascist military guys.

Although I know which side I'll fight on if it comes down to it, it depresses the hell out of me to think that's the choice we might come down to. I'll conclude that we are way more fucked up than I suspected, and way farther from a solution, if that's the choice next november.

I suspect that in the same way that's depressing for me, it will be depressing for a lot of Democratic primary voters, which is why I believe (and hope) that Democrats will turn to their Lincoln/FDR -- their promise of hope, not their reaction to fear -- as the Democratic nominee.

[surfermaw]

25. You are right it is going to be Edwards

Did you see him at the Jefferson & Jackson,Dinner...had as much applause or more than some...going to come in 3rd.

[chimpymustgo]

27. Edwards was amazing at the JJ dinner. Crowd response was fabulous!

Soooo much support - much more than I had expected, or hoped for. He's on the move.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. promise of hope vs reaction to fear

You are right that part of the equation that supports Clark being perhaps most electable right now is that fear part, looking for the adult to clean up the mess so to speak, with unflattering implications for our society. And I can understand how a progressive Democrat might react the way you describe that you might if Clark is the nominee.

The thing is, (and I have been a progressive/radical activist all my adult life - I'm 54) I really do like this guy Clark. I've attended two small events where he spoke. Clark was as close as the military can get to being a true idealist, and he is a scholar to boot. He really means it when he says he was in the military to defend the U.S. Constitution, and that includes the Bill of Rights. He remained removed from the big money and corruption present in Business and much of contemporary politics by devoting his life to the military, when he obviously had the smarts and discipline to pursue a more self serving career had he so chosen. In other words I honestly think Clark is the exception to the rule, and a very timely exception at that. I think we will all benefit by his ability to throw Bush off his game without having to settle for someone below our ideals to do so. Hopefully you will find t5hat Clark exceeds your expectations of him should he win the nomination. I think he will.

[AP]

29. If Clark got the nomination, I would feel that Democracy and

the Democratic Party is in safe hands (whereas, if Dean got the nomination, I'd be thinking the Democratic Party was on its way to being coopted by Libertarians, and I would need to find a new home).

Let me emphasize my feelings about Clark: I'm glad he's doing well, adn I think he is a real Democrat. But I feel that, when Democrats are favoring Clark because he makes us feel safe in this awful world Bush is creating, I think THIS IS NOT THE LIFE I ORDERED! I look at Edwards (and, to a lesser degree, Kucinich) and think, Edwards-Stabenow, or Edwards-Minner, now THAT'S the America I want to live in.

America probably is in way more dire straights then I imagine, but I'm going to hold on to my dream that people's BEST instincts will drive the choice of nominees, rather than people's worst instincts.

Incidentally, I get the feeling that people talk about evidence of Clark's liberalism in terms of, for example, "Isn't that a fortunate coincidence," or "Hey, I din't know that! Cool." That depresses me. Those "fortunate coincidences" should be the REASON we're picking the candidate.

[PATRICK]

44. Campaign orgnaization

What really determines the winner is not charisma or policy or the decision of kingmakers and press. It seems to be the power of the campaign organization. JFK with all his pluses and minuses whipped his rivals with his talented clan working as a tag team everywhere.

I don't know the organizations that well but it seems a heady mix of same old same old, rudimentary and innovative momentum(Dean). Edwards plays well to the crowds though. So once more advan=tages and negatives seem oddly matched. Gephardt is perhaps doing the yeoman's best but clearly he does not have the extra "it". Others fit into the categories of "would be great" with an implied "but" regarding electability.

The people have had a mixed record of competence as choosers, not entirely their own fault, but in the early small states something should come out beyond mere stats perhaps more important than winning the contest. A JFK blitz is out even for Dean. An Eisenhower draft is out, it is going to take enormous deals and luck for Clark. Avoiding becoming a "Muskie the Greater" seems to be an infuriating highwire act of his own making for John Kerry.
As for the others, the electability factor will shrink them down below the point of bargaining power- perhaps.

If I knew the campaign workers better I could make a prediction or two. But I am betting, despite quality or qualifications, loyalty or
values, it will come down to how well Dean, Clark and Edwards present their case to the voters closer to primary time and after that, barring an overwhelming plurality of delegates, who allies with whom, which can involve others like Kerry and Gephardt or even more. For various reasons as of now I am for Edwards, but certainly not against the chief others, and campaign-wise it still has to be proven.

After that the crystal ball grows dark.

[killbotfactory]

28. "optimistic, charismatic, and has a lot of ideas"

Ditto for Dean.

[chimpymustgo]

30. Edwards - more, better, stronger,

Taller.

[killbotfactory]

31. You obviously aren't talking about:

1. Money raised
2. Number of supporters
3. Size and efficiency of the campaign
4. Charisma and the ability to inspire
5. Current standings in the polls

[a_lil_wall_fly]

36. and faster.....

He will build a better way hehehehehe

[stickdog]

32. A Picture

[yaledem]

33. Go John Go!

John Edwards: All the Clinton charisma and positivity with none of the scandals.

Not to mention the fact that his political experience involves working with an electorate that is actually larger than the city of Milwaukee, and is extremely diverse.

Also, the only candidate who doesn't take money from PACs and Washington lobbyists. He voluntarily goes BEYOND the current campaign finance laws that the so-called "bush-lite" Democrats worked so hard to put in place over the past 20 years.

The Son of A Millworker IS IN!!!

[stickdog]

34. Yeah. He only takes $2,000 checks from law firms.

See the chart above.

[yaledem]

38. No, he doesn't

Edwards does not "take 2,000 dollar checks from law firms." He takes 2,000 checks from individuals, some of whom happen to be lawyers. Big difference, because the former would be illegal.

It should be noted that all the other candidates do take $2,000 checks from lobbyists. Edwards does not.

BTW, He also takes $20 online contributions from people such as myself.

[stickdog]

43. Yeah, all three of them. (NT)

[burr]

35. I preferred people first to children first!!

We don't need to pick favorities, especially on something as essential and basic as healthcare! We need to provide coverage to all the uninsured.

One other point, Edwards will do miserable in these primaries. If Gore was running against Edwards, I would back Gore. If Lieberman was Edwards' only opponent, I would sadly pick Lieberman.

At least Gore is not advocating parts of shrub's taxcuts, and at least Lieberman has a healthcare plan which helps insure working adults as well as children.

I'm sick of politicians always lowering the bar, we need someone like President Kennedy..who always works to raise the bar!

[a_lil_wall_fly]

37. My friend...we live in times of lacklusterness is the norm and ....

is the acceptable way of life.....

DK is the only one in my mind that has ideas that truly look back and are inspired by and at a great man named JKF.

[yaledem]

39. Let's see here...

1. "At least Gore is not advocating parts of shrub's taxcuts"

Ummm, I seem to remember that during the 2000 election, Gore proposed a middle class tax cut. Let's review a quote from his debate vs. Bush:

" would spend more money on tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% than all of the new spending that he proposes for education, health care, prescription drugs and national defense, all combined. Under my proposal, for every dollar that I propose in spending, I will put another dollar into middle class tax cuts." - Source: Presidential debate, Boston MA Oct 3, 2000

2. "at least Lieberman has a healthcare plan which helps insure working adults as well as children"

You're right. Lieberman's plan does have some provisions to help working adults, as well as children. The one thing you forgot is that Edwards' does too. Maybe you'd like to read it: http://www.johnedwards2004.com/healthcare-adults.asp

For example:

Offer Affordable Coverage to Adults with Modest Incomes: The federal government will fully fund the benefit and administrative costs for states to extend a CHIP buy-in to adults with low and moderate-incomes above current coverage levels. Insurance will be free for adults with incomes below 100% of poverty ($18,400 for a family of four) and subsidized for adults with incomes up to 250% of poverty ($46,000 for a family of four). Single adults and adults without children will also be eligible.

Edwards will create a 70% tax credit for the purchase of COBRA. Families with displaced workers will be eligible if they are earning less than 250% of poverty ($46,000 for a family of four) and don't have access to any other employer-sponsored insurance.

And he allows 55-64 year-olds to buy into medicare at cost (and subsidizes them if they cannot afford it)

Other than single-payer plans (which have 0% chance of passing) Edwards' is the only one that gets all children covered with health care. It also provides coverage for the vast majority of uninsured adults.

[sandnsea]

40. oh gads, not policy!!!

Could you, like, put it in a 5 word slogan, cuz, you know, otherwise my eyes glaze over. :eyes:

Edwards' ideas are excellent, across the board.

I prefer Kerry's plan for a really political, slogan type reason. I think buying into a 'legitimate' health plan, the same plan congress has, is going to sound better to voters. It can't be as easily spun as expanding socialized medicine. Plus some other things too and I'm sure Edwards is hitting all the key issues on business and the rest. We've got a great group, I wish the ideas would get out instead of the way cool campaign!

[burr]

41. you don't have to support single-payer to back universal healthcare.

"would spend more money on tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% than all of the new spending that he proposes for education, health care, prescription drugs and national defense, all combined. Under my proposal, for every dollar that I propose in spending, I will put another dollar into middle class tax cuts." - Source: Presidential debate, Boston MA Oct 3, 2000

At least Gore now backs single-payer, and the complete repeal of shrub's taxcuts. Does this mean he will endorse Dean or Kucinich?..I doubt it. But we won't be seeing an endorsement for Edwards either!

[surfermaw]

51. Edwards third in N.H .....Tucker Carlson

Yes he is!