Feingold's Withdrawal: Good News for EDWARDS

[liberalpragmatist]

So, Warner's out. And now Feingold's out. That leaves John Edwards as the candidate most likely to pick up progressives and the most likely to pick up the support of Southern moderates.

The biggest thing the political pundits are missing is how good a position John Edwards is in for 2008.

Looks like the only thing now blocking Edwards is Barack Obama. Were Obama to run, it's likely that he'd suck up most of the non-support for Hillary Clinton and make it very difficult for anybody else to compete.

I wouldn't completely rule Edwards out even if Obama does run. And if Obama doesn't run, I would be willing to bet money on Edwards being the nominee rather than Hillary Clinton.

ON EDIT - Others have pointed out Gore. And they're right. Like an Obama run, a Gore run would completely re-shuffle the deck. So what said about Obama and Edwards applies with Gore as well.

Doesn't change the fact that Edwards benefits from Feingold's non-candidacy.

[RagingInMiami]

1. I like Edwards

He identifies with the working class.

[benny05]

33. Hello Raging

I PM'd you about something...shall I resend?

Otherwise, I agree!!

[ulysses]

2. funny you say that...

When I saw the news re: Feingold today, I realized that Edwards is one of my top choices for 08.

[Mojorabbit]

3. I'd rather have clark.

I'd like edwards for vp though.

[Carolina Voice]

80. Actually,

it probably would be a better team in reverse with Edwards at the top of the ticket.

[Clark2008]

4. According to the pundits...

But, in the real world, no. Feingold was more progressive than Edwards. More like good news for Gore and Clark, should either un.

[venable]

9. Edwards has real support

in all parts of the spectrum, including deep support among progressives, New Deal Democrats, labor, and grassroots activists.

His poverty work, his tireless championing of congressional candidates (he raised money for them, not for himself),his greatly increased international experience (India, Africa, China, Russia) put him in a very good position.

Rightly or wrongly, it seems Clark just doesn't have the same resonance with voters, for one reason or another. The press has decided that Clark is not a factor. I don't think this is right, but it seems to be the case. Gore is especially attractive as a non-candidate, but if he runs he will lose, fairly quickly, this attractiveness.

Obama is strong in a number of ways, but the weakness he would have is similar to what held Edwards back in 04, which is the perception that he is too green, and would not carry the nation.

[Pithy Cherub]

12. name one just one international treaty Edwards has worked on?

Most sought after from candidates this cycle: Clark and Obama. Clark resonates with this group, maybe you have heard of this constituency, veterans. Clark resonates with this important group, African Americans. You haven't been here long enough yet to know that may avid Clarkies here and in the real world are black. The press you so lovingly respect is the old media of dying newspapers and dwindling television ratings. No one discounts the new media anymore, Clark has substantial presence in the Left's Blogosphere and its real and lasting.

[Catchawave]

29. Does saving Clinton's butt count ?

from dkosopedia:

Edwards' skill as a trial attorney was evident during President Bill Clinton's 1999 Senate impeachment trial. Edwards, who was responsible for the deposition of witnesses Monica Lewinsky and Vernon Jordan, played a critical role in the Senate proceedings that eventually ended in the President's acquittal.

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/John_Edwards

[Impashund Ubique]

30. "Most sought after from candidates this cycle: Clark..." ?

Says who? Do you have any empirical data to support this assertion? Or is that just a wishful perception?

As for Edwards, he is part of the Uganda Rescue Commission, and he was also on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he traveled to UK, Israel, etc. to work on various global issues. Tony Blair wouldn't sit down and talk to him for an hour if Edwards was not relevant on the national stage.

Edwards has more international experience than Reagan, Carter, and Clinton had between the three of them, before becoming Presidents.

As for Clarkies in the real world: I would accept your assertion about most Clarkies being African-Americans. But are most African-Americans, Clark supporters? Given that Clark is still in the single digits in all national/state polls, I can't help but think that his support on the net is vastly overblown.

[Clark2008]

49. Edwards gets far more press than he deserves and Clark

gets far less than he deserves - if one goes by how much work someone has done in a lifetime.

Edwards is simply "pretty," and that nets him the media attention.

[benny05]

54. That's petty

Try a real argument or a different approach, such as I support General Clark and name 5 reasons or five examples that illustrate why you believe he would be the best candidate (in addition to that he opposed the war). Otherwise your response is superficial and you don't help General Clark by sounding envious.

[MalloyLiberal]

61. Yeah...that's why I dno't like Clark..his supporters

Sigh.

[Le Taz Hot]

63. They turn me off.

I swear they've got that whole LaRouche thing goin' for 'em. Too wierd for me and I'm in California.

[Crunchy Frog]

78. Oh good, someone for my ignore list.

I don't care for the namecalling. I especially don't care for being accused of being a LaRoucheite. For all I know, it may be a pot calling the kettle black sort of thing. Bye. :hi:

[Le Taz Hot]

90. LOL!

Oh, this guy's going to LOVE the primaries around here! That's just too funny!

[Crunchy Frog]

91. Ooh, did somebody just say something to me?

:rofl:

[Carolina Voice]

83. Well, I certainly haven't heard that one,

that Clark is the most sought after candidate. I am pretty well informed on the candidates and that one must have 'slipped right past me'. I guess I'll have to check the facts.

[Carolina Voice]

82. Treaties?

That certainly isn't the only criterion for being an excellent candidate. Edwards has what it takes to win and what it takes to succeed after being elected. That is what's important.

[venable]

85. unbelievable

that you say I 'lovingly respect' the press. that is just bizarre. read, my friend, before you go to your keyboard.

[Pithy Cherub]

88. think before you go to yours

[venable]

93. please explain

what that means. I ask you to read my post, which is fully devoid of any love for the mainstream media, before you type that I did say that.

your response is baffling.

[Pithy Cherub]

94. You vacillated then decided on behalf of the press...

"The press has decided that Clark is not a factor. I don't think this is right, but it seems to be the case." The qualifier but lands many in trouble. Truly sorry. If you believe the press is wrong - let them be plain wrong. You are too smart to allow them to undermine your critical thinking skills. It was the but that got me. Cheers! :)

[venable]

95. I see

but I was not saying that the press was right.. it was an observation that they are pre-editing the field. I even say that I don't think this is right.

After being in love with Edwards in about 02/03, I felt they did this (ignored him) in 04, until his good showing in Iowa. They definitely did it with Kucinich throughout. I think that there is nothing more insidious and dangerous than this supine and arrogant MSM deciding who is worthy of media coverage.

Frankly, and I'm sure you'll agree here: I think that Clark, once he got in the race in 04, never got the attention he warranted. This kind of dismissive treatment can kill a campaign. The blogosphere helps, offering many voices, but not everyone lives here.

[Pithy Cherub]

96. The vanity msm press

has an agenda that is molded into a narrative that is pre-picked to fit their horse race model. Substance is a by-product. Edwards gets more press now with a caveat - he's currently tied to Hillary and how it affects her chances. It will be an uphill climb. It is good he has strong supporters like yourself. National security is a strong prequisite for me and he has challenges to overcome in that area.

It shall be a glorious primary season - good luck!

[John Q. Citizen]

20. Clark has very deep support but not so wide support. I have good friends

who absolutly love him. I liked that he showed up and worked for Lamant

[Le Taz Hot]

62. Deep support among progressives???

Really? I'm ready for the citations on this one. Refresh my memory, will you? He DID vote for the IWR?

[Pithy Cherub]

89. Clark was not in the senate.

He testified before the Senate in 2002 not to go into Iraq. Many senators are wishing they never made that vote now and have publicly apologized. Others like Levin and Wellstone listened to Clark. The senator wannabe presidents did not listen and voted Aye.

[pstans]

5. Edwards/Clark/Obama

The rest are DLC hacks.

[Clark2008]

8. Edwards was DLC - and probably still would be if he were still

an elected offical.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=106&subid=122&contentid=250711

[venable]

13. wrong

you're just wrong. Edwards is the DLC's nightmare. You might ought to pay attention to what Edwards does and says, rather than just doing opposition research on him.

Why does every mention of Edwards turn into a Clark thread? It's pathetic. I've never once, not one single time, read a Clark supporter even mention his amazing poverty work, the best, most inspiring bit of activism in years. It's pathetic. Check out truly progressive sites, non-General-love sites, and you'll find that it is Edwards that a great many progressives believe is the best hope.

I am an unapologetic Edwards supporter, and it gets harder and harder to come here.

[Clark2008]

23. No - I'm not. Edwards was DLC. Why does this dismay you?

Not only was Edwards a MEMBER of the DLC:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/John_Edwards_Principles_+_Values.htm
Edwards is a member of the Democratic Leadership Council:

He also gave several keynote speeches and regularly wrote for their website:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?pagenum=8&kaid=106
Office of Sen. John Edwards | Speech | February 13, 2003
Foreign Intelligence Collection Improvement Act of 2003
By Sen. John Edwards
Today I want to talk about homeland security. First, I will talk about the serious shortcomings in the administration's response. Then I will talk about the six bills I've introduced in this Congress to improve our homeland security, including a bill today to overhaul the way we do intelligence work here at home.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=106&subid=122&contentid=250711
Office of Sen. John Edwards | Speech | July 30, 2002
Remarks of Sen. John Edwards to the 2002 DLC National Conversation: "Putting Responsibility First"
New York
Editor's Note: This speech is from the second day of the DLC's 2002 National Conversation.

I'm sorry, but if John Edwards is "many progressives'" last hope for the Party, then the Party is in some serious trouble.

In regards to Clark, I only mentioned him above because he and Gore ARE more beneficiaries to Feingold's decision simply because, like Feingold, neither supported the Iraqi War, while Edwards voted in favor of it. This is not a "love the general" thread - but Edwards is ONLY the beneficiary of Feingold's decision not to run in the minds of Edwards supporters and Beltway pundits. Feingold, himself, says he'd rather support a nominee who didn't support the war.

BTW, Clark's poverty work: He LIVED on salary of less than $50,000 for most of his professional life, which is more than I can say about Edwards. But if you must know what his plan is, here you go: http://www.clark04.com/downloads/pdf/Clark04_ChildPoverty.pdf

So - you tell me... what is Edwards' plan for Iraq? Apologizing for an idiotic vote does not a plan make.

[benny05]

35. so, everyone in Senate who was Dem was eligible

But you're right, Clark, who has never been elected anywhere, counts more to you.

[Clark2008]

48. Actually, yes. Americans LIKE a person who isn't a politician.

Espeically one who doesn't have the same persona as a snake-oil salesman.

[benny05]

55. Dear Clark Supporters

Please spend positive energy in promoting General Clark. Making snarks at John Edwards and his supporters does not endear anyone to your cause, and if anything, reflects badly on General Clark. Looks like a Rovian style of campaigning, which I suspect General Clark would wish to avoid.

You will note that most of us who do not support General Clark's candidacy do not snark at him. Instead, give 5 examples that General Clark has done in terms of executive governance and leadership, as well as any business experience and legal knowledge he has to bring to his candidacy, since he has not held an elective office. Talk more about the ideas he has presented at rallies when he campaigned for others. Talk about his book. But speak to what you know about him and why you support him.

[Carolina Voice]

79. Thanks for the hard work...

Edwards is certainlya fine candidate and one to be reckoned with. I am so happy to see him being recognized for the hard work he does too.

[Impashund Ubique]

25. RFK

In that sense, RFK, who was not really known for compassion as AG can be called ingenuine for his poverty crusades. People grow in politics, and so do their views. Lincoln, the President, was quite different than the man who first entered politics.

I'd like to believe that I am smarter today than I was yesterday - Abe Lincoln.

[benny05]

34. Not so fast

He is not anyone's...Edwards is an everyman.

[madmunchie]

39. Please, Edwards is NOT everyman's, he has a huge ego and a canned

speech that go old fast. He never even finished 1 term in office before he thought that he was eligible to be the POTUS. Talk about audacity. I don't care how charismatic he may be, he has no experience in Federal Government and showed his lack of knowledge on Foreign Policy when he voted for the Iraq War.

He waited until the political climate able to handle him admitting to a mistake.


He worked in the private sector his whole life and accumulated great wealth and an oppulent lifestyle and gave generously to charities....that doesn't qualify him to be the POTUS.

Give it up, most people of depth don't look twice at Edwards, because you get what you see with one glance.

[benny05]

46. Didn't you just contridict yourself? n/t

[madmunchie]

47. No, I don't believe I did

I, unfortunately, watched Edwards and even liked him in the beginning. Watching him over the last few+ years though led me to the conclusion that there isn't any real substance in a way that would convince me that he is actually qualified or deserving of the office of POTUS.

My point was that all you really have to do is to see him once. He gives a good speech, he is nice to look at, and he sounds uplifting - that is all that he has to offer PERIOD

I see others and I learn more each time I see them. They actually have backround, knowledge, CORRECT votes and observations. There are facts and figures. they know some if not many of the world leaders, they have a history of serving the people and their own financial detrement...

I KNEW THAT GOING INTO IRAQ WOULD BE A DISASTER, why didn't' the "brilliant" Edwards?

[benny05]

53. I'm glad that You Saw JRE

Obviously he floats my voting boat, and not yours, but to suggest to anyone else that they are superficial just because one sees his intellect and empathy beyond his youthful appearance is disconcerning.

Most senators voted for the resolution at the time. Some regretted it. Edwards was one of them who said a year ago today he was wrong, and he was misled. I don't doubt he was since it's become pretty clear that the CIA lied to Colin Powell, people on the Senate and House Intelligence committees, etc. No one got the same information.

It's easy for those who support a candidate who wasn't the hotseat at the time say he was against the war.

[madmunchie]

58. I didn't mean to offend you, I apologize

"but to suggest to anyone else that they are superficial just because one sees his intellect and empathy beyond his youthful appearance is disconcerning."

I didn't mean to his supporters are superficial, I just meant that he doesn't have much to offer beyond what you see initially when you first start looking at him. I need much more in the way of qualifications than Edwards could even dream of possessing. His qualification list is way too short for me. Intellect, desire and a brilliant legal backround are not adequate qualifications for POTUS. They don't even come close.

I guess what I meant to say was that I am a lot harder sell and that I will put any possible POTUS thru the wringer before they could ever come close to "floating my boat".

[madmunchie]

59. Oh, one more thing

I don't claim to be brilliant or even qualified to be POTUS, but even I knew that going into Iraq was opening Pandora's box. Each and every person that supported that and voted give Bush the authorization will have to live with the the rest of their lives. Every Senator gets an "F" for that from me and has to overcome a Hell of a lot if they ever want my support for POTUS for making that absolutely huge unexcusable mistake. There was no excuse for it. I don't care who had what evidence. Like I said before, I EVEN KNEW THAT IT WOULD BE DISASTEROUS if we went into Iraq. If me, joe citizen knew that, than the very least I would expect is that the Senators should have known that to and there is no excuse for their votes.

[benny05]

71. Fair enough

I understand your feelings. I'm willing to forgive those who said they were wrong and were sorry, but I know you are not alone about how you feel.

[Clark2008]

50. Everyman doesn't HAVE millions of dollars in their bank

account.

Everyman my ass.

[Catchawave]

60. Everyman should have the opportunity to put

"millions of dollars in their bank account", as he did.

[PeaceProgProsp]

65. ...and to do it through hard work and not because someone gave you

stock options as a favor, or some such nonesense.

[Le Taz Hot]

64. You just NAMED

three DLC hacks.

[benny05]

73. Can't Speak to Gore or Obama

But Edwards is no longer a member of that group. Hasn't been since he retired from the Senate.

[Le Taz Hot]

84. Actual membership in the DLC

is irrelavent. It's DLC mindset that concerns me.

[benny05]

87. Good Point

My read of Senator Edwards is that he's not of that mindset either. To go campaign for Larry Kissell of NC-08 and for Dem candidates at state levels, such as Ross Miller for SOS of Nevada, tells me a different story.

[Pithy Cherub]

6. LOL! Um, no.

Most Feingold supporters are against the war. Edwards voted for it and championed it until after losing the election. Most Feingold supporters are against the Patriot Act. Edwards skipped right up the front to vote for it.

Edwards can't compete with Obama for show power. They both have something in common - no lasting or real FP experience. Plus, Edwards needs the most stable Democratic voters of All - African Americans, to champion him. Obama will take it going away if you have two inexperienced pols speaking. And as an African American neither gets my vote in the primary. There is also this guy with name recognition looming out there named Al Gore.

[Clark2008]

7. Correct - even Feingold alludes to that, himself

And, yes, while I would strongly prefer that our nominee in 2008 be someone who had the judgment to oppose the Iraq war from the beginning, I am prepared to work as hard as I can through the Progressive Patriots Fund, and consistent with my duties in the Senate, to maintain or increase our gains from November 7 in the Congress and, of course, to elect a Democrat as President in 2008.

(from Feingold's email to supporters)

[AlGore-08.com]

10. He specifically mentioned Gore or Obama in a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel interview today

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/15992472.htm

Feingold rules out 2008 run for president
By Craig Gilbert

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

(snip)

Asked about the Democratic field, Feingold made it clear he preferred a nominee who shared his views on the war.

"The first choice would be somebody who voted against this unfortunate Iraq war. That may not be available," said Feingold, who was the only Senate Democrat considering a run who voted against authorizing the use of force in Iraq.

"Second choice is somebody who at least said it was a bad idea. . . . I would be happy if Obama or (Al) Gore ran," said Feingold, who said he was not offering an endorsement.

(more... )

[Liberty Belle]

11. Ummm.. how about Pelosi? The public will be seeing a lot of her now...

After all, it takes a woman to clean the House!

;-)

[ChiciB1]

14. He's My Guy!! Been So For Quite Some Time!

We NEED a Better Avatar For Him!! I heard more Gore rumors or saw a thread here I think.

If the DLC would "get off" the Hillary think, I actually think it's Edwards who will SHINE! He could have Obama with him as far as I'm concerned, but I like Gore/Edwards too!

[Marlie]

15. I'm with you

Love Edwards and think he deserves a better picture. I'm hoping he's on the
ticket, preferably President. He really cares about the country and everyone in
it, not just the wealthy. I understand he was furious that Kerry conceded so
quickly in 2004 and rightly so.

[Crunchy Frog]

18. I'd be happy to make you a custom avatar.

I'm good at doing avatars, just post a few pics that you like and I'll see what I can do.:)

Otherwise, I expect a fresh crop of avatars will appear when enough people announce their candidacies.

[ChiciB1]

26. Thank You... Now I Have To Find A Good Picture Of Him

I have some good pictures of my chocolate lab that would be nice. They're in my web shots right now and I have NEVER taken the time to figure out how to do "thumb-nails" if that is what you have to do.

I'll have to look around for a good picture of Edwards, but I most certainly will take you up on the offer! I'll write your name down and stick on my PC right now.

What about my dog for now??

[Crunchy Frog]

37. Go for it, anything you want.

Can you post the pic of your dog in this thread? I'll post it as an avatar pic. Feel free to PM me with any other pics you want done. :)

[ChiciB1]

68. Hi Again & Thanks... I Was Running Around All Day Today...

I will try to post some here... I guess I just copy and paste... correct???

[Crunchy Frog]

70. Yeah, just post the URL for the picture.

I'll make it into an avatar for you. If you want to post a few, I can give you a selection to choose from.

[benny05]

44. You may want to look at my avatar

I borrowed it from his web site, sized it to 48 x 48 p. I tried other photographs, but that one worked the best.

[ChiciB1]

69. It's Better... But Not As Clear As I Would Like... I Considered The

one from his One America site, but still want to look around. Thanks for the thought anyway.

[benny05]

72. I think we ought to petition Skinner on this one

There is many of John Kerry, two of Ann Richards, but only one of JRE and at that, it's not up to date.

[Crunchy Frog]

75. Pretty much, there's one official picture for each of the '04 candidates

(the Lieberman one has been removed). Most of the other candidate's pics aren't that good either. There's a bunch of Kerry ones since he was the '04 nominee, but only one each for the others. I expect and hope that they will do updated ones as the next crop of candidates declare.

In the meantime, I think we're pretty much stuck with doing our own custom avatars. I've gained alot of experience doing them, since I did a bunch of Clark ones, also did a couple for folks in the Kerry forum.

[benny05]

77. Thanks Crunchy

I made my own, but I'm certain you could do a better job than I and hope we can get a few more!

I hadn't noticed Lieberman's was gone.

[Crunchy Frog]

81. Yeah, the Lieberman one got replaced with this:

I'd be happy to do an avatar for you as well.

[citizen snips]

16. I agree

Edwards is making inroads with progressives and the working class.

[joeprogressive]

17. My major problem with Edwards

I used to really like the guy until recently. I was discussing presidential prospects in '08 with a liberal doctor and he told me he couldn't stand Edwards because he got rich by suing doctors for BS reasons. At first I thought this was typical anti-lawyer talk until I did some research.

It appears that the consensus in the medical community is cerebral palsy is not caused by something the doctor does at the time of delivery and occurs much earlier in the pregnancy. Therefore many of his multi-million dollar settlements were bogus. This was known at the time of the verdicts but he played on the emotions of the jury. It is very hard to write this because I think he would make an excellent VP but I can't support him in good conscience anymore. Fortunately we have many other options.

[liberalpragmatist]

19. It's an issue and I'd be interested in hearing his response

This column from FindLaw.com (posted on CNN) gives a credible defense:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/27/sebok.edwards/index.html

...Edwards won many large verdicts against obstetricians in North Carolina. One of the primary theories he invoked holds that cerebral palsy can be caused during delivery. Now critics are saying that theory was based on "junk science."

In fact, at the time, the medical profession was split on the validity of this theory. There were experts on both sides. Edwards called his to the stand; the defendants called theirs; the jury decided.

Now -- many years later, in light of additional evidence and science -- it seems that the defendants seem to have a much better case than previously believed. But all that proves about Edwards is that he couldn't see into the future. No one can, which is why we have trials, not oracles.

Consider the 1979 case critics often mention, in which Edwards won $6.5 million for a young girl named Jennifer Campbell who had been born with cerebral palsy in a rural part of North Carolina. The Campbells claimed that, given Jennifer's position in the womb, the doctor should have recommended a Caesarean section -- especially during the birth, once there was evidence of fetal distress.

At the time, even some defense experts seemed to agree. North Carolina operated under something called the "locality rule," which meant that reasonable care in medicine was defined by the standard of care of the local doctors. As Edwards tells it in his book, Four Trials, the defendant's North Carolina expert admitted in deposition that he would have elected for a Caesarean section at the outset -- and that, given his reading of the heart rate monitor records, he would have recognized fetal distress over an hour earlier than the defendant doctor did.

As noted, it now turns out that the causal link between physician malpractice and cerebral palsy is much less certain than was once believed. Furthermore, fetal heart monitoring--which was adopted by many hospitals in the '70's and '80's as a defense against claims of medical malpractice -- may not be as accurate a tool to measure fetal distress as previously hoped.

With the benefit of hindsight, many medical experts now feel the monitors produce too many false alarms, and thus too many unnecessary Caesarean sections -- resulting perhaps in too many erroneous findings of liability.

In 1979, however, none of this was clear. And therefore, the supposed "character" issue for Edwards is no issue at all.

[joeprogressive]

21. thanks for that info

I went ahead and started what will most likely be a very unpopular post but I want more feedback like this so I can make an informed choice.

[Impashund Ubique]

24. Jennifer Campbell case...

That case is one of the four that Edwards profiles in his book, Four Trials. Now, Edwards is by no means an objective source of information on cases he tried. Yet, I think he deserves to be heard too, right? The cases he writes about, regardless of what one's politics is, are actually very engrossing. Give it a read - he addresses some of your concerns there.

I think you raise a valid source of concern... however, I've read some reviews of his cases in Lawyer's Weekly and other legal journals... trust me, you can't just win cases by "playing on people's emotions"... especially in rural and conservative NC areas, where people have an inherent distrust for lawyers.

[Impashund Ubique]

22. The consensus in the medical community...

about Cerebral Palsy was not reached until after Edwards quit practicing. When he was a lawyer, the statutes in most states called for the doctor to do a c-section in cases of medical complications that lead to Cerebral Palsy. The cases he tried revolved around doctors who did not abide by their state statutes. That is why it was malpractice, and the fact that such cases were tried is what made the Medical community sit up and take the cases of CP seriously. The research then initiated due to the kind of cases Edwards tried led to what you refer to as the current consensus in the medical community. But that doesn't change the fact that the doctors, such as the one in one of the cases Edwards profiles in his book (Four Trials), were being negligent.

I hope you'd do further research about what exactly were the kind of cases Edwards tried. His image might be redeemed in your opinion, then.

[ChiciB1]

27. Thanks For Your Input Here... In Retrospect It May Have Been Something...

but at the time I don't think he was unethical. I respect him for going right out after the campaign of '04 and getting to work for those less fortunate. And he hasn't stopped yet.

That is just one reason why I respect him, he has many pluses and one very BIG one is his wife Elizabeth. She's a remarkable woman to me.

[Mass]

31. :delete

[1932]

42. I just have to say that this is total bullshit.

Read Edwards' book Four Trials. None of those claims were frivolous and there was clear negligence in each case.

Edwards became a very successful trial lawyer from his first North Carolina trial which meant that he spent the rest of his career only having to take the cases where hospitals and insurers were refusing to settle in cases where the negligence was very clear.

I think a lot of people don't understand the legal profession and the legal system which makes it easy to post bullshit like this.

But, if you want to learn something about civil trials, read Edwards' book.

[Inuca]

28. What exactly is Edwards' appeal?

I do not have anything AGAINST him, but I do not see anything particularly appealing either. He has an engaging personality, but his resume is very thin and I am not sure the man himself has enough substance, experience, depth, etc. for the job. I was disappointed when Kerry picked him. I could think of quite a few better choices, primarily Clark, military experience and might have carried AZ. In any case, I am completely dumbfounded by the enthusiasm Edwards seems to elicit here and elsewhere. Just my 2 cents....

[benny05]

45. I can give 5 reasons

1) Edwards is adept at bringing people together, both at rallies and online. If you look at his community (and granted the Clarkies have theirs), they are devoted to his causes. There have been many friendships formed over time at his blog, One America Committee. http://blog.oneamericacommittee.com. Check it out. It has a chat room, and an avenue to call him and ask him a question about any issue, such as healthcare, current legislation, etc. I've had one of my questions answered in one of his podcasts, which he does nearly every month.

2) For the guy having his morning cup of Joe and carrying a lunchbox to work, he advocates for unions, especially for those in the service industries since that are where most of the job creation is occurring. While Edwards doesn't belong to a union himself, his brother does and his family had union cards.

3) Yes, he had one term in the Senate, but it was enough to understand how it works, how to deal with complexity of issues, and since then, he's obtained a lot more foreign policy experience. He's been invited by leaders of several countries to talk or go listen and give input. His poverty center has brought a great deal of attention on a subject that was practically forgotten and of course, Katrina got on our tv screens.

4) What most pols don't have, but he and Elizabeth do, is empathy. Nearly all of the Dem pols are smart and have some appeal, but what makes him stand out for me is empathy, not to mention, he's very articulate.

5) Lastly, which is very personal on my part, this past summer, Edwards was visiting some old friends on trip through my state, and I asked his staff if I could meet him since he didn't get in my part of the state very often. His staff made time for a meeting. I'm not wealthy, I'm just a blogger. But he did it. Also, Elizabeth is very down to earth. She and I have chatted in the chat room, and she reads my blog, Benny's World, on occasion. I know she has because she made a comment on it one day. We also met this summer. When a friend had her book signed for me a couple of weeks ago, the note was simple, but it acknowledged me as a person.

So for me, it's about relationship building and our access to them as citizens.

[Clark2008]

51. Well, he certainly doesn't bring Middle Eastern and Muslim

people in the Research Triangle together.

That's for damn sure.

[benny05]

52. Not familiar with whether or not he does

Just know that he was invited by UAE and India to speak about a year ago.

[venable]

92. please explain

what JE did or didn't do in the Research Triange.

[Clarkie1]

97. My thoughts on Mr. John Edwards.

I respect Edwards for the work he's done on poverty issues. He seems to really care about the issue, and to me that is a sign of character.

On the other hand, his slick lawyer persona turns me off. I know this is just my personal bias, but when I watch him speak I feel like I'm watching a top-notch lawyer trying to sell a case and I don't like it. There's something that comes off as a little bit fake to me there.

The deal-breaker for me though is that I believe the Presidency is best served by one who has experience (the more the better) in international affairs, especially now. Edwards isn't the only one that can pursue a progressive domestic agenda from the White House. There are other candidates who can do that just as well, and are more experienced to take on the role of being leader of the free world in very chaotic times for the human family.

[blm]

32. Out of respect for the many Feingold supporters, shouldn't people back off and let them be

without parlaying their disappointment into a benefit for any other candidate?

I like to play tough as anyone, but sometimes letting supporters devoted to their preferred candidate have some grieving space is just the right and human thing to do.

[Catchawave]

56. Totally agree....

Though this isn't as bad as a previous DU poll asking: Are you happy Mark Warner dropped out? It felt like watching "grave dancing". DU's better than that.

[blm]

57. That's pretty much how I feel - We all know we're pretty impassioned politicos here

and that it kind of becomes an extended family, even when you're fighting for your points. So, it shouldn't be hard to understand that people are 'grieving' at a time like this.

I was horrified when people piled on Dean after the media hyped the scream lie. Simply horrified - because I truly cared for the people who were being hurt by the deceit of the media, even though we had just spent the last year fighting tooth and nail.

Dancing on the hurt feelings of other DUers is just ghoulish.

[David Zephyr]

86. Thanks for the wise words, blm.

:thumbsup:

[Auntie Bush]

36. Why do you come to that conclusion?

"Warner's out. And now Feingold's out. That leaves John Edwards as the candidate most likely to pick up progressives and the most likely to pick up the support of Southern moderates."

Have you forgotten there is such a person as Wes Clark? Why do you not at the very least discuss him as a possibility? He's from the South too and he has military experience. Who'd make a better Commander-in-Chief... Clark or Edwards? I'm thinking Clark! I doubt if we will be out of Iraq by 2008. You certainly have a right not to like him, but I do think he's viable enough to mention as a possibility.

I guess I'm just touchy because the media ignore him and I hate to see our fellow DUer's do the same thing so please don't take offense by this post.

[liberalpragmatist]

38. Oh I like Clark

I didn't mention him simply for reasons of simplicity and because he hasn't registered in early polls. But much can happen and I'd certainly be interested in hearing what he has to say. And even if I chose not to support him in the primaries, I'd happily and proudly support him in the General Election should he be the nominee.

[Auntie Bush]

40. That's what I call an intelligent open minded position.

I hope you seriously check out clark's website and listen to his speeches when he runs.

[robcon]

41. Hillary: Money and popularity

...and you think she's easily beatable?

She'll be our next president, IMO.

[FrenchieCat]

43. Amazing!

Everything Helps "Edwards"....even when the one dropping out says he'd rather support someone who didn't vote for the IWR THAT EDWARDS CO-SPONSORED....or someone who gave indication that it was the wrong thing to do. From where I sit, that's not Edwards being described by Feingold. :eyes:

[Adelante]

66. Well, I don't get it

I don't see what Feingold has to do with Edwards at all.

I'm sad Feingold made this decision and his supporters must be even more sad. :(

[politicasista]

67. We won't know until the prmaries and the debates

That's when the actual voters decide who helps who. Flame away.

[benny05]

74. See that's just it

Flaming does no one any good. Responding and saying why you disagree is better.

[politicasista]

76. Exactly

:hi: