Been thinking that John Edwards might be our best choice

[usregimechange]

He is sharp.

He stays on target (which for political junkies like us gets boring but it is the only thing the public can digest).

He looks good, hey come on you know it matters more than it should. I'm not gay and I even think he is attractive.

Clark would be the natural choice for Veep.

He would appeal slightly better to rural voters than Kerry, but it doesn't take much.

I know most of you support other candidates, I would likely choose Clark right now but Edwards could also win in 08, imo.

[Clark2008]

1. Edwards' lack of national security experience won't draw in any

red-staters. That's why he didn't bring in any of them as VP candidate last time.

Flip this to Clark/Edwards and you might have a chance. Clark has served as CinC of NATO and would as president. Edwards was a senator and would be president of the Senate as VP.

See?

Oh - did you see my post on the Tennessee board about Ford's comments on a radio talk show this morning? He rocked. It's under "Ford frames the debate" or something similar over at the Tennesse board in DU.

[usregimechange]

3. Ha, you knew I visit there. In MO but I always visit TN, not sure why...

[Clark2008]

4. I also knew you posted some kick-ass Ford campaign paraphernalia!

:)

Saw a real-life Ford For Tennessee bumper sticker on a car on my commute to work today, too, just seconds after his interview. That was a nice.

[usregimechange]

5. Yeah, Ford likely brought me, I want to see activists supporting him

[youthere]

16. I would vote Clark/Edwards in a second...

but the other way around...nope.

[chimpymustgo]

31. What has "vaunted national security experience" gotten us so far?

Right to the brink of World War III.

As President we need a clear-thinking leader, who will appoint a strong national security team and Defense Secretary.

I love Edwards. He cares about regular Americans, and would make a GREAT President.

[Skwmom]

57. In 08 people will be looking for a candidate with strong national

security credentials to clean up the mess. They won't be saying let's put another guy with weak national security credentials in the Whitehouse so we can continue down the same path.

[goodhue]

45. National security experience is overrated.

Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr. all had zilch and it didn't hamper them.

[Jai4WKC08]

51. You're kidding, right?

Bush II is a total disaster. Reagan wasn't much better. Clinton started out with the Somalia debacle, which plagued his foreign policy credibility for the rest of his tenure. And Carter lost reelection because of the Iran hostage crisis.

[dave502d]

2. I agree,Camelot back to the White House.n/t

[Skwmom]

55. Trying to compare Edwards to Kennedy only helps the Republicans

to further damage the Kennedy legacy.

[The Traveler]

6. I am a Clarkista but

there is a lot about John Edwards that appeals to me. 2008 may be his moment. I could definitely live with that.

[kentuck]

7. We could do much worse..

Edwards is in the top echelon.

[Skwmom]

62. Who would be a worse candidate? n/m

[chimpymustgo]

68. Can we leave the shameful vitriol in the past?

Edwards is a great Dem. Your chronic belittling of him just makes whoever you support less attractive.

[Skwmom]

69. Someone has to work to debunk the PR spin put out by

Edwards. What you call belittling, I call telling the truth. If Edwards is a "great Dem," it's a sad commentary on how far the party has fallen. As far as shameful goes, I think Edwards, me, me, me, it's all about getting me elected as President and I'll do anything to get there (including giving Bush a blank check to go to war) is indeed SHAMEFUL. Furthermore, I find trying to portray yourself as a defender of the weakest among us for pure political gain when your record says otherwise contemptible. I don't like it when the Republicans do it and I don't like it any better just because someone puts a D before their name.

[Jai4WKC08]

73. Wow

If this isn't the pot calling the kettle black.
:rofl:

[Booster]

8. I like Edwards. I think he emits a calmness about him that is

appealing. Oh, yeah, and he's cute as a button and everybody loves his wife.

[Digit]

9. He has a "gift" in getting people to believe in him

I noticed how he came from out of seemingly NOWHERE and people were saying how they BELIEVED in him.
It is a quality we need with the sheeple we are up against.
Is it charm? Hell, I don't know, but it works and it is POTENT!

[marions ghost]

72. yep

--charisma is what impresses the average voter. They don't care about foreign policy.

[rfkrfk]

10. how does JE stop from, just fading away?

He has no natural constituency.
How many people in 2008, will even remember the guy?
What does he do, till then?
He has to do everything from the 'grassroots'.
That is hard.
a former one-term Senator, losing VP candidate,
IMO, doesn't bring that much to the table.

Clark has veterans, as a staring point.

[1932]

11. His PAC is raking in competitive cash.

And he's spending alot of it supporting statehouse candidates who are going to be loyal to him later.

For another thread, I posted this:

Democrats:

Evan Bayh's raised nearly $1.2, spent $467,445, had $1.1 million on hand at the end first half of year.

Barack Obama's raised $851,674, spent $406,564 with $445,110 cash on hand.

Hillary Rodham Clinton's PAC raised $715,851, spent $653,939 and had $145,065 cash on hand. (Separately, the New York senator raised more than $6 million between April and June for her 2006 re-election bid and had $12.6 million cash on hand.)

John Edwards raised $624,813, spent $565,724, has $59,455 cash on hand.

Clark raised $151,517, spent $292,687, and has on hand $97,095.


Republicans
- Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel's PAC raised $389,519, spent $273,938 and had $164,665 cash on hand.

- Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's PAC raised $292,857 and spent $120,428, leaving it with $366,980.

- Virigina Sen. George Allen's PAC raised $197,741 and spent $190,140. It had $218,144 cash on hand.

[Texas_Kat]

12. What would be interesting to know is what they are spending their money on

Money in and out doesn't mean a lot if it's spent on first class plane tickets and $200.00 per night hotel rooms.

Any indication in your source where the money for each PAC has been spent?

Has anyone been to the FEC site to look it up? (It's all there for the finding, but you gotta have the time to dig).

[1932]

13. The FEC report shows what they're spending their money on.

www.fec.gov

But it's broken down by vendor, so it's hard to get a big picture. Generally, it's cell phone bills, web site consultancy, and other office expenses, plus cattering once in a while, and the occassional cheap hotel room.

One thing I remember from the primaries was that Edwards flew southwest almost exclusively -- so he was flying cattle call. A story in the Washington Post (I believe) showed that he spent the least per ticket on average. Sharpton, on the other hand, spent the most on plane tickets (always first class) and hotels (five star, president's suite level).

[Texas_Kat]

47. Thanks for the info

FEC reports are certainly revealing aren't they. Not only for who the major donors are (and how much they are contributing), but who gets paid to do what (and how much).

I'm not worried about what the candidate spends on travel... more important is what his/her staff spends on travel. That's a better indication of whether an organization is out 'livin' the high life' or not.

Candidates are often the most careful of anyone about spending money they had to raise themselves.

[Skwmom]

54. How about where the money is coming from?

It 04 is any indication, Edwards raises most of his money from fellow attorneys.

[1932]

66. There's no shame today in getting support from plaintiff's attorneys.

However, I'd be more circumspect about any Democrat who is very popular among Wall St investment bankers and their law firms, the insurance industry, the healthcare industry, etc.

[Adelante]

21. What's the reporting period, 1932?

I assume they are FEC numbers, but when did you collect them?

Thanks.

[1932]

23. First 6 months 2005

The numbers were reported in the news a couple days ago (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20050801-1249-politicalfundraising.html) with the exception of Clark's numbers, which I looked up at www.fec.gov for another post yesterday.

[chimpymustgo]

33. That's LAUGHABLBE. Edwards cleaned Clark's clock in the

primaries. He starts with that support - PLUS the people who came to admire him and his family during the General Election campaign. And his message will resonate with many veterans and their families trying to get decent jobs and put food on the table.

I think Wesley Clark has a lot to bring to the Democratic party, and I thought seriously of supporting him last time around. He was not a very good candidate. The upside of that is, there's room for growth and it's just 2005.

Edwards is by far more dynamic as a candidate, and ran a much better campaign than Clark.

And he's got Elizabeth.

[Skwmom]

56. Edwards was cheered on by the corporate media, the

local conservative radio shows and Democrats who had a vested interest in an 08 run. Clark was ferociously attacked by the same.

His message won't resonate because for a message to resonate you have to have a BELIEVABLE messenger (and Edwards is anything but).

[high density]

34. He has a good PR machine

Beyond that I don't see much of anything in his favor.

[Skwmom]

58. Good against the Democrats - not against the Republicans in a general

election.

[Caleb]

14. I like Edwards

For some reason he always reminded me of President Clinton.

[Clark2008]

28. Because he TRIED to remind you of him.

I watched him with the sound down and saw he was clearly just mocking him.

That was kind of a turn-off for me.

[tritsofme]

15. A one term senator

that spent half his time in the Senate running for president.

Who probably couldn't have even gotten reelected had he run for reelection...

I think I'll pass...

[Catchawave]

18. He was thought well enough to be selected to run

with Kerry !?!

It would have been President Edwards today had that ticket been reversed.

[sunnystarr]

24. With voters like you we wouldn't have elected Abraham Lincoln

who had one term in the House, lost a senatorial race to Douglas, stayed active politically while working as a lawyer.

[1932]

26. I would have voted for RFK three years into his first senate term.

America and not just New Yorkers needed RFK as soon as possible.

[tritsofme]

40. Edwards couldn't carry RFK's jock strap.

nt.

[1932]

46. I doubt RFK would have thought that.

[tritsofme]

49. I doubt it as well, he was far too humble of a man.

But that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Don't forget that RFK was also AG.

Much more qualified than Edwards to be President.

[1932]

50. RFK was AG because his brother was President. If Edwards's brother

was President, Edwards might have been AG too.

RFK would have been a great president because he cared about class and poverty.

[Skwmom]

59. RFK had substance and wasn't all manufactured, PR fluff. n/m

[Libby2]

17. I like Edwards too n/t

[lynne]

19. His lack of experience and tenure concerned me -

- when he was on the ticket for VP but I figured he'd get some OTJ training.

I doubt that he would secure the nomination for the Presidential ticket due to his lack of experience.

[Catchawave]

20. He's smarter than Bush! Also,

more successful and grounded in LIFE experiences and no military baggage that can be swift boated. His One America theme resonates with the 50+ million who DID NOT vote in 2004. A source that the DNC fails to tap, people are just sick of professional politicians!

I would trust him more to select an administration based on their credentials, NOT political payback.

He's got great cross party appeal too, not to mention, easy on the eyes :)

He walks the talk on family values too, he doesn't "preach" it.

[Skwmom]

64. People are sick of professional politicians.

Edwards may have been in the Senate for only a short time but he is the portrait of a manufactured, slick politician.

Furthermore, trying to use Rove's strategy won't work with Edwards because the poor that Edwards is trying to target won't believe in the messenger (unlike the evangelicals who believed in Bush). The poor are already skeptical and wary. It will be too easy for the Republicans to portray Edwards as a phony populist who is trying to use poor voters to get elected. The message won't work unless you have the right messenger. It's something the Republicans have understood and one of the reasons they have been so successful in winning elections.

[1932]

67. Once again, you and Frank are saying opposite things about Edwards.

I was originally inspired to post here at DU because I read so much here that contradicted things that I was reading in books and hearing in podcasts abd interviews straight from the horses' mouths and from people who were much more rigourous in their scholarship than the average DU'er.

I haven't read What's the Matter With Kansas. However, based on the one hour lecture I heard with Frank and based on the reception his book has received, I consider him to be very sensible, smart, and I feel his arguments are well-supported and researched.

It is very interesting that the three points that Frank made about Edwards (conservatives didn't like him, he was authentic, and he had momentum) are the three perceptions that you're most aggressively trying to derail.

I'm not going to try to channel Frank or play "Frank's (or Edwards') Advocate" here, but I think it's important to repeat again that you and Frank are diametrically opposed in your interpretations of Edwards.

[Pewlett Hackard]

22. he doesn't stand a chance

against Hillary.

[1932]

25. That's my instinct too, but then again, would Hillary beat Edwards in TX,

VA, TN, SC, NC, FL, GA, AL, MO, OK? Could she beat Warner or Bayh in those states?

[mtnester]

27. My opinion only, but two bad vice presidential selections in a row

does not need to turn into 3.

Edwards was not a help in the last attempt, just like Joementum. These two candidates were damn near the WORST strategic decision I have ever seen anyone make in my life, particularly Edwards. How in the WORLD anyone running as a Dem for president cound pass up a retired general with great likability who is a staunch DEM during wartime as their VP candidate still boggles my mind.

Edwards is not the guy everyone...just is not.

[1932]

30. I heard the author of What's the Matter with Kansas on the radio recently

He said that Kerry had no choice but to pick Edwards since he was the only person who was generating real excitement during the primaries. He said that Kerry showed courage picking him since one of the biggest pro-corporate lobbying organizations (the national association of manufacturers) told Kerry that he should absolutely not pick Edwards.

But, he said, the problem was that as soon as Kerry picked Edwards, he put Edwards on the back burner -- he said it was the Kerry campaigns decision to keep Edwards out of the national spotlight.

I just heard this a couple days ago.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

42. I couldn't figure out why Edwards disappeared after he got the VP nod.

He wasn't my first choice for the spot, but after all the brouhaha about the selection, and after all we heard about how dynamic a speaker he was and how he'll help bring in votes, why the hell didn't the campaign put him to better use, take full advantage of the talents they supposedly selected him for? It seems like he almost completetly vanished. I know he was out campaigning -- I went to a rally where he spoke, and he is a good speaker who stirred up a lot of enthusiasm. So what happened to him? Why didn't the Kerry campaign make better use of him? In retrospect, I have to say that was one of the most poorly-run campaigns I can remember. The selection of Edwards as VP, followed by their ignoring him slmost completely, is just one example.

[OzarkDem]

43. Exactly, Kerry monopolized the spotlight

Edwards was used very little in the campaign, when he could have done a much better job with midwestern and southern voters. Its one of the reasons why, as much as I think Kerry is a nice guy, I wouldn't support him again for president.

With a good campaign staff (no Dukakis retreads, please) Edwards will do well.

[scbluevoter]

29. I love Edwards. . .

he's a SC native and I voted for him in the primary here. But let's be honest, he's a political lightweight. Cheney kicked his ass in the debate. Not on the issues but on sheer presence (gravitas or whatever you want to call it) alone.

[quinnox]

32. Edwards could be a dangerous candidate

now even more so since he has the 2004 run under his belt, it all depends on Hillary Clinton though. If she runs, she will stomp the field, including Edwards. If she doesn't then it is wide open and Edwards would have as good a shot as any.

I always maintained Edwards was one of the best candidates to run versus Bush <in the first slot, not as VP>

[ksclematis]

35. Why Edwards isn't best choice

Good looks and charisma don't necessarily make a good President....especially without foreign policy experience and lack of military experience/service.

He may stay on message: SOMW and 2 Americas. Clark was dirt poor as a kid, didn't exactly make millions in the Army, West Point and scholarship to Oxford as Rhodes Scholar, and he knows more about ALL Americas, not just 2.

Edwards is just a one-time senator with lots of $$$$ from choice civil litigation cases, no pro bonos. No thanks.....

[1932]

36. Your crticisms are legitimate, but your dichotomy disproves your theory

As more people heard about Edwards, he did better and better (but obviously not at a rate that was going to pass Kerry within the timeframe of the primaries).

As people learned more and more about Clark, he tapered.

So, sure, Edwards had holes in his resume, but compared to Clark and everyone except Kerry, voters preferred him despite his weak spots to candidates that had the things he lacked but lacked the qualities Edwards had (which was probably not just charisma and a good speach, but also an authenticity on issues of class and his concern about whether people on the bottom and middle were enjoying a fair proportion of the wealth they created for their employers and for society).

[Skwmom]

53. You've got to be kidding.

Edwards only did better because the conservatives were pushing him non-stop (and it's not because they wanted the Dems to have the best candidate). Of course he was also being lauded by people like Carville (which among other things makes one really wonder just who in the heck Clinton was really backing in 04). I've found the more people learn about Edwards the LESS they support him (and the exact opposite with Clark).

Once people learn about Edwards

being a "personal injury" attorney making millions from some very questionable litigation against DOCTORS (Edwards didn't just sue corporations).

doing ZERO pro bono work, making little if any charitable contributions (but what the heck he needed to buy several million dollar homes)

doing very little for the little guy during the short time he was in the Senate

channeling of an unborn child - "She speaks to you through me. "And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?ex=139...

being self obsessed about his personal appearance and hair (future Commander-in-Chief I'll make you feel save material - you've really got to be kidding.)http://slate.msn.com/id/2108216/slideshow/2108085/entry/2108087/speed/100

Edwards would be trounced worse than Hillary and would do far more damage to the Democratic Party. Trying to run on a populist message when your rhetoric doesn't match your actions would be a disaster and would help the Republicans to further brand the Democratic Party as a party of nothing more than phony, pandering, self-serving politicians.

Edwards tries to turn being a personal injury attorney into being a defender of the poor and abused. The fact is Edwards started out as a corporate attorney who switched to being a personal injury attorney once he won a multi-million dollar judgment for a corporate client.

The Republicans could take down Edwards in 08 without breaking a sweat.

[1932]

65. Your opinion is the opposite of Thomas Frank's.

And, interestingly, he addressed each of the points you made in a lecture I just heard this past week.

Frank said that the conservatives didn't want Edwards on the ticket, evidenced by the National Association of Manufacturers, one of the largest lobbyist's for corporate America, telling Kerry not to pick Edwards. He said that Kerry showed courage picking Edwards given the resistance such large and powerful lobbyists had to Edwards.

I forget the phrase Frank used specifically, however, he said that Edwards was the only person who came out of the primaries with any heat or momentum. Edwards polled at 5% before January and ended up with 20% of primary votes (to Kerry's 60%) (and the % was probably higher on March 2). Dean ended up with about 5% of the votes and Clark with about 3%. Dean and Clark were favorites in December and January, probably polling at just under 30% nationally. So people who liked them at first ended up not voting for them.

Imagine the cognitive process that leads to that kind of shift. Channeling babies, combing hair, whatever. It didn't cost votes. Somehow, despite that, he was picking up votes. With the exception of the first few primaries, I think even Kerry was getting fewer votes on the day of the primary than he was getting in polls leading up to the primary, and Edwards was the only candidate picking up votes. These numbers are quantifiable indicators of the momentum Frank was talking about.

Frank also said that Edwards had an authenticity on issues of class that other candidates lacked. So, he doesn't feel that "phony, pandering, self-serving" were words that described Edwards. Frank felt that voters found Edwards a more sincere advocate of the issues he cared about than the other candidates (and, although I thought Kerry was a great candidate, I myself sensed that Kerry's background and his wife were making it very hard for him to talk about class).

All these things I heard Frank say were from a lecture at the Commonwealth Club which my local NPR station broadcast just this past week. I'm not saying your opinion isn't worth anything. You make legitimate points. However, Frank's opinion is definitely worth something and he says the exact opposite of what you say. (He also said that he looks forward to hearing more from Edwards and the audience spontaneously and vigorously applauded.)

[mountaindem]

37. and people here wonder why we can't win an election

it's because of people who won't get behind the party after their candidate was beaten.

In 2004, John Kerry wasn't my choice to be the nominee of my party. I didn't favor him because of his perceived elitist upbringing, his vote in favor of NAFTA, etc.
I felt like there were better candidates out there who better represented main street, small town, every day America than John Kerry.
Yet, when it came time to support him, I did and learned to like the man very much. He's brilliant, so much more intelligent than the idiot in the white house now.

Here's a novel idea for folks ready to cut apart other dems. How about stopping the infighting, please?
You're part of the reason we are losing elections left and right, because we aren't united and your comments prove that.
I read the posts here almost daily and I often think I don't have a place in the democratic party based on what some people here think and say.

And lastly, thanks for cutting on the legal profession, in which I am honored to joining.
You think we're united? People here prove we are not!

[Skwmom]

63. Uniting behind the wrong candidate will not carry the day for the

Democrats in 08. To let the big money interests and party leaders determine the 08 candidate will not deliver a win for the Democrats. The Democrats have been following this game-plan forever and it's ended up with the Republicans controlling all three branches of government.

Furthermore, the Republicans work overtime trying to manipulate the Democratic ticket. The Democrats need to take a hard look at potential 08 candidates. Saying only nice things about a potential 08 candidate or letting their PR spin machine b.s. go unchallenged will NOT help the Democrats win in 08 (in fact it will do the exact opposite).

[Strawman]

38. There are things I like about him

I like that he has made poverty a central issue in his campaign. I believe he genuinely cares about working people.

My worry with him is that he will be too directed by polls and strategy and trangulating than by his principles. And he voted for the war. That's a knock in my book.

[mountaindem]

39. you know the old saying about hindsight

based on what was given to the senate, only those senators who would never authorize the use of force would have voted against the war, though.

It just ticks me off when people cut on other dems.
I'm a dem, I lean pro-life with exceptions.
I lean towards morals and values because I see a lot of people out there today who have none, a lot of people who ridicule folks who are religious, who do obey the law, etc.
I'm a dem, I have no problem with the death penalty.
I don't think it is used enough, I wish my state had it.
I don't believe in rehab of criminals either.
What I do believe in is justice and fairness and not convicting innocent people.
I see no morality in a society that says it is ok for 20 year olds to sleep with 12 year olds and not go to prison.
I see no value in people too lazy to get and education or get training at a vocational or technical school, or at least try to find work.
I dislike people who think that owning big SUVs and trucks and acting tough is better than someone who acts with courtesy, kindness, and decency.
The more I read the posts here, the more I wonder if I fit in the democratic party.

[OzarkDem]

44. I agree with you

I've always supported whomever the party chooses, whether they were my favorite or not. The Dem party is a big tent, and we all have to work together.

That said, there always seem to be a few disruptors in these threads, so don't take them too seriously.

[Skwmom]

61. Yeah the party has done a great job of backing winners.

Remind me - which branch of government does the Democrats control?

[Skwmom]

60. Blindly supporting a person because they

are a Democrat is as stupid as blindly supporting someone because they are a Republican (and is one of the major reasons our country is in such a crisis).

As far as the war vote - give me a break. There were strong pro-military persons who came out against the war and these are hardly the type of people who would never vote to authorize force. Edwards voted for the war because he didn't want to hurt his chances in 04. He didn't give a damn about sending the poor kids of America off to die as long as it served his own political needs.

[Vinca]

41. I really love Edwards.

He's the person who SHOULD be president. He's intelligent, compassionate, reasonable, not ego driven and would not be a corporate puppet. I hope I get to meet him one of these days.

[ChiciB1]

48. Edwards Is My Very First Choice!!

I've made mention of this many times, even though I'm Liberal!

I've also gone into all the reasons WHY he would make the BEST candidate!

[EST]

52. I think Edwards is a wonderful man, sharp, pretty, etc.

But---he is a banty weight and always will be. No matter how qualified he may become, Imo, he will never be a real, serious contender. Just no - what is it? - gravitas?

[McCamy Taylor]

70. Edwards is my number 1. He would have won in 2004.

[politicasista]

71. I like Edwards too, but hindsight is 20-20

He and Kerry made a good team. You should remember he or anyone would have been smeared just as Kerry was. You think anyone would have won against cheating voting machines? Focus on 2006.