2008 - If Iraq is "off the table" - Edwards looks really good

[elfin]

And I am a Clarkie.,

If domestic issues which have international repercussions (ex. wages, health care, outsourcing etc.) take their rightful prominence, Edwards is poised to take advantage, given his groundwork on poverty issues since 2000. .As a Hillary alternative, he gains even more. Then Clark as VP.

If Iraq (or Iran/Syria) still boiling -- then back to Clark for defense/foreign credentials.

[Ignacio Upton]

1. The broader WOT will still be an issue

Al Qaida won't go away just because we are no longer in Iraq. If anything, thanks to Bush we will be dealing with an even stronger Al Qaida than in 2001, only one that is decentralized.

[BootinUp]

2. The problems created in foreign policy

will take years to repair, whether the military is in action or not. The nightmare is not over.

[politicasista]

3. Iraq and national security won't be completly off the table by 08

Corruption will be another factor also.

[brokensymmetry]

4. I like Edwards! n/t

.

[Catchawave]

5. I trust Edwards would have the good judgement

to choose qualified people to help him with the War on Terror, which is never going away anytime soon.

Have we not learned, that the President sets the policy ? Most Dems are already more qualified than Bush to run this country :hi:

[1932]

6. I think a lot of "Caring Democrats" got elected last Tuesday.

If the mood that produced that result continues to grow, Edwards is going to to be in a good position.

However, Iraq won't be "off the table." What will be different is the way people look at it. If people see that it's creating a lot of unneccessary misery in the US and in Iraq without doing anything to make America a better nation (and, in fact, doing the opposite), then Caring Democrats are going to do well.

[FrenchieCat]

7. IF, and that's a big "IF" Iraq is off the table, then all of the candidates look good....

Including Hillary, Obama, Vilsak, etc....

The Republicans would look even better...since it was their war.

Osama Bin Laden might still be a problem, and that pesky War on Terror.

Now if we could only prove that 9/11 was egineered by BushCO. then yes, different ballgame alltogether!

[1932]

8. According to McLauglin & Associates exit polling, people voting D cared most

about the war in Iraq (38%) and the least about terrorism (8%).

People who voted for Republicans cared most about fighting terrorism (30%) and least about corruption in congress (10%)

Independents and Democrats had the same order of priorities: War in Iraq first, and fighting terror last.

Things will defnitely change by 2008, but that order of priorities ended up in a lot of Democrats getting elected (and a lot of them were women, and none of those women were "Fighting Democrats").

[Clark2008]

9. No, no, no.

:cry: No more fluffy candidates. NO!!

Even if Clark doesn't run or doesn't get the nomination or whatever... I STILL will not vote for Edwards.

I cannot bring myself to vote for someone who I don't think is ready for the job - and Edwards was only senator for six years (and did nothing but help author the PATRIOT Act) and did NOTHING in his real-world job that would make him ready to handle this nation's difficulties.

I'm sorry Edwards fans, but I simply cannot, have not and will not ever see what anyone sees in him.

(I also never played with Barbie and Ken as a little girl. :shrug: )

[1932]

10. You should read the book in my sig line.

A lot of people didn't understand FDR.

[Clark2008]

18. Mmmm.... maybe not.

I read enough about the son of a mill MANAGER to suit me last time around - I couldn't avoid it.

[1932]

20. I'm still waiting for that quote from Pelosi's daughter...

...so I probably shouldn't even bother asking you for a cite for this one.

[Impashund Ubique]

31. Edwards' father

was a mill "worker" for much of his life, it was only after Edwards' graduation from high school (and as he left for college) that his father gradually moved up in seniority and reached the rank of SUPERVISOR.

Edwards has himself said that his family went through various phases - sometimes in poverty (when he was very little), sometimes on the border of it, sometimes doing fine. I really hope you decide to read some more about him - he's not as bad as you make him out to be.

[venable]

12. Yes. Yes. Yes.

What you call fluff, many others call intelligence, seriousness of purpose, compassion, hard work, courage, moral strength.

Edwards would be strong and clear in regards to Iraq, and has the exceptionally valued quality of being able to admit to mistakes.

Those of you hear who don't like Edwards will likely not change your minds. But you should allow that very many reasonable and progressive and peace loving people esteem him very highly, and are willing to put themselves on the line for him...not even really for him, as he would be the first to insist, but for what he believes.

Iraq will be on the table, I'm afraid, as will global terror. It will take a generation, and more, to begin to right the damage done under w, and the force of our interventionism (I'm thinking specifically of the Central American misadventures of the 80's). Edwards is part of the solution, a big part.

[BruceMcF]

26. If getting serious about success in the fight against ...

... terrorism means winning the hearts and minds of the Islamic world in competition against the False Jihadists, then there is a lot to be said for trying to claim the moral high ground ... terrain that America held after 9-11, but which Bush has squandered.

Its hard for me to judge how John Edwards stacks up in that regard compared to the other prospective candidates, given that he is the only one that I have heard talking about it.

[Catchawave]

14. "no more fluffy candidates" ?

:rofl:

[Impashund Ubique]

28. Playing with Barbie and Ken

A lot of us weren't too fond of dolls as little girls. However, some of us did grow up.

To say that Edwards has done "NOTHING" in his real-world job that makes him ready to handle the nation's difficulties, is to make visible the blindfold you won't take off. Your name suggests where your loyalties are. And I'm very glad you know your candidate and are impassioned about him. Yet, this shouldn't stop you from being reasonable about judging the other contenders' merits.

I can list a hundred things that I believe make Bayh, Edwards, Hillary, Obama, Feingold, Richardson all capable of handling this nation's difficulties. Similarly, I can also produce a list for why they might be less-than-capable for the job.

But, it is hard for me to come up with even one reason for feeling confident that Clark knows how to navigate the political world. Great Presidents are great Politicians. Clark's performance in 2004 was pretty bad, and he might have learned stuff. I will watch and judge. However, always remember that the issues of our day are resolved in a political system. A man who doesn't have stellar political skills is not a man who can redefine our party and our nation. For now, Clark, however much he knows about Foreign Policy (and I respect him for that), has shown a remarkable deficit of political skill.

[Thrill]

11. Trust me. I live in NC

Edwards can't carry this state even if he was the head of the ticket.

[venable]

13. Sorry, friend, but that just is not the case

There are serious anti-Edwards forces in NC, but he appeals to more, all across the spectrum. Of course, that's just my opinion, though I am not alone in holding it.

I no longer live in NC, but am still in very close touch with those who study these things, there in NC. He would deliver NC, and SC, and other southern states along with them.

[Thrill]

15. Stop fooling yourself

I've lived here for over 12 yrs. He's simply not as popular as you think. He wouldn't even of beat Dole for his own Senate seat. And he knew that. He won't even come close to bringing SC. No democrat is going to bring SC. I don't know where people get the idea that he is so popular around here. And its of his own doing. After he got elected we never saw or heard from Edwards until it was time to run for President with Kerry. Thats why he got the name "Senator Gone". And not just from Republicans. He never even came back to help guys running for the House.

Mike Easley who is the Governor of this state, and is very popular, among Dems, Repukes, and Independents would be able to take NC, but even he would have to fight very very hard to win this state in a presidential Election. And Easley for all his personality and popularity wouldn't take SC. Its just not happening.

[venable]

16. look at favorability ratings

for Edwards in NC and SC. Look at how he is viewed by: Democrats, Republicans, Independents.

I am sorry I don't have the links, but I can tell you (if you want to trust me) that in SC he is above 65% favorability amongst all three groups. Similar in NC. These are electable numbers, easily.

Anecdotal impressions and the not-so-clever nicknames they engender (Senator Gone) do not make for persuasive analysis.

I envy you being in NC for the last twelve years. Great state. But if that's meant to suggest authority: I've been living in/or heavily involved in NC for four decades. That doesn't mean I've got more authority in the matter, I just didn't want you to think that your residency made your argument true.

[Thrill]

21. It doesn't

but being here for so long, and being deeply involved with politics and the DNC here NC for over 12 yrs. I know hes not electable here. Not in a presidential race. He's simply not as popular in NC as people think. He messed up when he was a Senator and forgot where he came from. I would like nothing more than for the situation to be different and he was thought of better here. But its simply not the case. I'm not saying he couldn't win a presidential race nationwide. I'm saying he wouldn't carry this state. You really are reaching if you think he would win SC.

There is a small area of NC where people love the guy. But outside of that section he's just not a guy people are crazy about.

[Trajan]

25. Silly arguments ....

Who really NEEDS the Carolinas ? .... Do THEY elect Presidents ? ...

NOT progressive Presidents ....

Edwards is adored by many OUTSIDE of Carolina .... so why would you purposely insult us AND him with this inanely fallacious commentary ? ...

Believe it or not: there are 48 other states, full of good people ....

Sounds like Carolina can use some of them about now ...

[Clark2008]

17. I'm next door in Tennessee - and I believe you.

Edwards may be a Southerner, but he's simply not got the "it" Southerners look for in a presidential candidate. Not sure if that's machismo or manliness or sturdiness or what. But, he's not got "it," whatever it is.

[Impashund Ubique]

29. And yet he is the most popular dem, even trumping Bubba. n/t

[Catchawave]

30. Ford definitely had "it"...what happened ?

I'm so sorry for your loss down/over in TN, I really liked Harold Ford, Jr, he sparkled :D

[abburdlen]

19. Obama or Edwards?

For all of the positives that Edwards has going for him as a possible Presidential candidate what strengths does he have verses Obama. Both seem to fit naturally in to the "candidate of hope" mold. Both have humble beginnings and can appeal to average Americans. Neither has a long career in Congress and can wear the outsider tag with some credibility.

Part of Edwards buzz has always seemed in part to be the buzz itself. So now that Obama is the new "it" candidate what advantage does Edwards have over Obama?

[Impashund Ubique]

27. Edwards' advantages over Obama

You are right that Obama and Edwards have a lot of similarities and evoke a lot of similar emotions in people.

1. Edwards, if you've heard his recent speeches, actually has policy proposals and a narrative to sell them. Obama hasn't gotten there yet. While Obama is still depending upon triangulation (evident from the ideas in his new book), Edwards has actually been putting together a very progressive AND populist narrative/message/platform. The "buzz" only lasts so long. Once the primaries start, Obama will have to say something beyond working together and being less partisan.

2. Edwards has experience. Obama has never really been in a tough political contest; running against Keyes is a joke and Obama did very well without a real opponent. The only time he was in a tough race, he lost (congressional seat). Edwards knows the ins and outs of a presidential race. This is an advantage he shares with Hillary Clinton, Kerry and Gore.

[FrenchieCat]

35. Obama vs. Edwards?

1. One knew going into Iraq was not the thing to do in 2002, the other one didn't till three years later. So there lies the difference.

Foresight vs. Hindsight.....which would one prefer in a leader of the Free world.

[OhioBlue]

22. I think Edwards would be a great candidate n/t

[Hieronymus]

23. An Edwards/Clark ticket could win.

:loveya:

[Donna Zen]

24. Domestic policy=economic policy=foreign policy

Iraq will be different in 08, but it will still be with us. In fact, it will be with us for years. There is no area of policy where the executive branch has a freer hand than in foreign policy, and in a global economy, that looms large. I do not want to depend for decisions to be made by unelected advisers. We've seen how well that works.

Finally, I have a real problem with any candidate who travels to Israel and suggests that we can bomb Iran. That to me shows terrible judgment.

Edwards has been campaigning for the presidency for years, so maybe he'll get the nom. Who knows?

[JI7]

34. ???????

"I have a real problem with any candidate who travels to Israel and suggests that we can bomb Iran"

[Infinite Hope]

32. Clark is running for VP under Hillary...

he's close to Bill and Hillary.

[FrenchieCat]

33. Really! and who told you that?

Is it that one has to either be a sworn enemy or else one has got to be hooked up to someone's behind? Are those the two choices you provide?

You show such Depth and substance without even trying! :eyes:

[Clarkie1]

36. Um.....I would say the odds that foreign crises won't play a role in 08' are...

well, all I can say is...take a look at the world today and you tell me.