John Edwards is our best hope. Could he wint he nomination?

[Tiggeroshii]

I haven't seen him ahead in any polls with Hillary in it, but on survey USA.com, he's the best Democrat when matched up against John McCain. I bet he could win in a landslide if he wins the Democratic nomination. But could he win?

http://www.surveyusa.com/

(I'm not sure why I made this a poll -habit I guess)

[Warren DeMontague]

1. I like Edwards, but I have to disagree. I think Al Gore is our "best hope".

And I really hope he runs.

[unlawflcombatnt]

6. Edwards, then Gore

I'd give Edwards a slight edge over Gore, but it's a close call. They'd be my top 2 choices.

[ruggerson]

19. In virtually every poll

Gore and Kerry have extremely high negatives. There is 55% of the country who would 'never' vote for Gore. That does not win elections. Even Hillary has lower negatives than Gore and Kerry.

Of the top three in the polls, Hillary, Obama and Edwards, I think Edwards is by far the most electable.

If it's an Edwards vs McCain matchup, it becomes the future vs the past and Edwards wins.

[Clark2008]

24. Hahahahaha!

Promise you won't hit me...

I was just watching the SNL skit of Jimmy Fallon and Justin Timberlake doing the Barry Gibb Talk Show and I thought your avatar was Barry Gibb. :rofl:

On the brain and all...

[ribrepin]

29. I like both Gore and Edwards

But can either win their home state? I think the nominee needs to be able to win their home state.

I think Gore was hurt more by losing his home state than the supreme court. In the end, the final argument in 2000 was that he couldn't even win his home state. It made me sad that Tennesseans wouldn't vote for their favorite son.

[Alcibiades]

66. The key question

We need a southerner at the top of the ticket for him to carry his home state. Tar heels understood that a vote for Kerry/Edwards was a vote for Kerry, not really Edwards. I do think Edwards is better positioned to win in NC than Gore is in TN.

Thousands more New Yorkers move to NC every day, putting our state in play. NC could be the crucial southern state that gets shaved off the bubba block to give the presidency to a Democrat in 08.

[KAT119]

68. Agree Gore is our best hope-Edwards attended a rather recent Bilderberger

annual meeting. Bilderberger and Illuminati are involved in PNAC-global domination. Google Bilderberger annual meetings and see his name as recent attendee-2003 or 2004 when he was running with Kerry for veep.

Fascinating list of US politicians plotting against the American people!

[Name removed]

69. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DesertRat]

76. Yes, re-elect President Gore!

[BruceMcF]

98. I long since gave up backing someone ...

... based on the political games, and simply decide which one I would want to win. So that leaves with Edwards, Gore, a pool of others I am not so sure about, Hillary, and then every Republican who is running rounding out the tail.

[Ediacara]

2. That thing at SUSA's site is the FUNNIEST thing I've ever seen

Seriously.... And then they want you to pay $50 for their "data?"

:eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl:
:rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes:
:eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl:
:rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes:
:eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl:
:rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes:
:eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl:
:rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes:
:eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl:
:rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes:
:eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl:
:rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes: :rofl: :eyes:

[Tiggeroshii]

3. Actually looking at it more does make me doubt them

I think they might have something of use. Definitely not worth $50 though. Maybe they'll come to their seenses and give it to us for free, so that we can judge whether whatever they have to give is of any credibility.

[PeaceProgProsp]

12. Wouldn't you be more suspicious of data given away for free?

If hard work went into collecting the data, how could they possibly give it away for free?

[Ediacara]

18. Wes Clark wins Arkansas and DC, but nothing else?

Tom Vilsack wins Iowa and DC, but nothing else?

Mark Warner wins Virgina and DC, but nothing else?

Russ Feingold wins Wisconsin and DC, but nothing else?

Evan Bayh wins Indiana and DC, but nothing else?

LOL, no I'd rather NOT pay $50-$100 for a name recognition spreadsheet.

[PeaceProgProsp]

51. Uhm, LOL that that suprises you.

Obviously, some of them are going to do better than that as they get closer to an election and people get to know them.

But to be surprised that that's how they'd do today?

I bet if you spent the next hour calling phone numbers randomly, you'd get the same results.

As for buying a name recognition sheet, there's value in knowing name-recognition now -- especially with one-to-one matchups against republicans. An election is a name recognition contest. It's good to know who has how much now, and whether small things you are doing are increasing your name recognition, and, most importantly, whether you're going backwards. It's very hard for a candidate to go up again after going down as people learn more about you. If you're going down as more people learn about you, you're not going to be elected president.

[Ediacara]

55. You don't get the point I'm making

The thread is going on about how Edwards is our best hope based on this SUSA thing, but all this tests is name recognition. Period. It's completely absurd, and would be a waste of money to look at their "data" since I already know what it says.

Additionally, you're completely wrong about name recognition mattering now. How many people knew who Bill Clinton was in 1990 compared to George Bush? How much was that an indicator of the 1992 election?

[youthere]

100. No WAY Tom Vilsack would take Iowa!

:rofl:

[Vexatious Ape]

4. Who ever runs against McCain will be running

up a mountain with a backpack full of sumo wrestlers. I wish him luck, and yes, I think Edwards has a chance. John McCain is the heartthrob of the msm, and will be starting out on third base. To them he could do no wrong, even if he tried. To me, he's a freaking mass murderer, but thats beside the point.

[enough already]

36. McCain will never get their nomination

The far right nazis will never let that happen.

[DemDogs]

99. McCain is handing himself less well and Edwards has been

better than ever. Did you see Edwards on Russert's Saturday show? What a gem.

[Impashund Ubique]

5. Edwards, Obama, Gore, Hillary can all win the nomination

[Carolina Voice]

7. Edwards is more than a hope, he's an essential reality...

Edwards is critical to our country. It's more than a hope. If you haven't read my Citizen Journalist report on his Sunday night speech at USC, here's the link. It was a burning, gut wrenching speech like no other that I've heare. He connectedd with every heart and every voter in that packed to overflow crowd. The man had charm and chrisma, but most of all he had sincerity. He's the real thing. God bless America! And, God give us John Edwards as President in 2008! It was a 'Senator, we'll see you in the White House' sort of applause...http://blog.oneamericacommittee.com/story/2006/11/20/231717/85

[sendero]

8. Naw..

... Edwards' boyishness probably works for him in many spheres of life, it will work against him in seeking the nomination.

[durtee librul]

86. Yeah sure...

Just like JFK's did.....

[beaconess]

87. But JFK combated that by writing a Pulitzer Prize winning book

and his military combat experience helped him enormously.

Edwards doesn't have as much to work with, unfortunately. Not that he can't overcome the impression, but he's no JFK.

[skipos]

9. "Our best hope" is for some good non-senators from flippable red states

I like Edwards but, like all senators, he has a record that is easy to distort and smear. I don't think he is popular enough in red NC to flip it either. He may be our best candidate, but we'll have to see who else gets into the mix.

And that Surveyusa.com poll is just name recognition at this point. Does ANYONE really think Wes Clark would win only one state? Give me a break.

[ruggerson]

20. He wasn't in the Senate long enough

and they've already thrown everything at him they can.

If Edwards wins the nomination, he should choose a Governor or ex Gov from a flippable red state as his Veep.

Edwards/Warner or Edwards/Schweitzer or Edwards/Richardson would be a very formidable ticket.

[ruggerson]

23. Edwards is extremely well positioned to topple Hillary

in the early primaries/caucuses. He can win Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina. If he battles her to a good showing in NH, he will be headed for the nomination.

[lojasmo]

10. Our best hope is somebody who voted NO on IWR.

Edwards voted YES, and even authored parts of the USAPATRIOT act.

Fie on edwards.

[GreenArrow]

14. I concur

he had his chance, he lost, and he's not to be trusted. He's every bit the self-serving political whore that John McCain is. Yuck.

[venable]

25. I don't concur

and I wonder where you get this 'not to be trusted' and 'whore' stuff.

Anyone who is so stridently condemning of a decent and devoted public servant has something other at play here. I can understand a right winger using this kind of unpleasantness on him, but a purported Democrat...a little odd, IMO.

Maybe you don't like his youth (though he's, what, 53 or 54 now), or his single term in the Senate (reelection to which he withdrew from at the beginning of the primary season, with no real promise of the nomination or a spot on the ticket), or the fact that he naively trusted what the Director of the CIA told him about WMD (and then wrote, of his vote, simply "I was wrong"), or that he supported ASPECTS of the Patriot Act (and turned against it vociferously soon after it was implemented). Or maybe you don't like the fact that Kerry lost NC (having JE spend the campaign as far away from the South as possible).

What else are you up to, because it's sure not an open view of this fine man. Your language suggests there's something else going on.

[GreenArrow]

30. Of course you don't concur,

you're an Edwards partisan. I'm not. I think he's a weasel, whose first interest is in his own self-promotion. "Not to be trusted"? A close look at his record will find a pattern of expediency. From your post alone take his steadfast support and salesmanship of the War in Iraq, which, having turned into a predictable failure, and having lost support in the public eye, suddenly provokes an "apology". Damn right he was wrong, as any idiot (and plenty of people much smarter than you or I) could have seen at the time. "Naive"? I thought this guy was supposed to be smart. He is smart though, and no latter day protestations of "I was misled" and other such rot will change the reality that he knew what he was doing.

Given his recent comments on Iran, it appears he still doesn't get it. He still believes in that necrotic philosopy of American exceptionalism. There was simply NO reason to go into Iraq. Even assuming that any of the rationales offered for doing so were true, there was still NO valid reason. Nor is there ANY reason for rewarding him for making a "mistake" of that calibre, and one would think that any self-respecting politician who had made such an error of moral and strategic judgement, would forgoe running for higher office as a simple point of honor. Honor, however, is not a virtue much valued in our culture.

As to your insinuations, you might understand that I don't believe truth or value comes dressed exclusively in a Democratic or Republican coat; I tend to have an antipathy towards politicians of all bents, and to be fair, Edwards is of a better sort than many. That doesn't, however, mean that I think he is a good candidate for the job of President. He's a salesman, and I'm not buying; his wares, while attractively packaged, upon closer examination turn out to be lacking in substance. Speaking bluntly, much of what he says insults my intelligence. (Edwards is by no means alone or prominent among politicians in that distinction) That makes little difference; in a country that elected Nixon twice, Bush I, Reagan twice, and lil' Bush twice (maybe) charisma and persona tend to take the day.

Now, given a choice between Edwards and say, Jeb, or McCain, or Mitt Romney, well, certainly, he's several cuts above that lot. And yes, I do think he could win the nomination and the Presidency, but I really don't care to see the country elect as President anyone who supported that monstrosity in Iraq (to say nothing of the Patriot Act) whether that be Edwards or Hillary or McCain and so on. I will speak out here and elsewhere against any of that ilk of either party who insist on running for President. Ring out the old, ring in the New. Einstein put it something like this: "The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them".

Unfortunately, that level of thinking is what I expect to see in the next two years and beyond.

[venable]

58. one man's political whore is

another man's intelligent, selfless, willing-to-admit-mistakes, supple and strategic thinker.

We don't, you and I, concur.

that's fine.

I'm still just objecting to the tone of your assault. I would guess you don't mind that I call your term "whore" an assault

[GreenArrow]

72. no, I don't mind that

Whore is a harsh word, but I think his political principles are sufficiently elastic to allow for it. Edwards may be a very pleasant, decent, intelligent, capable, and yes, principled person in a multitude of areas, but in the political realm, he comes off as transparently insincere, and that, in a milieu largely defined by its insincerity. That's no disadvantage to a politician, necessarily, since the media and voters tend to eat that charisma crap up. I have no appetite for it.

But in two years time, odds are you'll be happier about Edwards' place and position than I will.

[DemBones DemBones]

16. Kucinich voted against both and was speaking out

against Iraq at least six months before the Bushies started selling the war. He's continued to fight against the war, even suing *. He has lots of government experience, too: city councilman and then mayor of Cleveland, several terms in the House. I hope he runs for president again in 2008.

[lojasmo]

33. I do too. He adds a lot to the debate

Unfortunately, he won't make it through the primaries....though I wish he could.

[LWolf]

82. If he runs, I'll be there.

"Best hope" is a subjective characterization. From my perspective, DK is the "best hope" for the long term evolution of our nation.

[Imagevision]

91. Ideally Obama and Kucinich would be a dream team...

[beaconess]

93. Yikes!

[venable]

95. So, does that take Clark out, too

While the General held no office and so could not vote, he was a talking head on tv, and his view are summarized here, in a piece from FAIR


The possibility that former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark might enter the race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination has been the subject of furious speculation in the media. But while recent coverage of Clark often claims that he opposed the war with Iraq, the various opinions he has expressed on the issue suggest the media's "anti-war" label is inaccurate.

Many media accounts state that Clark, who led the 1999 NATO campaign against Yugoslavia, was outspoken in his opposition to the invasion of Iraq. The Boston Globe (9/14/03) noted that Clark is "a former NATO commander who also happens to have opposed the Iraq war." "Face it: The only anti-war candidate America is ever going to elect is one who is a four-star general," wrote Michael Wolff in New York magazine (9/22/03). Salon.com called Clark a "fervent critic of the war with Iraq" (9/5/03).

To some political reporters, Clark's supposed anti-war stance could spell trouble for some of the other candidates. According to Newsweek's Howard Fineman (9/8/03) Clark "is as anti-war as Dean," suggesting that the general would therefore be a "credible alternative" to a candidate whom "many Democrats" think "would lead to a disaster." A September 15 Associated Press report claimed that Clark "has been critical of the Iraq war and Bush's postwar efforts, positions that would put him alongside announced candidates Howard Dean, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio as the most vocal anti-war candidates." The Washington Post (9/11/03) reported that Clark and Dean "both opposed the war in Iraq, and both are generating excitement on the Internet and with grass-roots activists."

Hearing Clark talking to CNN's Paula Zahn (7/16/03), it would be understandable to think he was an opponent of the war. "From the beginning, I have had my doubts about this mission, Paula," he said. "And I have shared them previously on CNN." But a review of his statements before, during and after the war reveals that Clark has taken a range of positions-- from expressing doubts about diplomatic and military strategies early on, to celebrating the U.S. "victory" in a column declaring that George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt" (London Times, 4/10/03).

Months before the invasion, Clark's opinion piece in Time magazine (10/14/02) was aptly headlined "Let's Wait to Attack," a counter-argument to another piece headlined "No, Let's Not Waste Any Time." Before the war, Clark was concerned that the U.S. had an insufficient number of troops, a faulty battle strategy and a lack of international support.

As time wore on, Clark's reservations seemed to give way. Clark explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." As he later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."

After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate. "Liberation is at hand. Liberation-- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions," Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03). "Already the scent of victory is in the air." Though he had been critical of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."

Clark made bold predictions about the effect the war would have on the region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark explained. "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." The way Clark speaks of the "opponents" having been silenced is instructive, since he presumably does not include himself-- obviously not "temporarily silent"-- in that category. Clark closed the piece with visions of victory celebrations here at home: "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue."

In another column the next day (London Times, 4/11/03), Clark summed up the lessons of the war this way: "The campaign in Iraq illustrates the continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact."

Another "plain fact" is this: While political reporters might welcome Clark's entry into the campaign, to label a candidate with such views "anti-war" is to render the term meaningless.

[politicasista]

11. Our best hope is someone with all around experience

One who believes in Anti-corruption and can walk, talk, and chew gum on domestic/foreign affairs.

[derby378]

13. If he softens his position on gun legislation, he's got a great chance

Up close and personal, the man is an excellent orator. He knows how to connect. Now he just needs to learn to pull in more votes from southern and western states.

[benEzra]

44. Ditto. I like him a lot, but he was seriously misinformed on the gun issue

when I corresponded with him in '03-'04.

[beaconess]

90. How so?

[DemBones DemBones]

15. I like Edwards but he only served one term in

the Senate and missed a lot of votes because he was campaigning for president and then as VP on the Kerry ticket. I think he was campaigning for three years (isn't everybody?) and that his absences/lack of experience in government would hurt him.

Then there's the sentiment that a president should have experience governing and that's why former governors get elected. Maybe Edwards would be best as a VP with a more experienced person, like Bill Richardson, who's been a governor and held other positions in federal government. Plus he's Hispanic, which can't hurt. I don't know enough yet about Richardson to say I think he's our guy, though.

I WANT Dennis Kucinich for president but I'm thinking I'd vote for "Anybody But Hillary" at this point.

[rep the dems]

17. He's not my favorite but I think he could win. nt

[AJH032]

21. he doesnt appeal to me

He served one term in the Senate. The Republicans could attack him on his record (easy to attack any Senate record, no matter what it is) and on his limited experience.

[Clark2008]

22. As a Southerner, I completely disagree that he's our "best hope."

[venable]

26. As a Southerner I do believe he is the best hope

and as an American, I feel the same way.

[ripple]

27. Best hope? Not by a long shot

Let's see how the primaries play out. I like Edwards and would support him if he were to get the nod, but I don't think he will. Recycled candidates simply don't play that well in presidential elections.

People want a new candidate to deliver a new message. If the mid-terms taught us nothing else, we should at least recognize that much.

Obama's my pick, with Clark as VP.

[annarbor]

46. I actually agree with you...

But I have it reversed :)
I would love to see a Clark/Obama ticket in 2008.

Ann Arbor

[beaconess]

92. Sounds good to me!

[mtnsnake]

74. I agree with you, too

Good post

[immerlinks]

28. Don't think so

I don't Hillary can be beat by anybody. I don't think she should be. Obama would be a great VP but we need to get a Clinton back in the White House.

[FrenchieCat]

31. Our best hope?

How depressing.

Coudn't even figure out the war and peace thingie.......and yet he's our "best Hope".
Sad commentary!

[LittleClarkie]

32. Sigh.

:puffpiece:

[PurityOfEssence]

34. Most vehement Clark supporters on this board are Edwards haters

The knotted-up rage is breathtaking.

We've plodded down this same old path many times: the usual suspects keep coming back to crush any glimmer of hope or joy regarding John Edwards. Endless pro-Clark threads are left alone by the few Edwards stalwarts, but the extremists from the Clark camp never seem to skip a beat: anything that smacks of approval of Edwards is met with a fusillade of near-religious fury.

Fairplay is for inferiors.

Those who don't accept our guy's superiority shouldn't be suffered.

Sounds like conservatism, doesn't it? It sure as hell does to me: "others" shouldn't exist.

Still I, as a longtime Edwards supporter, and many others who like the guy stay out of the endless "gosh isn't Clark the white knight god of salvation?" threads, but virtually any pro-Edwards thread is inundated by sniping from the extremists. Why be tolerant when you have all the answers?

Explore pluralism; it's a good thing.

[Trajan]

40. I love Clark ... I love Edwards ....

WHERE do you people come from ? ...

You speak of hatred of Edwards from Clark supporters as a subtext of your own dislike of Clark supporters ? ...

Sheeesh ....

[PurityOfEssence]

47. Meet our friend, Mr. Adjective

Heavily laden with qualifiers not only to obey board rules but to not offend others, this ongoing screed is always directed at THE EXTREMISTS.

On and off the board I've had many conversations with Clark supporters who are gentle, thoughtful and cosmopolitan. Outside of the heat of the regular flare-ups, they seem to get the gist of my ire.

My beef is with the extremists. There is a deep hatred among them for John Edwards; somehow he was supposed to put his tail between his legs and slink off in the face of the alpha male who thought he could game the primary season by jumping in at the last minute. Rightly, the Clark people recognized him as the most dangerous competitor, since they were going after much of the same constituency.

To me, you are not one of the extremists. Having ambled down this path with me many times, I would think this is clear.

To restate to a point well beyond being tiresome: it's a question of coexistence. The very idea that the true-of-heart progressives who are more noble and decent support Clark (not an idea advanced by you but by others on this thread) is a clear example of this. Moral superiority looses one from the covenant of tolerance and any real manners. This is ongoing.

Not only am I not the only one who sees this dynamic, there are constant complaints by new members of the board about the tiresome antics of the extremists among the Clark partisans. It is an anomaly: this is the only forum I can think of where he's so steadfastly supported. That's great as an example of organization and commendable as an example of loyalty, but it's no more representative of broad opinion than the average on-line poll.

Endless "isn't Clark fabulous?" threads are started on a regular basis, and the Edwards supporters generally let their fellow posters have their moments of joy. Virtually no "gosh, I like Edwards" thread is left unmolested within the first ten posts, and those who hammer him are almost always Clark acolytes. These spoilsports ARE disciples: many have the name clark as part of their monikers, and many use him as an icon as they post.

We let them have their fun, but they ritualistically deny us a moment of joy and camaraderie. It ain't right. This is not occasional or mild, it's constant, abrasive, tiresome and made more galling by the extremists sniveling that they're being attacked when anyone questions them on their scorched-earth aggressiveness; it's hypocrisy writ large and shows a lack of etiquette that borders on the sociopathic. Since I equate conservatism with selfishness and intolerance, the parallels literally scream out at me.

Not all Clark supporters are tarred with this brush; I'm VERY careful to use Mr. Adjective and his friends to qualify the statement and make it obvious that only the most fire-breathing partisans are at fault. The problem is that there are MANY of them, and they just can't behave themselves.

[Trajan]

48. How convenient .....

Only 'extreme' Clark supporters do this ? ...

Would 'extreme' partisans of ANY presumed candidate be JUST as likely to support their own candidate amd reject Edwards ? ...

Isnt this a 'begging the question' fallacy ? ...

I simply see no point in attacking 'extreme' Clark supporters, to the exclusion of other 'extreme' supporters of other candidates, unless your agenda is focused on Clark supporters only ....

[PurityOfEssence]

49. It's a question of numbers

Look back at any "who's better" polls on this site, be it one for who's got the nicest hair, who's the smartest or who's the "best" choice. It's tapered off a bit of late, but the Clark supporters are by far and away the most numerous.

This doesn't mirror the rest of society.

Maybe the sheer volume of Clark supporters means that they would have proportionately larger groups of combative extremists; perhaps, as a group, they're no better or worse than the partisans of any other group. Whether this is true or not, the dynamic is undeniable and nauseating.

Somehow, extremists from other camps don't seem to target anyone else the way extremist Clark supporters harangue Edwards. It simply doesn't happen. Sure, there are Kerry haters and Hillary haters, but they seem to be from a pretty broad spectrum; Edwards haters are virtually always Clark supporters. (There's only a slight mitigation from an adjective there because it's obvious.) I can only think of one poster with a bee in her bonnet about Edwards who isn't an avowed Clark partisan; this person is disabled and vehemently opposes JRE because of a single vote he made for a judge with a spotty record on the disabled.

It's a sickening and endless refrain, and what's worse is the dudgeon huffed and snorted by the very people who go on the attack. It beggars comparison. It is pretty much undeniable. People who bushwhack, spoil, harass, hector, dissemble and generally rain on every parade shouldn't shriek with outrage when called to account. It reeks of privilege and it messes up an otherwise constructive forum. Show me any other group of partisans who regularly target the joyous threads of another hopeful to this degree.

When the Clark supporters burst onto the board in a very organized way one day in the fall of '03, the Deanies were collectively aghast: here was a bunch of people more intolerant and aggressive than they were. The Deanies paled by comparison.

Privilege sucks. Those who rail and keen to be considered superior are anti-democratic. We all live or die by the affiliations we hold to, and if we give a rat's ass about being part of a pluralist society, we should exercise some manners.

So here's the question: is there any other group of supporters on this board as vehement and aggressive against any other candidate? Is there any group even CLOSE? If so, whose? If not, why is this morally acceptable?

[PeaceProgProsp]

50. It's not just Edwards -- it's ANY Democrat perceived as being

a likely, strong contender for the 2008 nomination. It's Gore, Obama, Clinton. Actually, it's any Democrat anyone likes. They're all bad.

How probable is it that every single Democrat is bad and Clark is good?

It's an odd way to express your support for a Democratic nominee if you consider yourself a Democrat.

[FrenchieCat]

52. Me personally, I like Democrats, including John Edwards......

However, there are some politicians that I would support as primary candidates and other politicians that I wouldn't, which I believe is the issue here.....not that Clarkies hate everyone except for Clark....which is an outlandish statement that begs for an answer, so here it is:

To begin with, let's get something straight. The thread's author stated that Edwards is our "Best" hopes, and therefore implied that others are less than our "Best" hope.

He invited opposing opinions by making an absolute remark and then by also posing a question about whether Edwards could win.....so now folks are answering. I don't see why there should be a problem with the answers given. :shrug: as this thread title doesn't read: "I'm for John Edwards, and I don't want to hear what anyone else thinks unless they agree with me". Heck, there's even a poll, for gosh sake!


If Clark doesn't run, I may support Gore or Obama or Clinton or Kerry. I would support Edwards if he became the nominee, certainly.

What puzzles me is that many NONClarkies are in this thread stating that they don't think John Edwards is the "Best Hope". Some of them may like Clark.....just like they may like Edwards, but prefer others to support during primaries. Some haven't decided one way or the other but feel that Edwards is still not the "best hope". There may well still be candidates that have not made their intentions clear that they will run on the horizon as well. There are also Clarkies in this thread saying that they do like Edwards (even if they don't prefer him).

Me, I hate the media, but I don't "hate" Democrats per se, not even Joe Biden or Joe Lieberman....I just don't prefer to see them on the top of a ticket as President. I believe that for the office as president some are better suited than others, and a lot of that is based on what they have done or not done in the past.

When a non-Clark supporter comes into a Clark thread and says..."well, I don't want to vote for Wes Clark cause he's never held office, and my nominee must have the experience of a politician"....I don't attack the individual who made the statement and accuse him of hating on Clark and try to link him to a group and then trash the group. I personally provide my rebut of why I think that opinion is not valid.....and I try to do that in a cogent manner which is what this public forum is about. If after comments are made back and forth and the poster holds the same view, than that's ok too....but I've had my say, and they have had theirs. If someone just spews a lie about Wes Clark and I am able to rebut it, then I do. I've never said that "Edwards supporters seem to like to trash Clarkies!"...but I guess I could make the case. But why bother? My candidate is too good for that. He speaks for himself. I don't need to defend him to the point to where I will trash talk other DUers just because they frustrate me because they don't care for Wes Clark the way that I think they should.

In the same token, Edwards supporters feel that Edwards is best suited for the position of President, and that is their right....although it is not their right to think that they are never going to hear an opposing opinion to that sentiment.

And what's most arrogant is that according to some here, a Clark supporter should choose not to make a comment as to why Edwards is NOT the Best Hope in a thread titled "Edwards is the best hope". Now why should they have to feel the need to be silent in a debate forum? :shrug:

[1932]

60. My first posts at DU were to a Clark thread shortly after reading Clark's books

There are things in his books which I thought suggested he is a very different from the one his supporters try to portray here at DU. The result: a moderator (who has recently moved to New Mexico) PM'd me that I was in danger of being tombstoned, even though not a single one of my posts in that thread had been deleted. I successful appealed (my argument: I didn't think it would be right to be banned without every posting anything in violation of the rules!), which wiped the warning from my record. Months later at least one Clark supporter admitted they tried to get me banned that day.

Even though I wasn't banned, many times since I've wanted to weigh in on a Clark-themed thread but don't because the hostile reaction isn't worth it. So, I, for one, self-censor when it comes to Clark threads. But now that I know that you don't think people should be silent in a debate forum...

[FrenchieCat]

61. What I don't do is make shit up about Dems.......and that's where I draw the line.

and I will not and have never put up with that nonsense. If I recall that was part of your problem, wasn't it? You had made your own rather sweeping interpretations on Clark's writing based on what you wanted his words to mean and then went around the Internet acting like somehow you were the official Clark interpreter. I remember posting about 5 or 6 lengthy book reviews on the exact same book you kept "paraphrasing" from progressive sources which totally debunked your take. You would say things like "what Clark means is....", "What Clark thinks is.....", it was all rather an odd exercise of nefarious intellectual mambo jumbo.

So yes.....I very much recall the conversations we had in those threads, because in fact we did have lengthy conversations and debates which went on and on. And I'm sure that you will remember (cause I've got all of those threads archived), I never did broadbrush all Edwards supporters as my response to your smears....I responded to the topic you raised instead.

That's a big difference.

Just to let you know, there are many Edwards threads that I also would like to comment in and don't. Considering the general amnesia that many suffer on the subject of the pre run for President Edwards and the running for President Edwards, I almost feel compelled to remind folks of what John Edwards has actually done and what he had actually stood for prior to his makeover in late 2003.

Note: I was not the person to complaint to DU mods about any 1932 posts, as repetitive and annoying and inaccurate and desengenious as they were.

[1932]

64. You didn't like my "interpretations" or my facts?

Care to share any of the facts you didn't like? As for my interpretations, I think your post up above said that this is a discussion board and everyone should be allowed to share their opinions.

And if you want to talk about facts, I'm still waiting for WesMMVIII cites for a couple of her claims.

[PurityOfEssence]

83. She's tried to have me banned, too, as have other Clark supporters

As you can imagine, the number of posts I've made that have been deleted is pretty large, too.

I'm an old-timer here, having been posting since the spring of '01.

Personally, I feel the attempt to quash contrary opinions is against the spirit of pluralism, and I've had to defend myself to moderators on quite a few occasions; opinionated though I am, I've never had a serious attack from any other group than Clark supporters. That's quite telling, considering how I've tussled with Deanies and some other groups. The vehemence of certain partisans is tiresome. I've never tried to have a Clark supporter banned, and have only appealed to the moderators to kill posts after mine have been cleansed in the same threads. I like free speech; I'm a liberal.

I have yet to see any group on this board rage so vigorously to destroy their opponents. Even the most strident Deanies from the summer of '03 through the primary season weren't as unprincipled and energetic as the extremists within the Clark camp.

Once again, there are many who like Clark and are civil, but there is a core group who make any pro-Edwards post an infuriation and who constantly post endless laudatory Clark threads. Mercifully the groundswell of reaction is disgust for these tactics, as the posts of many newbies and old-timers show.

(Edited: at first, the title read "at least 5 other Clark supporters", but upon reflection I'm not sure how many, and of course, I'll probably never know the true number. I do know that this poster has tried to flush me, and has been very successful in deleting many of my posts, and that a few other Clark supporters have tried to get me banned and have been successful in deleting my posts and locking my threads. It's a common tactic.)

You are not alone in having been assailed by attempts to ban you. Doing such a thing for a difference of opinion is scurrilous; this should only be done for obvious trolls who are trying to disrupt.

It's a form of hypocrisy, which is an expression of privilege: the core message is that the speaker believes him/herself to be superior and shouldn't be held to the same standards as inferiors; this is conservatism and it's what pluralists disdain.

[CarolNYC]

56. There are certain...

Edwards supporters that have a bizarre and quite unhealthy looking obsession with Clark supporters. Why this is I wouldn't even want to guess...It's just really weird.

[PurityOfEssence]

57. It comes from repeated, habitual attacks

They sorta leave a bad taste in the mouth.

Once again: there are more "isn't Clark fabulous threads" started here than dewy-eyed reverence for any other candidate. Although the Clark-Edwards enmity has ebbed somewhat since the last campaign, the tinct is still there. Edwards supporters tend to respect the "oooh, Clark" threads, leaving people to the joy of their beliefs, but threads started to praise Edwards--as this one was--are routinely spoiled by endless diatribes, rehashing of old distortions, vigorous spoil-sporting and general anti-social rants.

That's why.

Don't just read my posts; read those of newcomers, the unaligned and just plain observers on this board: Clark support is WAY out of proportion when compared to society at large, and the tactics of the extremists are intolerant. We let you guys have your joyous threads, even to the extent of having seemingly endless ones, yet a little whiff of praise for Edwards is consistently met with instant and vehement derision. Live and let live, please; that's one of the definitions of pluralism.

On another note, he is nowhere near the most progressive or liberal of the potential candidates, and that doesn't sit well with some of us who are a tad more to the left; coupled with the scorched-earth tactics, it makes him and his supporters smack of conservatism, which has many of us watching with senses tingling.

Those who are vigorous and combative and then feign innocent dismay at the unfair characterization of his/her faction are simply engaging in the kind of transparent passive-aggression that this sentence typifies.

Happy Thanksgiving, dammit.

[CarolNYC]

65. Trust me...

your life will be so much more enjoyable...if you just step back and let go of the obsession...

Happy Thanksgiving to you also...

[venable]

89. I think you have this exactly backwards

though the Clark obsession is not so much with Edwards' supporters as it is with Edwards himself.

As an Edwards supporter, I noticed this the moment I started reading this often-great site. There was a pronounced Clark bent that entered immediately into any Edwards thread.

I didn't know what this meant, and still don't, but I do know it's bound to happen every time JE is praised.

This is fine and expected. What rankles, though, is the sheer mass of it, and the predictability.

I don't care for Clark, nor do I think he's a bad candidate. He's just a bit irrelevant to the national dialogue - I think unfairly, by the way. I think he should be a more prominent figure, but he's just not. It's not the first time or the last time that the MSM dismisses a good and worthy politician.

[ultraist]

77. True

You are not the only one that sees this and it's been going on for years.

They are only embarrassing themselves with the ongoing hate, venom, and bashing of Dems. Frankly, I think some of these people are not Dems at all, but Repubs posing as Clark supporters.

[xkenx]

41. Your "The few Edwards stalwarts" says it all

DU is a free and open forum. If Clark dominates here, and Edwards has little support, it's because that's the way it is among progressive activists.

[venable]

54. progressives outside of this forum

that support Clark, in my obviously private and therefore minimal experience, number exactly zero.

I have never met a progressive, a real progressive outside of this forum that supports Clark. Not one. None at all. Ever. Anywhere.


I have, however, met countless that support Edwards, outside of this forum.

To think that this often fine forum is an accurate reflection of progressives democrats is just wrong, sadly.

[FrenchieCat]

62. Maybe you should get out more......

[venable]

94. get out plenty thanks

I don't think the problem is my exposure, I think it's that progressives don't think much of Clark.

(one correction, sort of: I said I knew of zero progressive who like Clark....I do know one, a pretty well known, quite lefty writer who thinks Clark is very, very smart. This writer is very, very smart, so it's a high recommendation. I will say, though, that at the time of this recommendation this particular writer was getting a bit gung-ho on the Iraq adventure - he made his name with his articles and books on Iraq - though he's back, thankfully, to his original anti-war sentiment. I haven't heard him mention Clark in a couple of years.

[Alcibiades]

67. Maybe that's how it is out in Cali

But, here in NC, we loves us our John Edwards. I like John Edwards, but wouldn't consider myself to be a stalwart. An alternative theory could simply be that Clark supporters like Clark more than edwards supporters like Edwards. Or it could be, as has been suggested, that Clark supporters are simply "louder" than Edwards supporters.

[IA_Seth]

42. You kill me...

Ok, so the CLARK supporters are acting like conservatives now? Coming from the guy who says the 'extremists from the Clark camp'...dude, that sounds a hell of a lot more like pug-talk than anything I've seen from any Clark supporters!

Anyway..I voted yes if it makes you feel better. The question is COULD he win the nomination.

Well sure.

But WILL he win the nomination? I don't think he will.

I didn't think Clark was the subject of this thread, but hey if you'd like to compare the two I am more than happy to oblige ya!

[Sparkly]

80. Was that an attempt at a "pre-emptive strike?"

I voted anyway. :eyes:

[enough already]

35. Feingold or Gore

The rest of the usual suspects stand little chance, imo.

[Pithy Cherub]

37. Edwards isn't even on my radar as a possibility.

When one looks for information on poverty his name is sometimes mentioned as are his press releases but his actions are not as substantial as those who have dedicated their lives to the issue. Any action Edwards has done in that regard should be applauded yet he is not the expert one would speak with in a forum on the issue.

Edwards voted and defended the immoral Iraq War and had the Grace to apologize years later, much like the morally wrong of South Africa during Truth and Reconciliation. The egregious does demand acknowledgment in either history or those brave enough to do so in the current times, for that acknowledgment, Edwards deserves abiding and lasting credit. His sense of the political is deeply flawed and on a major issue of the day he did not stand strongly or speak out until after losing an election. On a decision between Death, War, Courage and History to bow to political expediency so rapidly in the face of such opposition does not bode at all well for his decision making in dire national circumstances. You don't get to do that many do-overs, especially all those that died. That which has been done before is indicative of the future. Wish him well on the endeavor as many like him for many reasons. But he doesn't have to worry about getting my vote.

on edit: clarity

[last_texas_dem]

38. Yes

I believe he could win the nomination and would be one of our strongest possible candidates, perhaps the strongest, if he did.

[Trajan]

39. Yes .. He COULD win ....

[FreeStateDemocrat]

43. Too late, Hillary has already bought it, It'll be a coronation, too much money, MSM and influence.

[sampsonblk]

45. Not if I can help it - nt

nt

[MrSlayer]

53. I don't see him as our best hope but he could win.

It's just very unlikely. Probably as unlikely as the man who I do see as our best hope. Very rarely do we get someone who would be the best.

[zulchzulu]

59. A "best hope" could have helped if he actually helped win his home state...

I'm sure John is a good man and all that, but please quit with the sappy, innaccurate "he's our best hope" nonsense. I saw Edwards speak in four different instance, and by the fourth time, I could almost recite the same speech he gave before he was done...

How could he match up to McCain the best? Inexperience as a positive attribute? Huh?

[Tiggeroshii]

63. for what it's worth..

He's far more charismatic than McCain...

[MeanBone]

70. Edwards beats Hillary in Iowa. He also beats McCain and Giuliani in Iowa.

In the Des Moines Register poll earlier this summer, it was Edwards 30%, Hillary 26%, Kerry 12%, Vilsack 10%, nobody else above 3%.

The fact that Edwards beats both McCain and Giuliani in Iowa in the SurveyUSA poll -- www.surveyusa.com -- while Hillary loses to both McCain and Giuliani in Iowa, obviously indicates that independents and moderates favor Edwards over Hillary in Iowa. And independents can participate in Iowa's Democratic caucus.

[jpwhite]

71. Edwards/Obama or Edwards/Richardson

I like Edwards/Obama or Edwards/Richardson for 2008. If Edwards doesn't win, he should be the Attorney General nominee. This guy is really sharp and should be a part of the whole package. I would want Clark to be the next Secretary of Defense. We need that kind of military experience as a part of the whole package.

If the American people see how well the next cabinet is going to be, then whoever we put as the Pres. nominee will have a great advantage. But for now Edwards/Obama or Edwards/Richardson is the best bet.

James
[e-mail]

ps. I will admit some bias. I wanted the ticket in 04 to say Edwards/Kerry instead of Kerry/Edwards.

[Joe Bacon]

73. No thanks.

I'm very dissappointed in Edwards. He should have stood up when he knew that Ohio was stolen but he didn't. After looking at that electoral map in 2004, I can't see a single Southern state he can carry. I would LOVE to see those disgusting press whores foam at the mouth when Hillary wins. Nohing would please me more than see Tweety Matthews head explode a la Cronenberg's "SCANNERS"!

[mtnsnake]

75. Please, there is nothing we should ever want re-newed concerning 2004,

including John Edwards, who was not as strong an asset in that pathetic 2004 campaign as one would've thought he'd be, considering what a strong primary run he had.

No Kerry or Edwards, thank you.

[bigriver]

78. Can't win home state.

Next!

[1932]

81. Did people blame Bentsen for Dukakis loosing Texas and every other state

south of (and most states north of) West Virgina. And does Gore get all the credit for Tenn when Clinton (from neighbor Ark) was also able to win Lousiana, Georgia and Florida?

[venable]

96. excellent point

The person who could have lifted Kerry in NC has not yet been born

[ultraist]

79. Our best hope and yes Edwards could win!

And, Edwards could win his homestate, as the polls showed in 04, prior to his withdrawing from the presidential race. Edwards has a lot of support in NC and is very well liked in NC by moderates and progressives alike.

NC is trending bluer. We have a Dem governor, a Dem controlled state legislature and the majority of our US Congressmen are Dems.

[Clarkie1]

84. False, unsubstantiated premise. nt

[Bullet1987]

85. Honestly...

...I don't see Edwards getting the nomination.

[benny05]

88. He will have to work for it

As the other Dems would, but he has ground boots organization in place in IA, some in NH, some in NV, and in SC. He's IA's adopted son, and won SC last time. Helped Dems win in NV. Campaigned in 160 events for Dems in past 2 years. He values hard work and a difference of opinions, as long as he has a chance to fight.

[Ninja Jordan]

97. Why not? HIGH FIVE!

[youthere]

101. If he's our "best hope" things are grim indeed.

I don't like him. Never did. Never will. I supported him in 2004 because everyone seemed to think he'd deliver the southern states for the Dems and he delivered exactly squat. When Kerry tapped him for a running mate someone should have tapped Kerry upside the head.

[savemefromdumbya]

102. I don't think so

[flaminbats]

103. I think Edwards could win the nomination..

I doubt it will happen. If not for such a weak position on healthcare reform, he might of won my primary vote in 2004! I backed him on the ticket in November, I would do so again in 2008. The question is...will he does what it takes to win primary votes like mine?