John Edwards for President!

[Erika]

He has charm, charisma, and intelligence. His message of two Americas is finally connecting. He's staying out there in the limelight. The people love him when he speaks. Elizabeth is fantastic also. In this duo, you have the next JFK and Jackie.

I emailed Elizabeth to definitely go for it. She can be reached at [e-mail]

[tritsofme]

1. A one term senator

that spent half of it running for president.

Probably couldn't have gotten reelected if he wanted to.

No thanks.

[venable]

60. this is not a valid criticism

when you have, against this argument, the passion and enthusiasm and respect this one-term senator garnered.

[DemDogs]

152. John "No Mistakes" Edwards

For all the years some of these others have spent in politics (when Edwards was out fighting for the little guy), what did it mean? Did it mean that they were perfect on the campaign trail and the "new guy" was falling all over himself? NO! I challenge you to identify a single mistake the guy made on the campaign trail. When we know that the GOP is waiting in the wings to crucify our candidate, don't we want the guy with the presence and intelligence to keep his cool. No offense to Kerry, but remarks like "I voted for it before I voted against it" or Hillary's "I'm not home baking cookies" remark are just plain stupid statements by smart people. Edwards did not make those mistakes. And we need him.

[venable]

174. his intelligence

and the fact that he believes deeply and unapologetically in his causes...this is why he does not make those blunders. The longer he talks, the more convincing he is. Cuz it's real.

We desperately need him for the courage, the clarity, and the fight.

[ChiciB1]

195. The Correct Kind Of "New" OLD BLOOD!

Kicking again! To him I will DONATE!

[Texas_Kat]

260. Good advice from Buckminster Fuller

If I ran a school, I'd give the average grade to the ones who gave me all the right answers, for being good parrots.

I'd give the top grades to those who made a lot of mistakes and told me about them, and then told me what they learned from them.--R. Buckminster Fuller

[venable]

261. Bucky was very wise

and if I get your point (not entirely sure that I do) I would hope that John Edwards' commitment to, say, poverty, in spite of it's political expediency, is the right stuff.

or am I missing what you mean?

[DemDogs]

264. Not the same kind of mistakes

Edwards owns up to his mistakes. He's done that on Iraq, saying, "I was wrong." Perhaps I should have said, "No gaffes" instead of "no mistakes" but I didn't anticipate this absurdist reading of my post.

[Texas_Kat]

268. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

On second thought.... I'm not really sorry, you misspoke.

Words have meaning ... even in politics. A mistake is a mistake.... calling a mistake a just a 'gaffe' is reducing the importance of the learning opportunity. It's also why 'spinning the message' only works for a while.... Bush is finding that out now.

That's why I'm still waiting on a link to when John Edwards ever said "I was wrong" about Iraq.

That's okay, though. You seem to have some advance information about a new article that's scheduled to come out.... maybe he'll say it then.

Please be sure to post it here at DU when the Nation article comes out. I'll be interested in how the message is conveyed.

[mattclearing]

244. I think it is.

He couldn't get re-elected in his own state. That is a problem.

[Inspired]

121. Yawn

same boring argument.

:boring:

[Clark2008]

245. But a valid argument.

We have to flip some red states and JE has proven he can't do that.

[Andromeda]

162. So what?

Edwards would be a great candidate.

[Journeyman]

2. How's that new job working out for him? . . .

Will it leave him time to continue to carry his message?

[Erika]

6. He's heading for a 10 city tour to carry his message

If he can survive the death of his oldest son and the breast cancer of his wife, he is tough, as Elizabeth is.

[AmericanDream]

30. Isn't his job at the poverty center a continuation of his message?

See post # 19 for details on his work... with links for updates.

[Journeyman]

43. Maybe so. But I wondered about his new Wall Street brokerage job . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1846751


http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2005/nf20051013_3314_db016.htm

[flpoljunkie]

97. Yes, I would like to hear his explanation for taking this brokerage job.

[ultraist]

132. It's not a "brokerage" job.

He will be a part time Senior advisor on global economic issues.
The company, Fortress, has strong Democratic leanings:

Fortress apparently has had its eye on Democratic politics and Edwards for some time. During the 2004 Presidential campaign cycle, the employees political action committee of the company contributed $143,650 to Democratic candidates for Congress and the White House, including $4,000 to Edwards. They gave just $10,500 to Republicans running for federal office.

[Clark2008]

246. I'm sorry, but what does Edwards know about global economic

issues?

Seriously - enough to be an advisor?

[ThumperDumper]

3. He was my pick LAST time. I'd still give him a chance. Primary! n/t

[Awsi Dooger]

35. Edwards was the CORRECT choice last time

He had much more of an opportunity to bump an incumbent than a very admirable but standard politician like John Kerry.

Like the networks were reporting last spring during the primaries, Edwards events and speeches were like pep rallies compared to Kerry's, more like a droning professor. Just look at the one post in this thread emphasing that women were asking Edwards to sign their shirts, that Edwards has star quality about him. Precisely. We ignored that at our own peril, lamely handicapping electability in regard to background and not likeability.

[nvliberal]

39. The media killed his chances because

they knew, as flaks for the Republican right, Edwards was the one the Republicans feared the most for the reasons given on this thread by supporters.

They continued to bury him after Kerry picked him. I followed the entire Edwards saga on my blog, and it was amazing the hostility of the corporate media.

[venable]

71. right you are

the Republicans, from day one, feared him the most. And still do. For good reason. He cannot be demonized. Even the lawyer label backfired with Faircloth tried it in the Senate race.

[DemDogs]

147. Your blog?

Wish I had caught your blog on the Edwards campaign.
You should promote your blog in your signature.

[Clark2008]

248. Uh - no.

Republicans - who had no horse in the race - were voting in Southern Dem primaries FOR Edwards because they knew the American public would see him as a light weight and Bush could brush him off, easily. There were websites at the time advising Republicans in the South to do this very thing.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but NO Republican I know - paelo or neo - was scared of Edwards.

[DemDogs]

252. Wrong again

There were no websites like what you referred to. I read the nasty things, including FR, and there was nothing of the sort. In fact, there were many Rs at FR who were scared of Edwards, or should I say, who were pulling the wool over all our eyes by posting on FR that they were afraid of Edwards because they knew we would read it and be mislead. Geez, you Clarkies need to face facts. Clark didn't face them when Gert convinced him to stay in because he beat Edwards by 1000 votes in Oklahoma, where Clark had been camped out for a week. One thing's for sure, Rs aren't afraid of Clark; heck, he helps them out when they need money.

[Adelante]

92. Bunk

I saw Kerry in a jam packed auditorium in Brooklyn and the audience of at least a thousand African-Americans who had waited on line two hours to see him loved him. "Droning professor" is nonsense. At least Kerry gave different speeches when he spoke in different places.

[CarolNYC]

114. Kerry's appearances

Yes...I caught the end of a Kerry appearance at a fundraiser during the campaign(I was late getting in because the line was so unbelievably friggin' long) and he was mobbed like a rcok star himself after he finished speaking. I'm not sure he came across as well on TV as in person but he could get a crowd going in person.

Don't know why but I never did get the Edwards' appeal. I never saw him in person and I'd never even seen any part of "the speech" before the Convention so the Convention appearance was the first I saw him give a speech and I was decidedly underwhelmed...I do understand that was an off night for him but it was a disappointment for me who had expected to be wowed.

On the other hand, a couple of nights before, watching Obama speak for the first time, after all of the buildup I'd heard about him, I was riveted to the TV. I literally could not take my eyes off him and, when he finished, I wished his speech was longer and that I had taped it. I could just sit and go "wow, they weren't kidding". THAT was impressive.

[Inspired]

143. Politcial Science 101

You must deliver the same message over and over again. Do you not understand that Kerry never found a message? THAT IS WHY HE LOST.

Sure, to the loyal few, it is nice to hear new speeches. The first time you reach your base, keep repeating and it spreads like wildfire. This my friend is Political Science 101.

[DemDogs]

148. Where?

What was Kerry doing campaigning to African-Americans in Brooklyn? No wonder he lost Iowa, etc.

[ThumperDumper]

94. So, how do we recruit him for 2008? n/t

[Inspired]

144. Oh he's running

no need to recruit. Now....will WE learn from our mistakes in '04? That is the question.

[loyalsister]

167. You bet he is

I saw him speak yesterday. He gave a speech that conveyed resolute commitment.
As he is working from the sidelines, he is building bridges with people directly. The thing I find appealing, is that he's talking about today and tommorrow. He's not running on a history of a career.
He's saying "let's do this now let's make tommorrow better." He's putting it out there with a concrete plan with opportunity rocks.
He is framing brilliantly!! He mentioned that he had help and he talked about going to a taxpayer funded University, and taxpayer funded public schools.
He's telling people the truth!
I think not being in the Senate makes him a better candidate. They have to mine for votes. Edwards can build considerable foreign policy expertise in his new job.
I am thinking Edwards- Obama. It's a ticket with a sense of optimism, mutual respect, and community responsibility. These are the messages from their strongest speeches, anyway. They are both pretty firm in their commitments.

[Inspired]

170. Seeing Edwards

live is something to behold, isn't it? I have seen him numerous times in Iowa since the election and each time I am amazed at his ability to connect with the audience. He is everything that I want in a President.

A big plus is that Republicans like him too. I'm not talking about the right wing pundit types. I'm talking about the Republicans who matter the most...the voters. Many of the ones I have spoken to would have voted Democrat in the last election if Edwards was the nominee and not Kerry. They trust him. I trust him.

I spend my days talking this man up to everyone I know. I have never felt so inspired by a politician. And, as someone has probably already mentioned...with him we get Elizabeth. A smart, warm, compassionate, truly nice first lady. Equally inspiring. I can't imagine a better family to live in the White House.

[SeanQ]

112. I was too unsure of Dean and was unsure of Clark

I voted for Edwards in the primary and thought an Edwards/Kerry or Edwards/Clark ticket would have been fantastic. I really like his message and focus, and thought he had a lot more charisma as the top pick. Kerry or Clark would have provided some more experience to the ticket.

[Inspired]

122. Cheers!

We don't seem to ever learn from our mistakes. Does anyone think the American public voted for Bush because they thought he was politically astute? Hell no! They voted for him because they liked him and felt they could trust him. (Silly fools that they are.) It's all very simple in the average voters mind.

John Edwards was the one candidate who could have beaten George Bush to a pulp in the election.

[Tiggeroshii]

205. Yeah, I voted for him!

I think he'd be a great candidate for 08, but I'm looking forward to who all is running.

[LittleClarkie]

4. He's good enough. He's smart enough. And darn it, people like him

Oh please. Can we please focus on 2006. I hate to see rah, rah threads for any of these guys, even Kerry.

Please just let us know when Johnny E. has done something like given a speech or shown up at a rally or something. Otherwise it's just too damn early for this shit. You know?

[Erika]

9. He's got a star quality about him

At the Harkin rally, women were asking him to sign their shirts. They were enthralled by him. Elizabeth shines in her own right.

[LittleClarkie]

36. I'd rather elect Elizabeth, frankly

She was a populist goddess in my book.

[AmericanDream]

38. lol... and what has she done?

Plus, she said everything that was originally laid out by her husband. So, if you see her as the populist goddess, then her husband should be the populist god for you since he said the same stuff and more.

Btw.. if you are a populist worshiper, how come you support Clark? That's strange...

[Texas_Kat]

44. Uh.... Little Clarkie is a Kerry fan

But also one of the most tolerant people at DU.

[AmericanDream]

48. My bad then... I was going by the username....

And I didn't make any comments about her being intolerant.

[venable]

66. Elizabeth Edwards

is one of the most honest, intelligent, eloquent, and fearless figures on the public stage.

She is not the shadow of her husband, nor is she the mirror.

They both reflect very well on each other. We know more about them both because of the person they each chose to marry.

If a woman like that believes in John Edwards, my belief in him confirmed.

[ultraist]

89. Elizabeth is writing a book!

:bounce:

I'm very much looking forward to reading it!

[LittleClarkie]

200. Just saw this. Thanks!

Eh, I was being alittle flippant. I just kinda like the missus. She's so plainspoken and real. One of the best assets during the campaign.

Yeppers. Just a little Clarkie for Kerry, am I.

[Jai4WKC08]

208. Excuse me?

Clark is a populist. He may not use the usual rhetoric. He's smarter than that. But he stands for the same principles.

[DemDogs]

85. She'd rather you elect him

I trust her.

[AmericanDream]

11. I agree... although I love Edwards, can we stop talking about 08?

[Erika]

16. We need to talk about shining stars in 08

and Edwards and his wife are two of them.

[venable]

69. And their brightness

shines more clearly the more we know them. This was evidenced in the campaign. I believe they both were hidden in the national election, for reasons I just don't understand.

They have the capacity to reinvigorate this country in a way that nobody else does, especially the one figure currently sitting atop the polls.

[GetTheRightVote]

5. I think he has the right heart and I would vote for him if not Gore 1st

:kick:

[Digit]

7. He's my number one choice for President

He is one politician I can believe in.

[jobycom]

8. I dunno, I'm getting tired of inexperienced leaders in DC

One term in the senate doesn't fill me with confidence. Pretty ideology only goes so far.

[Erika]

13. He has the guts to carry the democratic message with charisma

Terms in D.C. is a detriment not a plus to most voters.

[jobycom]

17. That and a dollar can get you a root beer some places

Bush has the guts to carry the pro-corporation message with charisma. He's still a lousy leader, even if you like his politics.

And I don't care what's a detriment or plus to most voters. Being a dumbfuck cokehead everyone wants to have a beer with is a plus in DC. Not to me.

I want someone I trust. Not someone I have to hold my breath and hope gets it right. If it was all about purity of vision, I'd run myself.

[Erika]

21. So what's your message?

I would say John Edwards has much more life experience than most. He was born the son of a mill worker, he got his law degree, he lost his oldest son, and his wife is a survivor of breast cancer. How much more life experience do you want?

[jobycom]

34. That's not a substitute

For understanding complex diplomatic relations to head off wars or having the skill to manipulate a recalcitrant Congress into doing what you want, or knowing how and when to release oil reserves so you bring prices down but don't cause a backlash that raises them in a month, or knowing how to take charge of FEMA before a catastrophe gets out of hand when the leader you appointed doesn't do his job or knowing when to face down the Pentagon over military issues or when to not listen to your foreign advisors or knowing how to keep a diverse staff of the top experts in the land all focused on the same problems and on your solutions when every one of them is convinced they know your job better than you...

It's a tough job. It's a lot more than making pretty speeches and having the right ideology. Without the skill to manuever legislation through Congress, you could wind up not doing a single thing you believe you should do. Remember Clinton's first year? He proposed legislation for a national health care system and a comprehensive jobs program, he picked his favorite liberal candidates to run everything (Except the treasury, where he picked Bensen to repay a favor) and he tried to ban the prohibition on gays in the military. All very liberal. He got slam-dunked on every one. He went back to the drawing board and managed to salvage his jobs program, but he lost the rest. And he was good.

It takes more than good ideas. I love John Edwards (even though he did support the invasion of Iraq), and I'd love to see him involved. But I'm a long way from comfortable with his experience level at any form of leadership. I don't see us getting a lot of time to screw up and fix it. We need someone who can hit the ground running and make the most of our chance if we win.

And that's of some importance, too. Edwards is 50-50 in elections, and has a grand total of two to his name. True, the one he lost wasn't really his race. Still, he doesn't have a history of running winning campaigns.

Look, if he runs, I'll watch him, and if he can convince me, then I'll support him. But he'll have to do something extraordinary to convince me. I'll take someone with slightly more conservative views that I think can win and that I think can handle the job before I take someone I agree with but don't think can succeed.

That's just me. Support who you feel is right on your own terms. Those are mine.

[Erika]

45. Sure you love John Edwards

It shows. W was up to the tough job, right?

[kick-ass-bob]

101. Inexperience? I thought we wanted "fresh new faces?"

So we want fresh new faces with loads of experience?

Good god y'all, figure out what the hell you want.

[sandrakae]

10. He is a one term Senator. He does not have enough experience.

He is a one term Senator. He does not have enough experience. We need an experienced politician. One with foreign policy experience. I think he should have stayed in the senate much longer.

[AmericanDream]

15. No, we need a VISION, a PASSION, bold policies, and COURAGE!!

Experience in DC taints the fire to lead. I don't want a DC insider, they are all sold out. Clinton, the guy with the experience, was anything but a true leader who was willing to fight for progressive principles.

We saw Kerry talk endlessly about crap, yet he couldn't show his passion for his own policies. We need someone who has a clear vision of where America needs to be here and abroad ... and someone who is willing to fight for that vision... I see Edwards doing that.

To the thread starter: you forgor to add one adjective to your despcription of Edwards... He is courageous! He has the courage of his convictions... which is sorely lacking in this party at the moment (except the honorable exception of the likes of Edwards, Dean, and a few others).

[Erika]

18. Clinton and Kerry are 10 times the leader that W is

What are you talking about?

[AmericanDream]

22. Being 10 times what W is doesn't make you "great"......

I'm not gonna comment on Kerry, because he didn't get to be President and we don't know what he might have donw... however, as far as Clinton is concerned... sure he was way better than Dubya... but gimme a break, if you are trying to convince me that he was fighting out of conviction. That was the problem with Clinton... he was a good administrator... however, he did not have a vision. That's why his was a reactive presidency, rather than an active one.

[Erika]

24. Don't eat your own

That's a GOP trait. -?-

[AmericanDream]

25. Objective analysis won't hurt us... it's not like i'm saying this on TV!!

[politicasista]

20. Edwards would not appreciate you trashing Kerry

I am glad they are still close. I miss the both of them.

[AmericanDream]

23. I'm not trashing Kerry... I just think he lacks certain qualities ....

that I wish to see in a commander in chief. He is an able, accomplished man only worthy of praise, however, I just do not see in him the fire to inspire.

[politicasista]

27. I just think we need to stop comparing and contrasting them

I respect your opinion. Their styles are different. This is not a time to eat your own. This is a time to focus on the future, that is, 2006.

[AmericanDream]

28. Yup, as I mentioned earlier, IT IS TIME TO FOCUS ON 2006... together.

[Erika]

29. The subject is Edwards

Kerry would have been a wonderful CIC.

[karynnj]

50. Did you actually attend any of his rallies?

Or even watch an entire rally on TV? I was very pro-Kerry, but still was very surprised by how inspiring he was and how much hope he engendered speaking THIS YEAR without the music and excitement of a campaign. (I saw him at a NJ event in support of Corzine and local candidates.)

The question to me is whether ANY Democratic candidate would have been able to break through a near blackout on rally coverage.

[venable]

64. beautifully put

his message does not need the trappings of a campaign.

His messages needs only a messenger and an audience.

The rest takes care of itself, because of the truth and passion of the message.

[karynnj]

192. That's true - Kerry was great in person

[ChiciB1]

104. An Edwards Rally Is Superb!!

I got to see him in St. Pete before the Election and came away ELATED!! He ROCKS and the crowd was rocking right along with him.

He has EVERYONE there stomping their feet and pumped up! If you've NEVER been to one of his rallies, try it sometime! You just might see things in a completely different light!

It was because of of MY EXPERIENCE that I became sold on him!!!

I still remember vividly just how invigorating it was, and I believed that NOTHING could have stood in the way of the KERRY/EDWARDS ticket!

UNFORTUNATELY, "the corrupt ones" hijacked the election and America is now the worst for it!!!

[karynnj]

193. I've never seen Edwards except on C-SPAN NJ was way too blue : (

He did have a very good stump speech, but I was blown away by some of Kerry's speechs. You are right that K/E made a great team.

[zulchzulu]

126. Here's the Madison rally with 80,000+ people

http://www.kerrysupport.com/madison/kerry1028.html

Real Player needed...

[1932]

129. Bruce Sprinsteen said incredible things at that rally

That was really inspiring.

[karynnj]

194. Thank you so much for posting this link!!!!

I had listened on CSPAN, but in the richnesses of the time. I stupidly didn't think to tape any of the conferences. Like many here, I was sure we were looking at 8 years with an incredible man as President.

This link answers better than any words could the charge that Kerry couldn't energize a crowd - he was incredible.

[zulchzulu]

231. It will be part of a documentary I'm finishing up...

I did just get Bruce's permission to use the footage. Hopefully, there will be a downloadable Bittorrent version soon with the working title "Democracy Is Not A Game". I'm kind of waiting for the indictments to come out to make an epilogue and/or new beginning to the film...

[karynnj]

256. That's impressive - It's really nice that he gave permission

I like the working title. Thanks again for putting up the link. People need tt remember how awesome Kerry was (and is)

[DemDogs]

149. He is MAGIC at a rally

I saw him more than once, and he mesmerized the crowd every time. Once, people were ripping signs from the wall and crawling over each other to get him to sign them. It was rock star stuff.
He used to do town halls in Washington or NC every week for NC people. Just answering any question they had, talking to them directly. The NC press was always there in case he slipped up, but he didn't make mistakes.

[Erika]

26. I miss them both also

Kerry promised hope, W worked on fear, doom, and gloom.

[loyalsister]

168. Promising hope.....

While it's a better alternative to fear, I think Edwards learned a lesson from that. What he is doing now tells me that he has, anyway. Really, when one thinks about it hope is not a state that is close enough to optimism to actually be an alternative.
On the other hand, when we're looking around at all of the bad things happening and an opportunity to actually do something is available, it has a feel of optimism.
I am not sure what they could have done in 2004, but his creativity here is very admirable.
He strikes me as the more definite and resolute of the two. I think Kerry's personality is flexible, because it is the nature of the legislative profession. If a person spends enough time there, they may just internalize it. Flexibility is an asset in many cases, and has it's place, but not on a presidential campaign trail.
Edwards has more of a tendency to be unwavering.

[zulchzulu]

37. Whoop-dee-do, another inane Kerry basher...

"We saw Kerry talk endlessly about crap, yet he couldn't show his passion for his own policies."

You "saw"...maybe... leave the rest of us who actually DID see Kerry speak and see the passion and incredible knowledge he has about the issues...and the 35+ year history of proving he's a true Democrat to stand up and fight for.

IMO, Edwards was a somewhat lukewarm, predictable VP candidate. Nice guy and all, but...

[AmericanDream]

41. I did see... with a lot of others... there was knowledge, but not passion.

Different people... different takes.... he just didn't fire me up and a lot of others *shrugs*

Why is my point of view inane? Just because he did it for you, doesn't mean that he has to float my boat.... I look for leadership qualities as well as intellectual ability in my candidate... I didn't see the former in Kerry... maybe I missed something, and maybe you're missing something about edwards...

[zulchzulu]

42. It's inane to say Kerry has "no passion"

That is the most ridiculous thing I've read...today, anyway.

I DID see Edwards on a dozen or so occasions and he would say nearly the EXACT same speech. He seemed robotic and rehearsed to me, as well as a little green on the issues. Add only one term as Senator and he's frankly not that impressive as a Presidential candidate.

I like him, admire how he became successful...but I remember a little birdie once telling me that his wife wanted him to run for President more than he did...whatever...

Support Edwards if you want. Go for it.

[Erika]

47. Good. because Edwards has the moxie it takes

The people were totally enthused by him. To have women asking him to autograph their shirts was the proof. This guy has the charisma it takes.

Maybe if you wish to eat your own, you need to change parties.

[karynnj]

51. To have women asking him to autograph their shirts was the proof ?????

This is NOT a very significant reason. Power and the excitement of the campaign may do this. There are Republicans who talk about Bush and even Cheney(!) and Rumsfeld(!) having sex appeal. I agree that Edwards is good looking for a politician, but ask yourself if you would vote for a conservative Republican who is the spitting image of whomever you thing is the handsomest man in the world.

Someone found a statistic that Kerry got over 80% of the young women's vote in his 1996 run (his toughest run - against Weld). There were also women on the the Kerry blog who had to be told to cool it by Elizabeth Edwards - and more preferred Kerry to Edwards, possibly because he was the presidental candidate.

This is certainly not a primary reason to push a candidate.

[AmericanDream]

65. clarify this please....

Women on the Kerry blog were told to "cool it" about what by elizabeth edwards? Do you have any evidence of that? And, who preferred Kerry to Edwards?

Anyway, I personally don't think that the fact ladies were asking him to sign his shirts means anything... and really is no reason to vote for someone to be president. However, I think it is quite self-evident that Edwards is much more liked by the women, esp. young women... and you would know that if you've ever seen one of his rallies at a college campus. I think older women probably like both men, but among the college aged women, Edwards clearly rules the roost.

[karynnj]

76. I was not on the blog that evening

But there were people who apparently made some posts that were deemed inappropriate. The monitors had to work to keep this out of the Senators' site.

I have no doubt that the college age kids at an EDWARDS rally liked him, just as the DEAN kids at Dean rallies liked him and the KERRY kids liked him. Kerry actually took the youth vote in Iowa and (I think)

My point is that this is probably more a function of the excitement of a campaign. Otherwise, no 50 or 60 year old man would be the likely focus of college age kids.

[zulchzulu]

91. Chicks dig Edwards...

I remember the rallies...

Does charisma count more than experience? Hmmm...

[AmericanDream]

49. What?

His wife wanted him to run for President? That shows that you haven't done your homework on him... when he was about to run for senate, elizabeth was not too enthusiastic... and she herself said that a few days before he launched his presidential campaign, he let elizabeth and cate know about it and asked them about their opinion and they supported his decision. Edwards is quite an ambitious man - too ambitious for some people's taste... however, I personally see that as a strength; you can't win in politics, if you do not have ambition.

As for Kerry's passion... I don't mean to say that in his heart, he doesn't believe in the things he says... but I mean that he does not have that passion on the stump... that "it" factor that translates what's inside him into what actually comes through to people.

As for a Kerry defender telling me that edwards seems "robotic" ... I just gotta laugh at that.... that is probably the most "inane" thing I've ever heard.

But you have the right to your opinion, and I'm fine with that.

[zulchzulu]

95. There you go again...ferchrissakes...

"As for Kerry's passion... I don't mean to say that in his heart, he doesn't believe in the things he says..."

Just how the hell do you know that? He doesn't believe in the things he says? Maybe you have some secret special powers that you can bestow on all of us poor followers of a passionless politician...apparently we're too stupid to figure it out...by that, I mean the millions of people who voted for Kerry in the primaries...

Whuh?

[venable]

213. what you say about his wife wanting him to run for president

well, pretty sure your birdie had it wrong.

[ChiciB1]

106. NOT!

Edwards has remained TRUE to his convictions! And while I was a passionate Kerry supporter, and actually went to his Rally the Sunday before the Election, it was Edwards that SOLD me!

I had looked forward to Kerry running for President for many many years, but it was Edwards who had the MO-JO on the team!

I can't say I would abandon Kerry, I still think his ideas and intelligence are there, I just haven't seen much of it lately!! Kerry need to re-sell me!!! Edwards doesn't!!!

[AmericanDream]

108. Excuse me.... but I was talking about Kerry, not edwards *shrugs*

[karynnj]

196. Kerry has been incredibly active since November

He just doesn't get much exposure.

[DemDogs]

197. Someone get Zulu a ticket to see Edwards

No one who has seen him describes him as lukewarm. Do yourself a great big favor and SEE THIS GUY!

[CarolNYC]

212. My mom saw him...

Not at a rally but at one of those back porch things...She didn't dislike him but she wasn't overly impressed. Different strokes, I guess.

[DemDogs]

240. And my Mom saw him

and was blown away.
But he's doing a college tour now. Anyone near one of those events can see for themselves.

[nvliberal]

40. He has foreign policy experience and was actually ELECTED to

public office, unlike some one-time nonserious candidates who have hero worshippers following their every move.

[Texas_Kat]

46. Which foreign policy experience?

Oh right.... he attended the Bilderberg conference in 04 and got their 'stamp of approval'.

In case you're wondering, "What's the Bilderberg group...? Here's a little info (it's the self-appointed, global non-ruling class):

Inside the secretive Bilderberg Group

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4290944.stm

Every year since 1954, a small network of rich and powerful people have held a discussion meeting about the state of the trans-Atlantic alliance and the problems facing Europe and the US.

Organised by a steering committee of two people from each of about 18 countries, the Bilderberg Group (named after the Dutch hotel in which it held its first meeting) brings together about 120 leading business people and politicians.

At this year's meeting in Germany, the audience included the heads of the World Bank and European Central Bank, Chairmen or Chief Executives from Nokia, BP, Unilever, DaimlerChrysler and Pepsi - among other multi-national corporations, editors from five major newspapers, members of parliament, ministers, European commissioners, the crown prince of Belgium and the queen of the Netherlands.

"I don't think (we are) a global ruling class because I don't think a global ruling class exists. I simply think it's people who have influence interested to speak to other people who have influence," Viscount Davignon says.
more....

[Catchawave]

98. JRE's resume - quite impressive !

Sen. John Edwards (NC):One America Committee, Center for Promise and Opportunity, Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity ... P2004 page
(Legislation: 108th, 107th, 106th)
PAC finances (1)
Consultant: Nick Baldick. Political Director: David Medina
>Since the campaign Sen. Edwards has made fighting poverty the overarching theme of his efforts. For example, Edwards is honorary chair of the Center for Promise and Opportunity which is launching "Opportunity Rocks" with a Oct. 17-28, 2005 college tour; college students will pledge to do 20 hours of community service per semester. Following Hurricane Katrina Edwards proposed a New America Initiative, modeled after FDR's Works Progress Administration. According to an online petition he started, "ur government would provide the victims of this disaster with the skills, materials, and planning they need to resurrect and revitalize their region, and they would in turn have good-paying jobs and the pride of knowing that their futures are in their own hands." Edwards' One America Committee is working with other groups to promote minimum wage ballot initiatives in a number of states in 2006.
>Edwards has signed on as a senior advisor to the Fortress Investment Group, a New York-based "global alternative investment and asset management firm." (reported by Business Week Oct. 2005)
>Sen. Edwards has not neglected the foreign policy arena. In late May 2005 he visited London, delivering a speech "Towards a New Partnership: America, Europe and the New World" at the London School of Economics on May 25 and meeting with Prime Minister Tony Blair. Edwards is co-chairing, with former congressman and HUD Secretary Jack Kemp, the Council on Foreign Relations' Independent Task Force on Russian-American Relations, which held its first meeting on May 31, 2005 and is scheduled to release a report in Fall 2005/Spring 2006.
>Sen. Edwards is working on a book about people's childhood homes, tentatively titled Blueprints: The Architecture of Our Lives, with publication targeted for Fall 2006.
>Excluding Sen. Kerry's thank you visits to New Hampshire and Iowa in December 2004, former Sen. Edwards was the first Democratic prospect to venture into these key early states, visiting New Hampshire on February 5, 2005 and Iowa on March 31-April 1, 2005.

Director of the new Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at UNC School of Law (announced Feb. 2005) >. Democratic nominee for Vice President in 2004; sought the Democratic 2004 presidential nomination. Elected to the U.S. Senate in Nov. 1998; retired in 2004. Successful trial lawyer. J.D. from University of North Carolina School of Law (Chapel Hill), 1977 and undergraduate degree from North Carolina State University, 1974. Born June 10, 1953 in Seneca, SC.

Source (with other Dem candidates):
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Eaction/2008/dems08.html

[Carolab]

12. Hmmm, let me think.

Uh...NO.

What has he done for US lately?

[Erika]

14. Look at his message

and tell me any democrat who has spread the need for social conscience better?

[venable]

55. exactly

there is none better, anywhere on the political spectrum. period.

[AmericanDream]

19. Here's what he is doing....

He has launched a pilot program through which 140 high school seniors in NC's poorest county will get to go to college for free if they do 10 hours of community service per week.

He has had the guts to speak about poverty even when everyone else was silent and even after everyone has forgotten about it already.

He is the co-chair of the foreign relations council to Russia.

He is going on a two week tour to college campuses to set up organizations that would do community service to alleviate the prevalance of local problems that are causing poverty.

He has launched a center on poverty that is researching options for eradicating poverty.

To see more of his work, go to the following links:

http://promiseandopportunity.com/">Center for Promise and Opportunity

http://www.opportunityrocks.org/">Opportunity Rocks College Tour

http://www.law.unc.edu/Centers/details.aspx?ID=425&Q=3">Center for Poverty, work and Opportunity

One America Committee

[Carolab]

31. Seniors in college? n/t

[AmericanDream]

32. umm... no, seniors in high school... wasn't that self-explanatory?

[Carolab]

33. Actually, no. I thought you meant senior citizens, initially.

LOL

[karynnj]

59. He was the one who used 2 America's as a theme, but every Democratic

candidate has addressed the issues that are involved in poverty.

Look at FDR (New Deal), LBJ (Great Society), McGovern (Food Stamps)

Kennedy and Kerry initally worked together on what became the CHIP program that gave health insurance to poor children. Bill Clinton liked it and supported it - and eventually Nancy Kasselbaum, a Republican came on as a sponsor (The bill was ultimately Kennedy/Kasselbaum).

Kerry has been involved with the problems faced by intercity youths since he was a DA in 1976! (Even Bill Clinton cited this (as an unusually long term committment that was not likely to gain votes) in his autobiography when mentioning why he hoped Kerry would win in 1996.)

Edwards was not alone - this is a classic Democratic issue.

[venable]

61. a democratic issue

that few others spoke about.

His poverty speech was about what was morally right, not what was politically right.

Isn't this what we, as Dems, should expect from our leaders?

[karynnj]

79. Yes, exactly

It is morally right and it should be spoken of. Edwards did a great job of that - I was only saying that all of the other Democrats (whether Dean, Kerry, Clark, etc) also addressed the issue - many in terms of the specific programs. At least Kerry also talked about the growing inequality of income.

I think the difference was that Edwards focused almost entirely on this one very large issue. He also addressed it in an emotional way spending a lot of time defining the problem in personal terms. I think this might be why some here see him as passionate, compared to Kerry. (Both did talk about the problems and the solutions -making up numbers - it was like Edwards may have spent 60% description of poverty, 40%recommeded solutions; the more analytical Kerry seemed more like 20%, 80% - Again, numbers made up and included to try to more explain the impression I had.)

[Adelante]

116. And Cuomo did the speech better

Two Americas -- none of this was original in any way, I agree.

[venable]

53. he's done the following

defeated a right wing republican in a red state

defined perfectly the economic and social structure of this country, and backed it up with the Poverty Center

inspired many across the political spectrum, from progressives (THE NATION) to economic Republicans and Independents.

AND MAINLY - he is the first of the voters for the war resolution to step forward and say he made a mistake. THIS ALONE SEPARATES HIM FROM THE OTHER LEADERS IN THIS COUNTRY.

Rove knows that Edwards would have won. Kerry hid him, and lost as a result.

[Texas_Kat]

80. Link please?

I have never seen this : "He is the first of the voters for the war resolution to step forward and say he made a mistake."

Something this important would have made press.

You'll need to back your statement up with a reference before it's believable.

[venable]

84. Edward's calls his vote a mistake.

Edwards has said this often to reporters, and as recently as yesterday to a NATION reporter. This should be in print within the next issue or two.

[Texas_Kat]

96. Strange that it's never been reported

I'd like to hear his rationale.

[venable]

171. the rationale is the act of admission

He was told one thing (by Tenet) and believed it. (mushroom cloud looming)

He voted accordingly.

He sees now that the info was wrong, the vote was wrong ( because of the use the WH made of the powers given in the resolution) and the war is wrong.

[Texas_Kat]

181. I thought I'd see if I can find any sort of link

Since no one has come up with one.

This is the latest thing I found (please note the date of the interview below). It's not as hawkish as his comments in 2002, but I don't hear him use the word 'regret' at all. This interview was after all the Tenet stuff had come out (as evidenced by the question the reporter asked)

Has he changed his position? I frankly just couldn't find that he's said anything since this interview that addressed my question specifically. I'm still puzzled that you insist he 'regrets' his vote since he hasn't seemed to say so. Can you find more current information than this? You keep talking about some article in "the Nation". What is he going to say?

CNN
Aired July 15, 2004
http://robots.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/15/asb.01.html

WALLACE: So, I asked Senator Edwards, knowing what he knows now, with reports of faulty pre-war intelligence on Iraq, if he regrets the vote he cast.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EDWARDS: I believe that the president should have been given the authority that he was given. I also believe it's a very good thing that Saddam is gone. I think it's good for America, good for that region of the world.

WALLACE: So you don't regret your vote then?

EDWARDS: I think at the time it was the right thing to do to give the president that authority.

Edwards goes on to say things would have been different if Kerry were pres.....

[venable]

209. Maybe 'regret' is not in the answer

and I apologize that I've not been able to link it.

I refer to an upcoming The Nation piece because he did say, on the record to a Nation reporter, that the vote was (and here I'm paraphrasing) something like 'a mistake', and that the war was 'a mistake'.

I'm guessing this will make it to print, because, to my knowlege, he is the first of those who voted for the Resolution to step forward and do the difficult thing: to admit a mistake, especially one with such grave consequences.

I believe it is the very gravity of the situation, which he certainly recognizes, that has led him to the position he takes in this upcoming piece.

Let's not forget for a moment how difficult it is for someone to do what he is (presumably) doing. It takes courage. Last time I looked, that was the principal virtue we hope to find in our Democrat leaders.

[DemDogs]

215. I've heard him say. His vote a mistake, war a mistake n/t

[Texas_Kat]

236. Now see,

It's been almost 3 years and I believe he was on the Senate Intelligence Committee (so he'd have had access to much more than you or I or some 'run of the mill' elected Dems) but he's just now saying that the war was a mistake?

I'm finding it very difficult to believe that he was 'duped' into voting for the IWR. Was it just inexperience or since he was being advised (even if informally) by Hugh Shelton, did he just accept that advice at face value.....?

Please don't just cop-out by saying he believed *'s lies.... anyone with half a brain in DC knew that Bush and his cronies were liars from the very beginning. Most here at DU certainly understood that.

Not being able to recognize a lie when you hear one would be a real handicap when it comes to life-and-death decision making. And that's what becoming President means -- you have to be able decide if you can send people to die. Then, (and this is the hardest thing for politicians to do) accept responsibility and ACCOUNTABILITY for it. Not make up some kind of "I wuz tricked" excuse.

[DemDogs]

239. Bill Clinton said he had WMD

No one in the Senate had to believe Bush. For right or wrong (and I give Edwards a lot of credit for saying he was wrong) members of the Senate relied on reports of CIA operatives who had told Clinton the same thing. And Clinton himself said the same thing about the time of the vote. So even if you don't trust Bush (and if you ever saw that picture of Edwards at the State of Union -- not smiling and not clapping -- you'll figure he didn't trust him), what reason would he distrust what Clinton and his security people, like Holbrook and Albright and Berger, said on the subject. In the end, they we wrong. And they haven't said so. Edwards had the guts to say more than "the war is wrong" or "the intelligence was bad" -- although he does say that -- , he said "I was wrong" and for my money, that's the kind of leadership we need.

[Texas_Kat]

243. That's what I've been trying to find out.

No one can substantiate that Edwards' has been saying "I was wrong".

I keep hearing about some article in 'the Nation" that's supposed to come out 'soon', but since it's not published yet how can you know what it says?

Aside: Do you work for John Edwards in more than a voluntary role? If not, how did you get access to unpublished material from the Nation? Curious minds want to know.

Back to the real point, that "everybody believed it was true".... well, not quite. There were several in the Senate who voted "no". Most notably Paul Wellstone.

http://www.wellstone.org/news/news_detail.aspx?itemID=2778&catID=298

There were many raising flags all over the place. Of the prospective and former '04 Prez candidates, Clark, Feingold, Dean and Kucinich. They didn't just go along with the crowd either. Just because 'everybody is saying it" it doesn't make it so. Relying on information old enough to have been 'reported to Clinton' wasn't the smartest thing to do, was it?

Not to put too fine a point on it, let's say Edwards went along with the crowd because he either 1) really believed going to war was the right thing to do, or 2) was duped into it by Bush/Tenet/'Common Knowledge'/fill-in-the-blank. How can either be identified as 'leadership'?

It's not leadership to go along because 'everyone says it's true'. It's not leadership to rely on information that only reinforces what you already think. It's not leadership to be virtually silent on this issue for 3 years. It's not leadership to wait till you realize that any chance of running for office requires a 'mea culpa' for previous votes that you made, 'mistakenly' or otherwise.

It's. Not. Leadership.

[venable]

262. I refer you to your signature

line from Santayana, and would argue that Edwards' evolving relationship with the war, and his role in it (the Vote), is precisely why he is capable of leading us out of the quagmire. If what I say is true, that he is facing up to the consequence of his vote, he is well on his way to not repeating the mistakes of the past.

Furthermore: He has a unique credibility AMONGST VOTERS, to step forward and say the mistake was grave and it must be undone. Who better to speak to the gravity of the mistake than one who made it, by his own admission.

You make very good points about the circumstances around the Iraq Resolution vote. I agree with you, and did so at the time: I thought that this hawkish crowd had not earned our uncritical belief in their version of the situation in Iraq.

And I do wish that Edwards had not voted for the resolution.

Why, then, do I support him now? Because his vote was based upon searing descriptions from persons of authority (Tenet, et al), and he bought it. I didn't. Paul Wellstone didn't. Many others didn't.

He sees that now. What to do? Be a leader. Admit. Prescribe. That. Is. Leadership.

(sorry about the vagueness of 'The Nation' and 'soon'...I just don't know when. As to your aside, I am a longtime progressive, to the left of most Dems (except for those who frequent this site), who has some personal knowledge of Edwards - it is the personal that convinces me that he is the best person to lead the nation, and progressively. His selfless morality, and his personal strength convince me that he is the one who can begin the long road back from the morass inflicted on the world by the criminal lot in DC.)

[venable]

172. check upcoming NATION issues

[karynnj]

81. Kerry didn't hide Edwards - Kerry got very little coverage himself

If it weren't for CSPAN I wouldn't have seen much (of any length) of either other than their convention speeches and debates.

[smoogatz]

52. Edwards is pretty and smart enough, but the only thing he's proven

is that he knows how to be part of a losing ticket. I think the "Two Americas" message was precisely the wrong theme at the wrong time in '04, when Americans were concerned over national security and the war in Iraq, and is proof of Edwards' political tone deafness.

[venable]

54. excuse me, please

so Edwards' astute Two America speech was wrong?

How about it was the right thing to do, because it is immoral to not point this out, to not speak about poverty.

The man has the courage of his convictions.

Tone-deafness? The most celebrated stump speaker in recent memory is tone deaf?


He was part of a losing ticket. Granted. Take a look at the contours of the ticket, and how he was used.

[smoogatz]

57. It was the wrong message for the '04 race.

It smelled to a lot of moderates like the warmed-over liberalism of the '70s. The contours of the ticket? How amusing. How many southern states did Edwards bring in for Kerry again? Hmmm?

Edited to change year of race in heading.

[venable]

58. not bashing Kerry

but you can not blame Edwards for not bringing in southern states with this ticket.

let me put it this way:

Edwards' SC poll numbers for favorability (at the time of the Dem primary) >

Dems - 77%
Ind. - 72%
Rep. - 70%

Had he been at the top of the ticket, several southern and midwestern red states would be blue. Again, Rove knew this (as evidenced by his private statements to several people)

[smoogatz]

62. Maybe. He certainly wasn't capable of arousing the passions

of Southern voters enough to convince them to vote for Kerry, which was the whole point of putting him on the ticket. And favorability polling, as we know, doesn't necessarily translate to voting behavior. I think Americans were ready to hear the truth about Iraq, and they were ready to hear the truth about Bush's economic policies. Neither Kerry nor Edwards did a particularly compelling job of telling it.

[AmericanDream]

70. How much did he get to campaign in the south?

Kerry did not even compete in southern state... they only held 3 Edwards rallies in his home state of NC... three? How can you even think of winning if you are not interested in competing for the votes of the people in a state?

Edwards is certainly capable of arousing the passions of southern voters... he needs a chance to be able to show this capability.

[smoogatz]

72. Let him run for the Senate again, then.

Based on your reasoning, Al Gore should be the candidate in '08. If anybody deserves a second chance, it's him.

[venable]

75. Edwards was taken out of the loop

for reasons that historians will try to uncover. Clearly he was not used to great effect.

If you don't believe he can inspire Southern voters, you haven't seen him in the South.

I do not blame Edwards for not carrying Southern states. I blame the campaign.

[venable]

63. and aren't we looking for leaders

that speak to what is morally correct, not JUST what is politically expedient.

As for National Security issues, he is not quite the neophyte that unthinking journalists label him.

He has travelled quite a bit as a Senator, and since. His intelligence has impressed foreign policy types and foreign leaders.

What we need is clearly not a warrior (that didn't work), what we need is intelligence and courage. His statements that he made a mistake in voting for the war resolution is clearly an example of courage.

[smoogatz]

67. We're looking for progressive candidates that can win

a national election. Edwards may fit the first part of the bill, but I say again--his message was wrong for the '04 race. Either he's ahead of his time, or 30 years behind--you choose. But '04 was the year to talk about Iraq, Bushco corruption, and Bush's economic policies favoring the rich over the middle class. Remember them--the majority of Americans who are getting screwed by Bushco?

[DemDogs]

86. Edwards was ahead of Bush in NC

Before he dropped out in March of 2004, he was ahead of Bush (marginally, but hey~ ahead) in North Carolina. Don't know if any Southern state could have been won with Kerry at the top -- which is what even Kerry was saying (how he could win without the SOuth) in the primaries. But you can't win there without playing there, and Kerry didn't play in the South. So, you are right, without any commercials and without any campaign and with Kerry at the top of the ticket, Edwards couldn't win any Southern states.

[smoogatz]

88. A fine set of rationalizations.

All true, to one degree or another. Still, shouldn't the mere presence of one of their own on the Democratic ticket have inspired Southerners to go to the polls and vote for the guy who was smart enough to include Edwards on the ticket? Maybe if Edwards could have passed for a RTKBA, semi-hard-shell Baptist we'd have had something. Instead they tried to sell him as a southern JFK--and pretty much nobody bought it.

[ultraist]

93. Oh, please. KERRY lost the South. He didn't even campaign here

Furthermore, people vote for president,not VP.

Remember, Edwards won SC in the primaries, not Kerry. Edwards was out in front of Bush in NC early on, not Kerry.

Kerry drug down the ticket in the South and it certainly didn't help that he didn't even campaign here and that he said early on, "I don't need a Southern state to win." Well, thanks, Senator Kerry for WRITING US OFF! Even Dean knew that was a mistake.

[smoogatz]

99. Then what was the point of putting Edwards on the ticket?

If not to rally support in the South, then what? I agree that Kerry made a mistake by conceding in most of the South (except Florida), but surely the presence of a southerner on the ticket who has all the fine qualities you ascribe to Edwards should have made a difference in at least ONE state--no?

[ultraist]

127. To bring in rural Iowa and Ohio voters.

Why do you think they had Edwards mostly in those areas, campaigning? People in Iowa LOVE Edwards. He did come in a very close second to Kerry in the primaries.

[second edition]

117. Thats the first time I heard that Kerry brought down the Southern

vote. I got news for you, it was never there. That is why there was a strategic decision made to not expend to much in the South. It was expected however, that Edwards had a chance of bringing in North Carolina. Was this the best strategy? I don't think it was, but that is open to discussion and we have since, I believe decided that we do need to reach the South along with the Mid-West. And as for dean, he realized that we needed to change strategy after the election and after he became DNC Chair.

[ultraist]

128. Edwards was showing he could win NC over Bush

There were several polls that showed this. Generally, Kerry was not well received in the South for obvious reasons.

[AmericanDream]

68. Political tone deafness? Yeah, that is what they said about Lincoln's

House Divided speech. If you don't see the emergence of this great socio-economic divide in this country and you don't think it was morally courageous of Edwards to bring it up even when others tried to play the politically correct messages, then I guess you will have company with a lot of other people who chastise politicians for speaking the truth, and not being "political" enough.

[smoogatz]

73. You're comparing Edwards to Lincoln now?

Get a grip.

[AmericanDream]

74. No way am I doing that... however, I'm comparing you to those who....

who always encourage politics over moral courage.

[smoogatz]

77. You should reread your post. You most certainly compared Edwards'

moral stature to Lincoln's, in an attempt to discredit Edwards' critics. But whatever. What about the moral courage it would have taken to attack Bush for taking the country to war based on a pack of lies? It's called addressing the issues at hand, not introducing pet issues that are irrelevant to the majority of Americans. Edwards might as well have run on a platform of protecting the spotted owl--right or wrong, the poor just weren't on the national radar in '04.

[AmericanDream]

82. Umm... and maybe you are misreading my post...

I said that what you said was also said of Lincoln by his detractors. That does not make Edwards an equivalent of Lincoln... instead, it just highlights one common thing they can both point to. And, while not comparing Lincoln the man with Edwards, I was merely pointing out this similarity that is speaking truth about a given issue and being chastised for it not being politically useful enough.

Anyway, I guess we have different readings of Edwards' message.. it is probably because my national priorities are different than yours... which is fine.

[smoogatz]

111. You said criticizing Edwards message is like criticizing Lincoln's

"House Divided" speech. It's right there on my screen. Logically, then, you're claiming that Edwards' "two Americas" riff is somehow the moral equivalent of Lincoln's stand against slavery and against secession. And that's probably the silliest thing I've read on DU in at least a week.

[AmericanDream]

113. Let's try this again....

I was comparing their politics and tactics, rather than the content of what they were arguing. I simply said that instead of talking about what "the country wanted to hear" ... they were talking about "what they thought the country should hear." Now, does that mean that the subjects of their rhetoric were of equivalent merit and importance? ... no.

However, the point simply was that when politicians talk out of morality, people like you are ready to shout 'em down. And, in that, Edwards and Lincoln have this in common: they were not just talking about what was politically profitable, but about what they thought was right.

I said "criticizing edwards' message is like criticizing Lincoln's...".. not because their message has the same level of merits and urgency, but because it stems out of a breed of politics that is so rare: talking about the unpopular, but just cause. So, please use your "logic" for some deeper understanding before going about being horrified by my supposed silliness.

And, the fact that you could not decipher my simple statement comparing the motivation behind Lincoln and edwards' speeches... is probably the most severe lack of analytical abilities I've yet encountered "on DU in at least a week."

[smoogatz]

115. "People like me"

Oh, I get it--now I'm shouting Edwards down. Cripes. Did I say I disagreed with his message? No, I did not. I said I didn't think it was the right message for the '04 election--which it obviosly wasn't because it didn't exactly galvanize the nation in support of the Kerry/Edwards ticket. What the country needed to hear, in my view, was that Bush took us to war based on a pack of lies, and that Bush's pro-corporate and pro-rich economic policies were sticking it to the middle-class--both of which were and are true, and both of which were highly germaine to the election at hand.

As for your goofy Edwards/Lincoln analogy: there was a substantial audience that wanted to hear exactly what Lincoln said, when he said it. Enough to elect and re-elect him to the presidency, in any case.

[AmericanDream]

120. Actually, Lincoln lost due to that speech...

This was the speech he made at the republican convention kicking off his bid for the senate.. and he lost! His own friends thought that it was a politically bad move. Anyway, nevermind the whole analogy... I guess every time you bring up a noble man (lincoln), people look too much into the references. Mine was not supposed to have any hidden implications about Edwards being like Lincoln. Except for that one quality I mentioned.

As for not galvanizing the nation, Edwards' message was not even used during the campaign. In fact, that was the problem with the Kerry campaign... there was no coherent message... everyday there was a new speech with a new theme... there was no theme-based stump speech. Like Clinton had his : Economy, stupid and healthcare focused speeches. The Two Americas speech raised Edwards from a second tier candidate to the vice presidential candidate. I do believe that if the campaign had presented a sound economic vision, people would've responded. But I agree that foreign policy and the war needed to be addressed as much if nto more. Bottom line: we needed a message in both areas; and we didn't have one in either. Atleast, Edwards was offering a good appealing vision in one aspect...

That was Kerry's mistake... you have to distill your thought and ideas into a few themes you think are most important and try selling those... you can't be talking about something today, and another thing tomorrow.

[second edition]

118. It was a very nice speech all the times I heard it.

Edwards is a good guy, I like him. I just don't think his leaving the Senate plays well and this one speech does not a president make.

[ChiciB1]

109. DIDN'T LOSE! Didn't Lose!

Remember the GANG in the WH!!! Dirty, nasty S.O.B.'s and MAYBE, just MAYBE it might get proved in the not too distant future just how truly devious they are!! Two timing... FRAUD!!

How ANYONE could choose Hillary over Edwards is something I'm unable to understand. Hillary has ONLY her name, and I've seen VERY little else that she's done!

I know, it's NOT Hillary we're talking about, but I'm afraid I'm just too sick of all the HILLARY "we love you, our beloved LEADER" from MSM. Quit trying to stuff her down my throat!!!

Go, JOHNNY... I'm following!

[smoogatz]

110. Letting the election get close enough to steal is the same as losing.

Obviously.

[gulfcoastliberal]

56. I like Edwards. Also like Gore. But Kerry had his chance and blew it.

Gore won his election and deserves to be in office. Edwards resonates with the "Two Americas" message.

[second edition]

78. Kerry did a good job.

He was up against a lot more than Gore ever was. And, actually, Kerry received more votes than Gore did. Gore didn't even capture his own state. I don't mean to bash, but it is hard to fathom just why Gore was not way out in front. He had a lot of positives to run on. The only thing I can think of is that people were tired of eight years of Clinton and liked Bush's personality more than Gore's.
As far as Edwards, nice guy, but he just doesn't have the credentials to to run. he isn't even directly involved in politics anymore and he didn't help win his home state for Kerry either. Kerry isn't perfect, but I'd be willing to give him another go at it before I would consider Gore or Edwards.

[Auntie Bush]

83. Well, I peron ally like Clark and he could get us out of the mess

in Iraq the best way possible. He's also concerned, interested and knowledgeable about economical issues and is very progressive.

[second edition]

105. I appreciate your opinion, but I don't see Clark as being in the

same league as Kerry on issues other than Iraq. I'm not even sure the Iraq war will have as much significance in three years. People are asking for timetables and pull outs now. We may still be involved in 2008, but not to the extent we are now. Bigger issues may be the economy,employment,environmental issues and the squeezing of the middle class with security issues falling somewhere within the list. Clark is certainly a nice guy, I am not so certain about how progressive he actually is though, he was a Republican and he hasn't been a member of the Democratic party all that long. We shall see how things work out. VP doesn't seen unrealistic IMO.

[Auntie Bush]

178. He was never a registered Rethug ...was Independent.

The military are suppose to stay out of politics. In spite of that he voted for Clinton and Gore. Try reading some of his policies and you will see he's just as progressive as Kerry, Gore or Edwards. Check out his progressive way of handling military families and it will give you a good picture of his philosophy......

I don't mean to interrupt on an Edwards thread...but I can't stand by and not correct a false statement about Clark. After all this time...I would have gotten to know him. That Rethug stuff comes right out of their playbook. Please don't fall for that stuff.

[ultraist]

87. Edwards for President!

Edwards will take us back to our roots as Democrats. He has the charisma, the passion, and the conviction to speak to the heart of Democratic values.

Edwards also has a broad appeal that reaches out to both progressives and moderates. Further, it will be very difficult to "swift boat" Edwards and paint him as a "dirty liberal."

I want to WIN and Edwards has the ability to take back the WH. He is very electable, unlike Hillary who is showing in polls to be the number one Dem candidate.

[smoogatz]

90. Hard to Swift Boat?

Well, let's think back a year and try to remember what the Republicans said about him then:

1.He's a former one-term Senator with no national security credentials of any kind, and a very liberal and undistinguished voting record during his short time in office.

2.He's a smarmy little trial lawyer who made millions suing doctors.

3.There's no there there. He looks good, smiles nice, but he's got no substance.

4.He keeps talking about two Americas when what we need is to unite the country in a time of war.

In fact, they have a point. If the Republicans are smart and run Giuliani, Edwards is going to look like a total lightweight in comparison.

[GreenArrow]

123. "lightweight"

It wasn't too long ago that Big Dick Cheney was cleaning his clock in the VP debate. No matter that Cheney lied shamelessly; Edwards came off as a callow, shallow, and way overmatched kid.

Let's keep this guy in the private sector, please.

[AmericanDream]

124. yeah, that's why the majority in the polls said he won the debate....

[GreenArrow]

130. IIRC

the debate was considered fairly even, with a slight edge to Cheney.

Kerry won all three of his, handlily, not that it mattered, but Cheney spanked Edwards' punk ass red.

Upon examination, it looks as though Edwards won two out of three of the main post-debate polls -- CNN, ABC, MSNBC -- so what do I know?

It doesn't matter. I voted for Kerry, in spite of his war vote, and in spite of his picking Edwards as VP. The only way Edwards needs to be in the Oval office is as a guest.

[DemDogs]

153. Edwards won two out of three

main post debate-polls. That's the only thing that makes sense in your post.

Did you even watch this debate? Did you see these two men? Cheney is fidgeting and hold his hands still. Edwards is completely calm and collected. And Edwards not only didn't back down on a single thing, he attacked Cheney, which is what I think threw Cheney into the shakes.

[GreenArrow]

155. see if this makes sense

My post probably would have been clearer if I had made an editing notation. The first two paragraphs were the original post, the second two were the additions on edit.

Bush defeated Gore in the 2000 Presidential debates. That's the conventional wisdom, isn't it? Not that Bush was so great, but by performing better than expected, he won. IMO, Gore TROUNCED him in every one. Talk about red-assed spankings! Now, go back to the Kennedy/ Nixon debate. Radio listeners chose Nixon as the winner, while those watching on Televsion chose Kennedy.

What I'm getting at is that no, I did not "watch" the debate; I listened to it on the radio. In that medium, Cheney came off as serious, staid and august, while Edwards came off as a sort of drawling, high-pitched Energizer bunny. Or a puppy dog. It is funny that you mention Edwards holding his hands still, since there were quite a few posts on here the night of the debate criticizing him for his exaggerated hand gestures. There were plenty of posts commenting on Cheney's skaking hands as well. Cheney was just as likely in the shakes because he is a very sick man. Niether one threw a knockout punch. Cheney lost nothing for Bush, Edwards gained nothing for Kerry. While techincally a draw, IMO, considering all the baggage that Cheney carried, Edwards could have done much more. Therefore, advantage incumbent.

I listened to all of the debates in 2000 on radio as well. It does give one a different perspective. Maybe Edwards appeared better on TV, but it didn't come across on the radio.

[AmericanDream]

161. Did you say radio? See, that is the problem....

I have no doubt that if you heard it on radio... he didn't come across as too impressive. It is the same as the nixon, kennedy debate... when people heard it on radio.. they thought it was a tie... but those who viewed it, knew kennedy did. Same applies here.

Edwards is a visual player... his physical presence is as important to his personality as just his voice or words. There is no way Edwards came across as a "high-pitched Energizer bunny." In fact, this debate was termed to be quite ugly and very serious by all commentators... and so it was.

You can say that you weren't satisfied with his answers, but there was no way Edwards came across as anything less than a very serious candidate. Go watch it on c-span if you should.

And, objectively, I think it was a tie... because cheney is not bush... they actually argued like adults (well, except for Cheney's scare tactics to fear the crap outta Americans), unlike Bush's debate approach. For Kerry, the target was too easy... if Edwards was to go against Bush, he would've crushed him.

[DemDogs]

198. Edwards was animated and in control

I didn't say he was a statue. I said he was calm and collected. He obviously felt comfortable in his skin. And his gestures -- particularly those where he moved his hands toward Cheney unnerved Cheney. The consensus after the debate was that Edwards beat Cheney.

[venable]

241. Edwards lost to Cheney, you say?

Cheney seemed staid and august, and Edwards like a 'puppy dog'...

I find these very strange impressions, especially from a progressive. Cheney's 'august' manner is transparently arrogant and pompous except to the most tin-eared listener.

Edwards is famously successful for his composure, the clarity of his arguments, and his persuasiveness.

He reduced Cheney to flat-out lies, and had him barely able to contain his fury.

Many voters agreed with this.

I'd wager Green Arrow's reaction to the debate is a function of just not liking Edwards. Fair enough. But to describe the debates as you have is highly subjective and not shared by many others. Again, fair enough.

To exptrapolate, though, that because of this (and whatever else it is that makes you think so little of Edwards), makes Edwards unfit for the Oval Office, is not fair.

Check out what he actually says, and the kind of support he gets from voters. Give the guy some serious media coverage (which he never got, in the primaries or in the general) and he would sweep this country into the the side of the good guys.

[GreenArrow]

247. I think the actual debate was a draw

with Cheney winning the first half, and Edwards the second. And since Cheney didn't really lose anything, and Edwards, despite being the aggressor, didn't gain anything, Cheney wins by default.

I suppose that while those must seem strange impressions from a progressive, bear in mind that I don't consider Edwards to be a progressive; but rather, a slick, glib, rhetoritician who trades on his looks and toungue to get what he wants. That he is more progressive than Cheney goes without saying, but that doesn't make him progressive himself.

While my preception of the debate on radio was that Cheney won, I also had a chance to watch Edwards during the primary debates. He didn't impress me there, either.

You are very astute in understanding that I do not like Edwards, but that being said, I always try to grade debates and such fairly. But picking the winner of a debate really tends to the subjective isn't it? Going back to my examples in the earlier post, how was it that people percieved Bush as the winner over Gore in their debates, or what to make of the disparity between viewers and listeners of the Nixon/Kennedy debates?

While I can appreciate that Cheney's 'august' demeanor is arrogant, pompous, and ultimately fake, I can't overlook that Edwards has his own fake persona, and no doubt, his persona (and looks) being considered preferable to Cheney's went a long way to his being considered the winner of the debate. You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar, I suppose.

But, when all is said and done, Edwards just strikes me as fake. He's a manipulator, and as a politician, not unique in this. But I don't like it. His stale rhetoric doesn't move me. I don't percieve that he is in this business for reasons other than ego-gratification (again, not unique in a politician). But people seem to like him, and he inspires them. He very well may be a very decent and likeable guy, something that could not be said about his Republican counterpart (though somehow, people do say it), but there are plenty of "nice" guys I wouldn't want as President. I may be alone in thinking him a "fake," but what to do? This is a country that elected Nixon(twice), Reagan (twice), Bush I, Clinton (twice), and Bush II (maybe twice). Fake sells.

[DemDogs]

251. Interesting that you threw in his looks

I am not one of those who think that women fall over because of the way he looks, but I do think that there are some men who resent that he looks good. "He must be shallow." What? He combs his hair? "He must be a manipulator."

I think that the only way you can conclude that Edwards is fake is to think that before you hear him. Try it with anyone: assume that they are trying to fool you about who they are, and I guarantee they will seem like that. Edwards is good-looking so some people, and it seems to be primarily (but not exclusively) men, decide before they hear him that he is just a face.

A self-aggrandizing man would have done the Lieberman bit and kept his feet in the spotlight. Edwards gave up his seat in time for the NC Democrats to nominate a strong candidate to take his place. (Which didn't work out, but that's not on Edwards; it was Bowles second run.)

Let's not be so self-destructive as a party that we don't give the guy a chance because he happens to look good. If it wins a few shallow votes, so much the better for us, cause those votes were going somewhere and I'd rather they go to a Democrat.

And, BTW, most Americans disagreed with you. The focus groups that night thought, and I thought, and the MSM that night thought Edwards had won. But, hey, Kerry won his debates, too, at least the first two.

[GreenArrow]

255. how often do you ever hear Edwards' name

without mention of his looks? Or his charisma? Whether we like it or not, our looks help dictate the perceptions people have of us. The problem I have with Edwards' looks is not that he is handsome, but that he looks vapid. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts would be a Republican of the same type. Norm Coleman would be another. Evan Bayh would be another Democrat. Of course, handsomeness itself doesn't determine someone's abilities, but it can be an ally in the political game, and Edwards certainly has used it to his benefit. It would be hard not to, for any politician.

You can look aat it the other way as well; Bush's smirk, Cheney's sneer, Bolton's mustache, Condi's glare, all ought to be giveaways to these people's characters, but their looks haven't seemed to work against any of them. Yet I distrusted all of these people instinctively, on first glance, even before I heard them speak. (In Bolton's case, I heard him speak long before I saw what he looked like, and found him as foul on a visual basis as he was on an auditory one). While Edwards is not repellent in the same way as any of the above, I find my distrust of him no less instinctive. While I find them evil, I find him insipid.

His looks notwithstanding, Edwards doesn't impress me on the issues either. I don't like "Morning in America" reheated, which is what Edwards' speechifying reminds me of. Part of his appeal is that he gives people hope, makes them feel good. Bill Clinton once said, "Nothing that is wrong with American cannot be fixed by what is right with America". But America will never fix itself if it cannot focus on the things that are wrong with it. Sorry, but Edwards' Pollyanna optimism doesn't cut the mustard in 2005. He is better on Domestic issues, though still far right of where I'd like to be, but on Foreign Policy, he holds to the same old broken ideas of Imperialism, and cultural supremacy, the White Man's Burden. His support of the Iraq War, then and now, is a no-sale.

He aggrandized himself by simply running for VP when he already had a six year contract with his constituents. It drives me crazy when someone runs for one office, and then serves part of a term, or cheapens their term by running for another office. Complete the job you have before you take another. Yes, he had already announced he was not running for re-election, but he still had a responsibility to his constituents to finish the job they paid him to do. I suspect that if Edwards had been home more, that he could have helped Bowles, but who knows.

It less about looks than what a candidate brings to the table. I just don't see Edwards bringing much other than his looks and charisma. I would really like to see in 2008 some new faces.

Going back to the debates, yes, apparently most Americans disagreed with me on the winner. Won't be the first time, won't be the last. (See: Gore/Bush debates 2000). I agree with you on Kerry/Bush; Kerry thrashed him in the first two, and just scraped by in the third one.

[venable]

266. your criticism of Edwards

is something I hear a lot from very bright and serious progressives.

As an Edwards supporter I come across just this 'Pollyanna' criticism quite a bit.

I'm new to this site, but your thoughtful prose stands out. It reminds me though of someone who is responding, however intelligently, on an aesthetic level more than a strategic, analytical view of the man.

Granted, the war vote is tough to swallow. (I've pointed out here that he has admitted the mistake of this vote, and I am assuming this contrition will be noted in future discussion of the war and his vote. I also believe that his reversal will, strangely, be seen as a measure of his ability to lead. Certainly, admission of mistakes distinguishes him from most of the political crowd these days.)

But if you take a close look at his domestic ideas, you might find, as I do, that they express a passionate embrace of the "left wing of the possible'.

Please try to look past your aesthetic, gut reaction to his 'fake, slick' manner. There is much more to him, and his camp needs people like you, ie those who give triangulators no quarter. For therein lies his strength, I believe. He is not a triangulator.

[Inspired]

141. Really?

I don't think the general public came away with the same impression as you did. Callow? Shallow? Details please from the debate that helped you form these opinions. Cleaned his clock? God, sounds like a direct quote from Patrick Buchanan following the debate on MSNBC.

[SunDrop23]

100. Many of us think he'd qualified, but to middle American just say

things like

"...only a one term senator."

"...not enough experience."

"laywer."

And that's all they need to hear to vote against him. You may as well call him a communist.

[DemDogs]

199. Voters don't elect resumes

Bush wouldn't have gotten a single vote against Gore.
Clinton's clock would have been cleaned by Big George.

That's not how they think or how they vote. And as for inexperienced and lawyer, ask Faircloth how well that worked for him in NC.

[BootinUp]

201. Governor vs Senator, not the same thing

at all.

[DemDogs]

214. What does that even mean?

More ridiculous thrusts by the Clark crowd, furious that Edwards has this thread. Gee, maybe you could get Wes to leak his candidacy (like he did mid-way through Edwards' announcement in 2004) again . . . or maybe you could get over it. If you haven't got anything intelligible to say, you shouldn't be kicking the thread up.

[BootinUp]

220. Clue:

Governors are more successful running for Pres than Senators. So your comparison of Edwards to Bush in 2000 is flawed.

I'll go back to being furious now, cya.

[1932]

221. Senators do better in open elections, and I think it's obvious why.

When you're running against a president, it helps to look like you've run something to on an executive level. The only thing remotely close to running the US is running a state. Senators running against presidents look like subordinates running against their boss. Governors aren't subordinate to presidents. In fact, they sort of have their own fiefdoms.

But in an open election, it's two people who were never president running against each other. In that case, neither the governor nor the senator has ever been president, so people aren't so concerned with whether a senator is more prestigious than a governor. Both have won statewide elections. Both have serious jobs. In fact, Senators generally have better name recognition than a lot of governors.

[BootinUp]

224. Well I don't agree.

Governors have won the majority of races in recent history. The consensus of the pundits appears to be that Senators have a tougher time defending their record than Governors do.

[1932]

227. If it's a fact, you can't disagree with it.

Here is my theory: Incumb/Presidents beat Senators, in open years Senators beat Governors, and if an Incumb/Pres looses, it's only to a Governor -- T or F?

For VPs winning, I'll go by previous job (to which person was elected), and * it. If there is some other permutation, I'll put an X and explain.

2004-T Inc beats Sen
2000-T* (if you think Gore won)
1996-T Inc beat Sen
1992-T Inc lost to Gov
1988-X* (if you think Rep is closer to Senator, this is T* -- Rep beats Gov)
1984-T Inc beats Sen
1980-T Gov beats Inc
1976-T Gov beats Inc
1972-T Inc beats Sen
1968-T/X* (both candidates were Senators -- no governors made it to final round)
1964-T Inc beats Sen
1960-T/X* (all Senator final round)
1956-T Inc beats gov
1952-X (DDE won without ever being elected to anything, beats Gov)
1948-T Inc beats Sen
1944-T (FDR beat a Gov)
1940-X (Wilkie had never been elected to anything)
1936-T (FDR beat a Gov)
1932-T Gov beats Inc
1928-T (Gov lost to guy never elected to anything.
1924-F/X (in an open year, a governor beat an ex-Representative)
1920-T (Sen beat a Gov)
1916-T (incumb beat a Gov)

Before that, Senators were appointed not elected. They were a different breed of candidate, so the comparision isn't the same.

Lessons:
- In open elections it doesn't look like Governors have an advantage. The only Gov winning in an open year was 1924 when the opposition was a former member of the House, if you don't include Bush v Gore.
- Against incumbents, Governors sometimes win, but the also lose alot. Senators don't beat incumbents.
- In open years, often Governors don't even make it to the final round.

[BootinUp]

230. I'll rephrase

I don't agree that your theory is more relevant than a simple count of total Governors being elected vs total Senators elected (not VP's) in the last 50 years or so. We could even look at a percentage of each group that was successful vs those that tried. I would also exclude those who were out of politics for more than about 2 years, as that throws another major variable into the equation in my opinion.

[1932]

233. Here is my argument:

Since 1916, In open years (which are rare, since one termers are rare, and since FDR had four terms, one president resigned, one was assassinated and one died in office) Governors don't have an advantage over everyone else. But in running against incumbents they do. (By the way, note that the three abreviated terms all produced Presidencies for former Senators, denying them the chance to win outright as Senators, presuming they could have won, and all thee either didn't run the maximum number of times allowed by law or, in Ford's case, ran and lost).

Many former governors have been president, but they happen to be, perhaps, disproportionately, people who beat incumbents (Clinton, Reagan, Roosevelt -- these three collectively went on to win 7 more elections, taking up almost half of all the presidential terms since 1916).

I believe the lesson is that if you start ruling out non-governors in open years, you're throwing out a class of candidate that history suggests does very well in open years (GHWB, Nixon, Kennedy, DDE, and the almost all the rest).

And also remember, in the seven open elections since 1916, Governors are the only people to lose to someone who was never elected to any office before running for president (in 52 and 28), in addition to losing in 88. Of the remaining open elections, senators have won three, and GWB won another. Other than W, a governor has only won one open race, and that was against a Representative in 1916.

Perhaps the lesson is this: we should recognize that only about one in three presidential elections are open, and their rarity might encourage some people to think the rules that apply to other races (governors do well). However, if you look closely at open years, different rules do seem to apply.

[1932]

235. Correctiion:

Four ex-governors have beaten incumbents (WJC, Carter, Reagan and FDR).

I'm sure there are other mistakes, but I just caught that one.

[DemDogs]

225. Okay, how about JFK vs. Nixon?

Nixon was VP for Pete's sake. And JFK's resume didn't look too different than Edwards'. Voters don't choose based on resume. Never have, never will. And if you think that it is because someone is a Governor, like of Arkansas -- bottom-5-in-everything-Arkansas, you are sadly mistaken. Voters don't care. Senators have more trouble for a couple of reasons. One, they have a lot of votes on hot button issues, some of which are explainable (part of an Omnibus bill, it was passing anyway, it was a procedural motion) but no one cares about the explanation. Therefore the more time, the more votes and the weaker the candidate. Second, and this one clearly doesn't apply to Edwards (and largely didn't to JFK): they start talking like Senators. Kerry couldn't make himself stop. Even Gore attacked Bush in their debates by demanding what he thought of "Norwood-Dingell". Jeez. It was the Patient's Bill of Rights and Gore referred to it by the House sponsors' names. Since Edwards didn't start talking like that, but kept talking the way he had talked to juries about complicated things, respectfully but so they could follow him, he doesn't have that albatross.

And maybe you could read through my other posts, and if you find any more typos, could you point them out and kick the threads to the top again? Thanks so much.

[BootinUp]

228. Edwards experience and qualifications

are slim anyway you slice it, thats the point. Oh no I kicked the thread.

[Texas_Kat]

257. If I remember ...

There was also a hurricane that week and JRE was polling 2% or less in the polls.

I don't know that re-announcing his candidacy (He'd been fundraising for it since at least January 2003) was news to anyone.

Maybe John Edwards should be grateful to Clark, at least it got him a slot on the Daily Show. Jon Stewart hadn't been interested in him before,

[DemDogs]

263. Actually he did the Daily Show before . . .

the announcement. And he did the announcement because he had promised to do it on an earlier stint on the Daily Show.

BTW, wasn't he great last week with Stewart?

You are delusional if you think Clark is the reason Jon Stewart likes Edwards. And you are just plain wrong in your dateline about what happened first.

[Texas_Kat]

269. You're correct...

Thanks for bringing this up because it forever debunks the old resentment from Edwards supporters that General Clark somehow "stepped on" Edwards' official announcement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards

Edwards unofficially began his presidential campaign as early as 2001, when he began to seek speaking engagements in Iowa, the site of the nation's first party caucuses. On September 15, 2003, Edwards unofficially announced his intention to seek the 2004 Democratic Presidential nomination, on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (a news and political satire show), thus fulfilling a promise he made as a guest during TDS' coverage of the 2002 Mid-Term Elections. The next morning, Edwards made the announcement official from his hometown, Robbins, North Carolina.

September 15, 2003 - Edwards unofficially announced his campaign on the Daily Show
September 16, 2003 - Edwards officially announced his campaign in Robbins
September 17, 2003 - Clark announces his bid for President.

I have no idea if Jon Stewart likes Edwards or not.... nor did I imply that. Stewart seems to like a lot of people.

[Catchawave]

102. What a nice thread Erika...

I need a break from the Va Gov race and those mudslinging GOPPERS and their slimeboy Jerry Kilgore :crazy:

I enjoy talking about America's future shining stars and how they will help us in '05, '06, '07 too :patriot:

I love the email updates from One America too, especially from Elizabeth, her latest:


Dear Dxxxxx,

Last week I wrote to you about our upcoming Book Forum, and I asked you which of the books on our list you'd prefer to read. Thousands of you voted, and we now have a winner!

The winning book is "God's Politics" by Jim Wallis, a discussion of politics and Christianity in America today. I've actually read some of this book already (it's very good), and I'm looking forward to finishing it, and to hearing your thoughts on it. Thank you for the great selection!

The Forum is open now, so be sure to pick up the book soon. When you receive the book, visit the Book Forum Page, which can be found on the One America web site.

During the last Forum, John and I read some profound insights on David Shipler's "The Working Poor." We're eager to see what you think about this one. Our community is lively and diverse; the conversation we strike up is sure to be informative and thought provoking. John and I are very much looking forward to it!

Thanks again for participating, and enjoy the read!

- Elizabeth
****

[Carolab]

159. He went to Bilderberg last year before Kerry announced him as RM.

That is ENOUGH for me to exclude him.

I only voted for these two because of Dean.

They whole Skull & Bones/Illuminati thing is a BIG DEAL and I will NEVER overlook it again.

[ChiciB1]

103. YIPEE! YIPEE!

I'm glad to keep this one kicked! For months and months and months I've been touting his credibility!

He has many pluses, and I've listed many of them so many times before.

While many have basically forgotten their brief glimpse into POVERTY in America due to Katrina, he remains committed to the cause. He had already started his OWN campaign against it a long time before the hurricane.

I can only hope that even though he has been panned as simply a one term Senator that people will wake up to how much he has to offer.

I've said it before, I'm a Liberal, but this is one person I will Proudly Vote For! And his wife is his equal and would make a fantastic First Lady. Even surpassing what many thought about Hillary's capacity! She has grace and empathy and delivers her message with absolute compassion!

Go, Johnny, Go!!

[politianskissit]

107. Whoever it is, they just better win.

Elizabeth and John Edwards

[robbedvoter]

119. Never met a war he didn't like! 4 more wars! yeaaaaaa!

Almost as breathless as harriet miller on W.

[AmBlue]

125. ummm.... it's Harriet MIERS...

...not miller.

And, for the record, I like Edwards too. The man can exudes hope, which is what America needs right now more than anything. He's smart enough to turn this nation around, too. If you read his book, "Four Trials," you'll really get a peek into the integrity and brilliance of John Edwards. He's a national treasure and if we don't recruit him for the top job, it'll be our loss.

[robbedvoter]

133. Hope for...war? patriot Act?

As for Miers/Miller - understandable Freudian slip.

[AmBlue]

135. Edwards does NOT support the Patriot Act as is...

...and neither Edwards nor Kerry would have taken us to war on the phony "evidence" that Bush did. Here's Edwards before the primaries:

Q: Do you support revision or repeal of the PATRIOT Act?

EDWARDS: I support dramatic revision of the PATRIOT Act. The last thing we should be doing is turning over our privacy, our liberties, our freedom, our constitutional rights to John Ashcroft. First, the very notion that this administration can arrest American citizens on American soil, label them an enemy combatant, put them in prison, keep them there indefinitely-this runs contrary to everything we believe in this country. The notion that they are going to libraries to find out what books people are checking out, going to book stores to find out what books are being purchased. What we have to remember-and I will when I am president-is what it is we are supposed to be fighting for, what it is we are supposed to be protecting. These very liberties, this privacy, these constitutional rights-that's what's at stake in this fight. And we cannot let people like John Ashcroft take them away in an effort to protect ourselves.

[GreenArrow]

131. Please God NO!

Sorry pal, you had a chance to be VP, and you blew it. Glib charm, shiny hair, and big teeth do not a president make. Maybe he should go into the media. He served one (somewhat distracted) term in the Senate, ran a losing campaign as VP, will have been out of office for eight years, and other than his Ken Doll looks and phoney Pollyanna optimism, offers nothing.

New faces, new ideas in 2008.

[AmericanDream]

134. Jealous?

I've noticed that the only men who find it so necessary to mock Edwards' looks are those who are insecure and/or jealous themselves.

Your whole criticism of him is based on the superficial. *shrugs*

[GreenArrow]

136. nah,

Not the whole, but a large part of my criticism of him is that he and his ideas IS and are superficial.

Judging on looks: It's kind of ironic that Edwards has so many adherents largely because of his looks and "charisma," or that Kerry picked him as VP at least partly based on those same looks and charisma. But I don't suppose somehow, that that is "superficial." Bush is constantly criticised on this board and elsewhere for his "smirk" but I suppose it would be "superfical" to assume that the smirk could actually indicate something about the man's character. Of course, Bush is supposed to have charisma too; how many "charm offensives" has he been on anyway.

When it comes to politicians, charisma and looks are about last on the list of qualities I value. In fact, anytime those are a candidate's main selling points, red flags start waving.

[venable]

210. that is not a critique

that is a list of reasons that you choose not to listen to what the man has to say, which is considerable, and which takes place well above ad hominen, um, "discussion"

take a closer look, with open eyes

[GreenArrow]

259. the man has yet to say anything

that I have found remotely interesting, timely, or original.

[MrSlayer]

137. President of what?

Certainly not the United States.

Edwards is a nice enough guy and all but he put everything on one throw of the dice and lost. Not for nothing but he wouldn't have even won his Senate seat back had he attempted to regain it. We need someone with great international policy and diplomacy skills as well as the smarts to tackle the tough agenda at home. Edwards has the latter but comes up woefully short on the former.

[wiley]

138. Edwards has the latter?

He made a killing on that Haiiburton stock that "he didn't even know he had". Where have I heard that before. Love the blank check he gave to Bush and fellow criminals for the Iraq war. Other than that what did he actually accomplish in the Senate? Nothing.

[MrSlayer]

139. Well I was saying he's a smart guy.

The Iraq war vote I threw under the "lacking in foreign policy skills" thing. I didn't know he had Halliburton stock or that he lied about it. That drops him lower in my estimation.

[Inspired]

140. Does he own Halliburton stock?

Proof please. I know he owns foreign stock, which he owes no apologies over, but I question the Haliburton stock. Enlighten me with facts please.

Thank you very much.

[MrSlayer]

142. You would do better to pose that question to wiley.

Since he made the original statement. I merely said I wasn't aware of it.

[Inspired]

145. Sorry about that

hopefully wiley will respond....with facts.

[MrSlayer]

146. No problem.

I'm interested myself, this is new info to me.

[wiley]

163. His campaign even issued a statement about it.

"During the buildup and aftermath of the Iraq war, Edwards bought and sold stock in several defense contractors, including Lockheed Martin, United Technologies, General Electric, British Petroleum, and General Dynamics."

http://tinyurl.com/357rl

There are 13,000 web sites that have a reference to John Edwards and his Haliburton stock, which he sold during the campaign when he realized he owned it. He claimed it was a blind trust kind of thing. He made a bundle off it.

[AmericanDream]

166. Yet you can't provide us with one free link ....

Where are those 13,000 web sites? I'm not contesting your assertion... but can we have links other than those that have been expired or cost money, please?

Do you have the statement by his campaign? I'd be interested to read...

[wiley]

179. Of 4 Choices, 4 Millionaires for 2nd Spot in Kerry Run

Of 4 Choices, 4 Millionaires for 2nd Spot in Kerry Run
http://tinyurl.com/yugh7
By GLEN JUSTICE

WASHINGTON, June 14 - As Senator John Kerry takes a closer
look at potential running mates for the Democratic ticket,
he will find that the four senators he is considering have
one thing in common: Like him, they are millionaires.

According to financial disclosures filed by the Senate on
Monday, the four, John Edwards, Bob Graham, Evan Bayh and
Bill Nelson, all listed assets in the multiple millions for
themselves and their families.

The wealthiest was Mr. Edwards, of North Carolina, a former
trial lawyer and presidential candidate who reported assets
of $14.3 million to $44.7 million. His disclosure forms
also show that he and his wife - who kept their assets in a
blind trust - benefited from buying the stock of several
military contractors in the days before the United States
invaded Iraq.

The poorest of the possible vice-presidential candidates in
the Senate - at least by millionaire standards - was Mr.
Nelson, of Florida, who listed $1.8 million to $7 million.

Mr. Graham, also of Florida, another former presidential
candidate, listed assets of $7 million to $30 million and
Mr. Bayh, of Indiana, reported $3.3 million to $5.1
million.

"That's the Senate," said Stanley Brand, a former general
counsel to the House of Representatives who advises members
of Congress on ethics. "It has become a millionaires club."

Lawmakers file financial reports annually, listing the
value of their assets and liabilities within a range rather
than using exact amounts. The numbers represent stocks,
bonds, cash, real estate and other investments that they
held last year.

Mr. Kerry released his report earlier this year, listing
personal assets of $417,000 to $2.1 million in four trust
accounts. He also holds $250,000 to $500,000 in bank
accounts jointly with his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry.

Ms. Kerry, who is the heir to the Heinz food fortune, has
assets estimated at more than $500 million. The money has
been the source of some scrutiny in this year's election.
Those on the list of potential running mates may receive
similar scrutiny, as Mr. Edwards found out Monday when his
disclosure showed that he bought from $15,000 to $50,000 in
United Technologies Corporation stock in a joint account
with his wife on March 13 of last year, a week before the
United States invaded Iraq. The company manufactures
Blackhawk helicopters through a subsidiary. Four months
later in July, Mr. Edwards sold two blocks of the United
Technologies stock, each worth $15,000 to $50,000,
disclosures show. The shares had risen more than 32 percent
from March 13 to July 22 of last year.

Mr. Edwards also bought $1,000 to $15,000 in Lockheed
Martin Corporation stock on March 12 and $15,000 to $50,000
in late April. The company helps manufacture Patriot
missiles. In September, he sold company stock worth
$100,000 to $250,000, disclosures show. Those shares had
risen more than 15 percent from March 12 to Sept. 22 of
last year.

Mike Briggs, an aide to Mr. Edwards, said that the
purchases were made through a blind trust by a financial
adviser and that the senator had no knowledge of the
transactions at the time. Later, when Mr. Edwards was
running in the presidential race, the transactions were
reported as part of his presidential disclosures, said Mr.
Briggs, an Edwards spokesman.

"He went above and beyond what is required in the law," Mr.
Briggs said. "He didn't know he had these stocks."

Mark Glassman contributed reporting for this article.

[1932]

177. I'm starting to see a pattern here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1851002

[wiley]

180. 1932

Look at your own history of posts. Analyze them. Your pattern is to post anti-Clark messages whenever you have an opportunity. That's actually less frequent than your pro-Edwards posts.

[1932]

183. My pattern is this:

a concern for issues relating to globalization and neo-liberalism and arguments supported by facts and logic. I also provide links.

I also stick around to defend my posts, and I'd be ashamed if I made claims that turned out to be deceptive (like citing a report that didn't even cover the period I claimed it was covering or if I misidentified something as being supported by SOA Watch and it turned out to be NED propaganda).

The pattern I was seeing is innuendo made without links that send me googling and finding 13,000 links to posts at sites like newsmax, rushlimbaugh.com, and right-wing blogs.

I was interested in your claim that Edwards made money off defense companies. I was curious when I did the legwork to that you (initially) wouldn't do for DU'ers. Thus, I deciphered the pattern.

[wiley]

185. I've been served!

Sorry I can't hang out on one thread 24/7 to respond. I kind of like to have time and give time to people to respond. My initial response to any claim is to look it up myself. I'm sure that Edwards has his press release concerning the matter archived at his site. It never ceases to amaze me that those people who so ardently support Edwards don't come forth to defend him with such documents. Considering that Edwards used uber Republican neo-con Hugh Shelton as a campaign adviser, I really question why any Democrat supported him.

Read what Rumsfeld and Myers and Wolfowitz have to say about him at
http://tinyurl.com/bvvz6
Here's a litlle quote from there, by Edwards' home-boy Shelton: "If I could summarize my career I would summarize it as one that has been over-recognized and over-honored for the hard work that a great group of professionals in uniform, men and women in uniform, made happen. Today is no exception. I'm honored to be here today to receive this, although as the Secretary said I was reluctant to come when he first told me there was going to be a hanging here today."

We could argue to no end since you have a preconceived idea of what day to day living is like in Venezuela. The Chavez propaganda is good, and better than even the Bush admiinistration at obscuring the details of reality. It completely ignores that those poor people who are helped are usually only those who either pledge (voluntarily, in some cases) or are intimidated into backing Chavez' well armed thug enforced policies. Unfortunately, right wing bloggers and other sites dislike Chavez for other reasons. Anyone like Chavez, who has an army of people who murder those who attempt to bring up issues in a democratic manner, is not to be hero worshipped.

I have no idea what neo-liberalism is. I know an ambitious, neo-con backed political vector when I hear the dulcet platitudes of the subject of this thread, however.

[1932]

188. It's one thing to say those things. It's another thing to support them

with evidence and something more than innuendo.

You claimed to cite an Anti-SOA site to support a criticism of Chavez and cited an NED organization instead. Why?

"Uber neo-con Hugh Shelton"? Huh? Your quote there doesn't support that claim. It's just more innuendo and guilt by association.

If that's what you want to do here, fine. But if it is, please don't be upset if people "serve" you with the charge of innuendo, guilt by association and echoing right wing sources.

What do you say we just have higher standards than right wingers.

If you think Chavez is bad, then tell us how. If your sources are bunk or don't support your claim, find some more. Certainly your opinions are formed by facts, no?

If you think Edwards is a neocon, tell us how. Do you know what the neocons want? They want to make corporations and rich people incredibly wealthy through foreign policy. Tell us how Edwards is doing that. A blind trust and a prayer breakfast don't support that argument

[DemDogs]

202. Edwards owned NO Halliburton stock

Cripes, some people will stoop to anything to bomb a thread for a candidate other that their own.
The statement that Edwards had Halliburton stock is a total lie. Go through his financial disclosure statements if you don't believe me. But I'll tell you right now it's a waste of time.

It BURNS ME UP that people on DU will lie like that. We are supposed to be better than that.

[1932]

175. Who's your source? CEIJL?

NED?

DoD?

[DemDogs]

154. I guess you missed the debates

When Clark was there. What did you see? A fellow who said he was pro-health, pro-abortion (!!!!), who didn't have any idea was Fannie Mae did. That's Clark. The same fellow who spoke at several Republican fundraisers. Now I have heard all the excuses, but tell me this, can you imagine John Edwards speaking at a Republican fundraiser? Being the draw for people to give money to the GOP? GEEZ. Enough of big ol' pictures of this fraud. Give me a real Democrat. One who didn't have to learn that we are, largely, pro-choice not pro-abortion.

[wiley]

164. Edwards has spoken with Cheney at the same event

Edwards says he doesn't remember.

[AmericanDream]

165. What are you talking about?

Edwards never said he doesn't remember... he played smart by not responding to Cheney's stupid claim. By doing so, the story became about how Cheney lied. If Edwards has gone on the defensive and corrected him there, the story would've been about how Edwards was put on the defensive by Cheney. That was a sharp move for him.... and he never said he didn't remember, he said that he decided to counter punch rather than get on the defensive. As a good attorney, he knows that if you start defending yourself and let the other side take the offensive, you weaken your image. And, that is why he went on the counter-offensive... and it worked. As I pointed out above... a majority, esp. among independents, thougth Edwards won.

[1932]

176. Wasn't that a congressional prayer breakfast.

You must know that those are bipartisan. Everyone is invited.

[wiley]

182. Yes, it was.

Bipartisan? Perhaps.

[1932]

189. So that was just innuendo?

[DemDogs]

203. Edwards remembered

But he stuck with the substantive answer.
Hard to forget sitting for hours next to Cheney at the National Prayer Breakfast.

[1932]

222. If Edwards had mentioned it during the debate, Cheney could have said

"see how unmemorable you are." That would have been even bigger points for Cheney.

I wonder if Edwards didn't say anything to Cheney because he couldn't think through to what Cheney was going to say in response.

[AmericanDream]

229. This is why I think he didn't say anything...

As I said earlier... he played smart by not responding to Cheney's stupid claim. By doing so, the story became about how Cheney lied. If Edwards has gone on the defensive and corrected him there, the story would've been about how Edwards was put on the defensive by Cheney. That was a sharp move for him.... and he never said he didn't remember, he said that he decided to counter punch rather than get on the defensive. As a good attorney, he knows that if you start defending yourself and let the other side take the offensive, you weaken your image. And, that is why he went on the counter-offensive... and it worked. As I pointed out above... a majority, esp. among independents, thougth Edwards won.

It is all about perception and impressions...

[BootinUp]

206. Is that what makes a leader? The correct buzzwords?

Clark had the right ideas and a record of lifetime achievements, worthy of consideration by many of your fellow Democrats. He was a serious contender and he undoubtedly will be again, only this time don't count on the missing buzzwords.

[byronius]

150. I'm in. Throw in Clark and I think it would fly.

[BootinUp]

190. Does this look like a man you can just throw in?

This is the real thing with real solutions not some fluff for the ticket. If I misread you then my apologies.

[Clarkie1]

211. Clark is looking seriously grim and pissed-off these days.

Looks ready to kick some more pathetic chickhawk ass.

[byronius]

254. I've always been torn between Clark and Edwards.

Together, they're damned near a perfect leadership team. I don't care who leads the ticket, really. Clark/Edwards 08! Let's do it!

[Clarkie1]

151. What about your local congressional and senate races? n/t

[frogmarch]

156. Edwards has stock in

EuroPacific Growth Fund. So what?

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php?page=business&story_id=080504d3_wiles

(snip)

Mutual funds are populist by nature, and EuroPacific, run by the respected Capital Group in Los Angeles, is a supreme example with 1.24 million shareholder accounts and initial investments as low as $25.

All this isn't designed to explain Edwards the politician but rather to defend Edwards the investor. Because if he's wrong, then so are about 30 million other Americans.

[Jane Austin]

157. Not without a convincing repudiation of this God-forsaken war.

Sorry, but that's his big failing for me.

[DemDogs]

218. Edwards said it was a mistake, the war and his vote

Check earlier in this thread.

[dolstein]

158. I thought he'd be a stronger candidate than Kerry in 2004

He simply came off as more "real" than Kerry. He was definitely more likable. Unlike Kerry, he actually had a message. I don't know if he could have carried any Southern states, but he'd have been competitive in a few, and there's no doubt in my mind that he could have carried Ohio.

[AmBlue]

160. I knocked on a lot of doors...

...during the campaign last year and I had so many repugs tell me, "Now, if it was Edwards instead of Kerry, you'd have my vote." People liked Edwards better and, like it or not, the sheeple vote for whoever is most likeable and can speak to them on their terms. Edwards was, and is, that man.

[Catchawave]

169. Same here....JRE has cross appeal

not only to conservatives but non-voters too. Alot stayed home on election day :( Remember, 75 million people stayed home on election day, those are the people we need to be reaching!

[venable]

173. his appeal is with everyone but racists

that would be the only segment of the population that can't abide him.

Even hawkish patriots (who by now are privately thinking this war does nothing for their hawkish patriotic interests) would find a way to be happy to be led by Edwards AWAY FROM THE WAR.

[DemDogs]

217. Agreed. And here's one time we agree with Rove

Word in DC was always that Rove didn't want Edwards because he played against every "strength" of Bush. Likeable? Edwards was more likeable. Ability to "hang"? Edwards could hang better. Southern? Edwards is a real Southerner. Even Christian? Edwards was raised a Southern Baptist, and that National Prayer Breakfast that Cheney forgot about in the debates, Edwards was the chair of it. And Edwards had cards Bush couldn't play: understanding the working man's life, presentable children -- including a terrific daughter the same exact age as the Bush twins.

[Enraged_Ape]

184. I, for one, thought the ticket was upside-down last time

Edwards always had the harder job in debating Cheney, focusing more on domestic issues, etc. And yet he always kicked a$$. And his wife is a gem, as well.

I would enthusiastically, wholeheartedly, without any reservation whatsoever, endorse an Edwards candidacy. I think he has appeal across the board.

[KoKo]

186. EEEeeeeeeeeK.......running out of the ROOM. He has "ISSUES!" n/t

[HoosierClarkie]

187. Well...

:puke:

[RedstDem]

191. Better Than Most

He's Definitely Got What It Takes, but I Sure Would Love To see Him Rise To Governor Than Make a Run 4 Pres.

[AntiCoup2K4]

204. So let me see if I get the main objections to Edwards straight....

1) He was a one term Senator.

2) No political experience other than that

3) Before that, he was a lawyer


OK, these are all true statements about Edwards. Even better, they eliminate a much worse candidate from the 2008 race.

Thanks, all of you! Now I know for a fact I'll never have to read another Hillary thread on this board :)

[BootinUp]

207. Not that I'm a Hillary booster

but to say she had no political experience other than her Senate term is a bit naive.

[usregimechange]

216. John Edwards is one of my top picks. He kicks some major...

arse!

[Erika]

219. John Edwards shows the two Americas

He's fighting to keep us from being a third world country. He's got one heck of a wife!

[Yankee64]

223. John Edwards

I would vote for him.

[bunnywhiskers]

226. Edwards is not a criminal to my knowledge

So that right there makes him better than Bush

[BlueStater]

232. I would gladly support him if he ever decides to run again

I really wish he was vice president instead of the pasty old bastard we have now.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

234. Feel free.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

237. I like John Edwards

I *really* do, but having said that, I must observe that he's had his day in the sun, both as a presidential and vice-presidential candidate (primaries and general). He failed in both.

Nominating him for President in '08 would be tantamount to admitting that we have no new blood in the party, and no new ideas, either.

Meanwhile, a year from now, we have a chance to rid ourselves of the Repiglican majority in Congress and start getting some work done.

Focus.

[Digit]

238. I wouldn't mind an Edwards/Boxer ticket n/t

[1932]

249. I read somewhere on the internet (here? Kos?) that someone got phone

surveyed on this match-up. Who know who made the call (it's just as likely that it was Boxer's camp, or the Republicans than it was Edwards' camp). In any event, it's a match-up that someone thinks is sufficiently likely that people are being polled on it.

[derby378]

242. If he runs, he should focus on gun safety, not gun confiscation

I still remember how he went after that pool contractor whose pump badly injured that little child. I think Edwards should abandon any hope of reauthorizing the semi-auto ban, but I would love to see him go toe-to-toe with unscrupulous gun manufacturers that produce "junk guns" and "Saturday night specials."

[DemDogs]

250. We have to re-authorize the semi-auto ban AND emphasize safety n/t

[Seedersandleechers]

253. Edwards would be my pick, hands down.

[second edition]

258. Nice guy, I just don't feel his will be the right fit for Pres in 2008. n/

[ChiciB1]

265. WOW... Back For MY Fourth Round Here!! Makes Me Very

Happy this thread is still going strong! This Is One Fine Guy!! Right now, almost the ONLY person who has eyes on the WH who I'll even CONSIDER backing!!!

GO..... JOHNNY.... GO!! I'm still here for ya!!

[wisteria]

267. Edward's just doesn't enthuse me. He is a one speech kind of

guy. It would have been nice if he had been VP. That way he could have gained experience and grown into the presidential role.

[Clarkie1]

270. Out of 300 million people in America, Why Edwards?

What makes him the best choice for our next leader?

He wants to help the poor, and I'm all for that (so are most Democrats), but what else is there besides looks, charisma, and slick trial lawyer rhetoric?

Edwards is a nice guy and a successful lawyer, but he's nothing unique. What we need in these times is an experienced world leader.