With Obama now in the race, Edwards popularity will quickly fade.

[Clarkie1]

That's my prediction. Obama is superior to Edwards on so many fronts. He has proven by his past actions and stands...on the war and in community organizing and civil rights law, that he is more genuine and has more integrity. He is a better speaker without notes than Edwards will ever be with notes.

He doesn't sound like a trial lawyer when he speaks...he sounds like a real leader. Like Edwards he will also attract voters with his youth, energy, and enthusiasm. A vote for Obama will be a vote for real change.

I predict by the time of the Iowa caucus Edwards will be in single digits and no longer a "first-tier" candidate. Not a smear...just a prediction based on the political reality as I see it today. Of course, anything could happen but that's how I see it.

I hope Clark runs, too. I believe our best hopes are candidates like Clark, Richardson, and Obama to take on Hillary. Ideally in my mind, Obama would be the VP of a more experienced leader, especially in the area of international affairs and foreign relations. Clark/Obama 08'!

[DaveinMD]

1. blah blah blah

we get it. You don't like Edwards.

[PurityOfEssence]

114. The dreams of hatred

So many of the extremist wing of Clark supporters have their knickers in a twist about John Edwards that they'd rather see the world crash down around their ears rather than see him best their champion. It's just tiresome. It also reeks of right-wing hero-worship and scorched-earth tactics of constant attack.

Posters claim that they won't vote for him if nominated, yet would presumably let a real monarchist like McCain or a slobbering lunatic like Brownback take the reins as a result.

So tiresome.

[beaconess]

117. Indeed

[kanrok]

2. So tell us how you really feel about Edwards...

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

[benny05]

15. Exactly!

eom

[BL611]

62. What was it about the OP's post

that was disrespectful of Edwards? It merely made the observation that that there are many similarities between the two (a point echoed by Edwards on MTP) and that Obama was in the OP's opinion a better candidate. There was nothing that I could see that was knocking Edwards, we all have our preferences and our opinion's on how things will play out, can't we articulate them without having our motives questioned? If you wrote a post saying you think that you think Edwards is a stronger candidate than Obama (which I assume you do, and thats fine) would you like people jumping down your throat for being an "Obama hater"?

[unlawflcombatnt]

84. Disrespectful to Edwards

"Obama is superior to Edwards on so many fronts... he is more genuine and has more integrity. He is a better speaker without notes than Edwards will ever be with notes.

He doesn't sound like a trial lawyer when he speaks..."

Maybe this isn't "disrespectful," but it certainly is condescending and critical of Edwards.

[Tellurian]

116. Wait! Then you're going to have the "I read OBama's Book" experts..

relating interpretations of his book in their own cockeyed perceptions!

Because why? They read the book..(argument)



Ho-Hum!

[Clark2008]

92. Some people on this board think that anyone who supports

Clark is automatically "jealous" (their words, over and over and over again) of Edwards.

What they fail to realize is that a lot of Clark fans don't like Edwards because of his lack of understanding of foreign policy and diplomacy. Edwards frequently makes poor judgments and changes his speeches to suit the audience to which he's speaking. We're not "jealous" of him at all. Why would we be? Clark was right on Iraq and beat Edwards in five of the nine races in which they both ran in 2004. There's nothing to be jealous of.

I wouldn't vote for Edwards whether Clark joins the race or not, so it's a moot point.

[unlawflcombatnt]

83. Me too

Obama has straddled the fence on every issue. Does he even have a position on any issue? Or does he plan on winning by taking no definable position on any issue, or by talking around every issue, or by simply continuing to espouse ambivalent, non-committal rhetoric. As many pundits have commented, he remains a "blank slate."

Though he seems "articulate," what exactly is he "articulating"? No one's been able to figure that out yet.

In contrast to Obama, Edwards does take well-defined stands on issues: Withdrawal of troops from Iraq within 6 months, roll back Bush's tax cuts on those making over $200,000 year, a national health plan that will cost $80-100 billion, etc.

What tangible positions or proposals does Obama have?

[seashorelady]

112. Obama Will Skip First Debate

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/02/08/obama_will_skip_first_debate.html

[Clarkie1]

61. Edwards co-sponsored the decision to go to war, and I will continue to hold him accountable.

see post #49

[kanrok]

101. So what's with the trial lawyer slam?

Also, if his decision to vote for the IWR than I guess you're not voting for Hillary either?

[stray cat]

3. I think Obama may stumble due to inexperience with the press

and the right wing attackers. Edwards as a populist may tap into the increasing gap between working Americans and the corporate elite.

[Barack_America]

11. I don't think that the press will touch Obama...

He's exciting, people are fascinated by him and the press want him in this race. Elections make them money, but only if people care about the candidates.

[Tom Joad]

4. That sponsorship of the IWR will not be so easy to live down

and in fact, though he has apologized, Edwards said it was wrong for Obama to oppose it.
Edwards and Hillary, wrong to support Bush's war in 2002.
Can we trust them to lead our Party, our nation??

[emulatorloo]

7. Libby trial and Feith revelations prove IWR was a big lie contructed by the Bush admin

Most dems understand that.

Good for Obama for opposing. But most dems understand that Bushco made up a case that Saddam had nukes. And that Bushco is responsible for Iraq war -- he invaded, not Edwards.

[oasis]

10. Most people accept the fact that the ongoing fiasco in Iraq is a result of Bush's war. His lies and

incompetence combined have brought America to the brink of disaster.

[Tom Joad]

21. I knew what that vote would do.

I knew it would lead to a war of aggression.
I knew Saddam had no nukes.

Yes, Bush led the country to war. Yes, Hillary and Edwards supported it.
Just for the heck of it, i would like someone to show me the first protest of the war by either of these clow... Senators. I suspect it happened way after the invasion, and only when polls showed a large margin of people opposing it.

Pure politics.

[Clarkie1]

49. Edwards co-sponsored the decision to go to war, and I will continue to hold him accountable.

KENNEDY: The best vote, best vote I cast in the United States Senate (INAUDIBLE).

KING: In your life?

KENNEDY: Absolutely.

KING: Was not to go to Iraq?

KENNEDY: Yes, not to go to Iraq.

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."

Because the answer was because they're moving things, because when we tell the team they're all infiltrated by Saddam's people and they're leaking that so that's the reason we're not finding anything.

They started giving all the places where we said there were places and they still couldn't find any. And at the end of now, history will show we never gave any information to the inspection team at all.

But I kept saying, "Well, if they're not finding any of the weapons of mass destruction, where is the imminent threat to the United States security?" It didn't make sense.

There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.html

As to the American people, this is a difficult question. The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran.
- John Edwards, 1/23/07

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html

[geek tragedy]

67. "Senator Edwards calls for overthrow of Iraqi dictator."

http://web.archive.org/web/20020914012714/http://edwards.senate.gov/

[benny05]

19. Excuse me

"Edwards said it was wrong for Obama to oppose it. "

That dog doesn't hunt, poster. You can dig yourself out of this hole with a link to prove such a smear. :wtf:

[Tom Joad]

25. I did read it here, it was quoted somewhere.

can't find it now. Maybe someone else can, or i will later.

Obama was not in the US senate at the time, but he was speaking against the war from the very beginning, while Edwards was joining Cheney and Lieberman to support the IWR.

[benny05]

29. You won't find it

Because he never said it. What Edwards said was that Obama was not in the Senate at the time when Edwards made his vote for AMUF, which as you point out correctly, he said was a mistake.

[Tom Joad]

32. Right. When did Edwards first realize it was a mistake?

I realized it was a mistake when Bush started the military attack against Iraq under Bush I, over a decade ago, and continued under Clinton and then Bush's push for escalation in 2002.
I think those actions were more than mistakes, it was a criminal war of aggression that is causing massive suffering.

When did Edwards figure it out?

[benny05]

34. He said it was a mistake

I take him at his word and you can be pissed off all you want about his mistake. But I dislike someone distorting the truth about what he said concerning Senator Obama.

[A Simple Game]

46. I don't know if he said it or not, and I don't care. But why do you

find it so hard to believe that someone who sponsored legislation would say someone who opposed it was wrong?

I you feel strong enough about a bill to sponsor it, they you should defend it. Why do you find it hard to believe that Edwards would defend the bill he sponsored?

edit: punctuation

[Tom Joad]

47. Better late than never, i guess. He's smarter than Hillary, that's for sure.

She still refuses to say it was wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/us/politics/11clinton.html

[Tom Joad]

68. No one has answered my question. When did he realize it was a

mistake? In 2004? 2005? 2006?

[Moloch]

72. I would like to see a chart with a timeline of public support..

for the war and Edwards' various positions on it. Its pretty obvious that Edwards doesn't give a flying fuck about the lives lost in Iraq, just the prevailing winds of public opinion.

Hmm.. Perhaps I'll make one when I have more time.

[Clark2008]

93. After it became less popular than genital herpes.

Nancy Pelosi once said that, when asked his opinion on anything, Edwards would first ask "is there a poll?"

Someone on DU quoted her from an article or book. Sorry I don't have the quote or link, though I did ask for it.

[Tom Joad]

70. I did find it. Edwards could not bring himself to say Obama was right.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/02/edwards_attribu.html

Edwards Attributes Obama's Pre-War Judgement to Rival's Lack of Congressional Intelligence
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/02/edwards_attribu.html

Edwards Attributes Obama's Pre-War Judgement to Rival's Lack of Congressional Intelligence

February 04, 2007

ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., agreed Sunday with NBC's Tim Russert that Sen. Barack Obama's, D-Ill., pre-war judgement about Iraq was "on the money" but the Democratic Party's 2004 vice presidential nominee quickly downplayed its significance by saying that Obama, who was a member of the Illinois state legislature at the time, was not burdened by the bad information that Edwards was receiving at the time as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

"He wasn't burdened like a lot of us with the information we were receiving on the Intelligence Committee and as members of the United States Senate. We were getting very intimate detailed information about what was actually happening in Iraq," said Edwards. "Sen. Obama, I think, what is it you said, was a state senator at the time, so he obviously wasn't in Congress and wasn't part of the decision-making. But a lot of those predictions turned out to be true."

"Why shouldn't voters in the Democratic primaries say, 'Obama was right, Edwards was wrong?'" asked Russert.

"I was wrong," replied Edwards. "They should say that. But the question becomes who is best suited to be president of the United States. Who has the depth, the maturity, and the judgement?"
__________________________

So i don't get it. Edwards now says he was wrong, but says gives no credit to Obama for saying the right thing. Why didn't Edwards show the "maturity and judgement" as Senator Boxer? Senator Kennedy?
as many other Democratic Senators. or the judgement of most House Democrats. They all had the same bad info he had (and access to sound judgement outside what Bush was giving them).

So i hope someone answers my question. When did Edwards first begin to state publicly that the Iraq war was a crime, or even a mistake?

[benny05]

78. I think you are confused here

This is what the poster said
""Edwards said it was wrong for Obama to oppose it. "


Therefore, your quote validates what I said, not what the poster said.

[charlyvi]

42. We don't know how Obama would have voted, TJ,

had he been in the Senate at the time. It may have been no, but then again, it may have been yes. I like Obama, I'm an Illinois girl transplanted to Alabama, but I can't really say what his vote would have been. Nor can anyone else, probably even Obama.

[geek tragedy]

66. Oh, bullshit. He gave a speech denouncing it.

Obama spoke up and opposed the war. He did everything he could to prevent it.

Edwards did everything he could to make a war happen.

[charlyvi]

73. Your crystal ball is really something.

I stand by my statement. Obama was not in the Senate. If he had been it could have been a whole new ball game. And you are extremely rude.

[geek tragedy]

89. Let me guess, an Edwards supporter?

Obama was a vocal war opponent.

Edwards was a vocal war cheerleader.

[CTLawGuy]

43. You're right

I feel bad for John, becuase I think he truly regrets it. But the IWR is a stain that can't be removed at this point. With Obama we can have moral clarity on the war. No one can say "well, you voted for it," everytime he criticizes the war, because he didn't.

John Edwards is a great guy, but if this war is still going on in 2008, which it WILL be, we need someone who is "clean" (apologies) on it and can speak with a great moral clarity.

[geek tragedy]

65. Edwards said it was wrong for Obama to oppose it??? When

did that happen?

[Tom Joad]

71. See post # 70 above. Edwards said Obama wasn't burdened by

the intelligence Congress was given. Despite the fact that many Dems in the Senate, and most in the House, did have the same reports, and voted against the resolution.

[Clark2008]

95. Hell, Edwards was the only Dem on the Senate Armed Services

Committee to vote it out of committee.

[benny05]

79. See my post

TJ is dead wrong. His quote validates what I said.

[Cocoa]

85. more than his vote on the IWR

is his continued strong support of the war late into it. I especially recall his appearance on "Hardball" in late 2004 where he was easily as hawkish as Lieberman.

[emulatorloo]

5. 1. Why Use Obama to bludgeon edwards? 2. Why provide talking points to the right wing?

With all due respect, this is something I don't understand about DU (I am not singling you out, I see it time and time again)


-- Why is it necessary to use one Democrat to bash another? Why must you use Obama as a bludgeon to beat Edwards on the head? I think it is great that you like Obama. Why do you have to denigrate Edwards to promote him?

-- Why is it necessary to formulate talking points for the Republicans. For example, suppose Edwards wins the nomination. All the rove-ettes have to do is review DU and put out a fax based on your post:

Edwards:

--is less genuine and has less integrity
-- sounds like a trial lawyer when he speaks, not a real leader

JMHO

--
ON EDIT: Formatting and Post title

[Adelante]

12. Obama announced today - it is news

There is nothing wrong in comparing candidates. This is a primary race, you know, Democrat against Democrat. Why is it necessary to stifle discussion? The OP is entitled to her opinion and you, yours.

[emulatorloo]

24. Policy differences are one way to distinguish between candidates

that don't involve judgements that seem like attacks on a candidates integrity.

Discuss away, I am just expressing my discomfort with a destroy-all-rivals mentality I sometimes see at DU. JMveryHO.

[Adelante]

30. I prefer discussions on policy, too

But I very much doubt the right wing needs anybody to provide character/integrity talking points for them, not even one so devotedly against Edwards as Clarkie1.

[Jai4WKC08]

88. We have a right, even an obligation, to judge integrity too

I don't give Bush the benefit of the doubt with regards to integrity any more. By his actions and words, he has shown me he has none. Or perhaps so little that it makes no difference to his public life.

The integrity of individual Democratic candidates can be judged by their actions and words as well.

[Clarkie1]

33. No bludgeoning...it's my opinion.

No Democrat is above criticism.

[chimpymustgo]

53. I wish you and your ilk would get over your vile Edwards obsession.

And determination to denigrate and destroy him. It's a real bummer. And not healthy for our party. This is a wonderful day for Democrats. We have a fantastic field. Why this....?

[Clarkie1]

55. Edwards co-sponsored the decision to go to war, and I will continue to hold him accountable.

See post #49.

[venable]

108. you are obsessed with Edwards and you have your ammo and you won't look at

any other facts, including what he says now, as if that's irrelevant. you just dismiss it as pandering.

and you stalk him on this site like you have something personal.

Your guy said he would vote for it before he said he wouldn't.

Does that stain him beyond recognition? Didn't think so.

get over Edwards. promote your guy. this is absurb at this point. sorry.

[brazos121200]

6. Obama is a very good speaker and can relate to people

much as Lincoln, FDR, or Bill Clinton was able to. He will be a very formidable candidate once people get to hear him and know him. Edwards as you say is not a very good speaker, and really didn't do much in the way of memorable speeches in the '04 race. I really think Wes Clark could be a very appealing candidate if he gets off to a good start in the '08 race. Back in '04 he chose to bow out of the Iowa caucuses and that was a fatal blunder for him. Al Gore is another good candidate if he chooses to run, which I believe he will when it comes down to it.
Repubs will try to make something out of Obama's name and race, but then they always stoop to these tactics so what else is new.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. I predict there will be a lot of surprises. I can't predict what they will be.

Obama is an impressive guy, but he might peak early. Right now he's the "flavor du jour," getting a lot of press attention, and his poll numbers will be high -- for awhile. I would like to see him take some of the wind out of Hillary's sails; I can't stand it that the MSM seems to think she's the "inevitable" nominee. But the swiftboating will go into high gear now, too; and unless Obama is very skillful the RW could take him down. Same goes for any of them -- those a-holes will smear anybody. The one advantage Hillary has in that respect is that she's been getting swiftboated since the early '90s and everybody knows what their message is already.

I'm not counting Edwards out yet; I'm not counting anybody out yet. There will be surprises -- there always are. A year and a half is an eternity in politics.

I will also add that my favorite potential candidate is Wes Clark, and I really hope he decides to run. On the other hand, I could enthusiastically support Edwards or Obama. We have a lot of good candidates this time -- don't want to bash any of them.

[bling bling]

9. I don't see anything wrong with your post.

For some reason it's ok around here to literally *make-up* stuff about Hillary and post it as though it's fact and the same thing has been true of Obama. I don't know how many times I had to jump into threads to debunk the accusation that he is a "corporate loving DLC whore." That's what I call bashing. And that's bashing elected Democrats!!!

You're opinion is your opinion and you didn't throw out any untrue or baseless character smears so don't let people accuse you of bashing other Dem's. Furthermore, Edwards isn't an elected Democrat so he's not technically representing anybody but himself and his volunteer fanclub right now.

[Cameron27]

36. The Hillary bashing is now such

over the top BS, that although Clark, Obama & Gore are my top three favorites, I'm feeling more & more sympathy towards Clinton, and her supporters on this board.

I agree with the OP, and expect Edwards to be overshadowed by Obama's appeal. If Clark and Gore fail to materialize as candidates, then I'm heading straight to Obama's camp. (might head over there even if Gore does jump in)

[Adelante]

44. I so agree

Totally over the top.

[chimpymustgo]

54. As is the Edwards bashing - which you are very familiar with.

It's just nuts. Why do we do this?

[Adelante]

60. Excuse me?

I do not bash Democrats. I may express disagreement and criticize on policy issues, which I have every right to do, particularly in a Democratic primary. Edwards received a good deal of support in the past week from Clarkies, including this one. I am sorry you didn't notice.

[citizen snips]

13. This will eventually put Edwards in a better position

With two articulate candidates Edwards an Obama will will take a lot of attention off of Hillary. And this will be a good thing for Edwards. A lot of Edwards critics have been seething for this to happen but Obama's announcement will put Edwards ahead of Hillary.

[benny05]

16. As I posted on another thread about Edwards and the 2008 Race

On NPR on Thur:

Interviewer: He was asking how do you feel running in campaign against an African American Barack Obama, a woman Hillary Clinton and he says given the difficulties they face would you accept either as a vice-president candidate should you win the nomination?

JE: Well, I'll answer the later first and then I'll go to the heart of the question. I think either of them if I were to be successful, and I believe I will be, but if I were to be successful in the nomination process either of them would be very serious candidates for the vice-president. I have a high opinion of both.

As to the fact that Senator Obama is African American and Senator Clinton is a woman I'll just say this in the simplest language I know how to every democratic primary voter who hears my voice right now - if you are considering not voting for Senator Clinton because she is a woman or Senator Obama because he's black you shouldn't vote for me. Because I think having a real diversity in both in the candidates and in the campaign and in an administration, in my administration, is the heart and soul of who I am.

[Colobo]

18. Edwards is a nice guy

He would be a good president. Still, my support is for Obama.

[charlyvi]

22. Edwards has crossover potential.

I live in a Southern state; Edwards is not immediately discounted as a candidate. He has also steeped himself in labor, poverty and health care issues. I like that. We could do far worse than an Edwards candidacy. As far as speaking like a trial lawyer, he IS a trial lawyer and there is nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong with that. It's a right wing talking point that deserves ridicule. Trial lawyers are a consumer's best friend--they are the best defense we have against complete corporate rape.

[benny05]

26. Did you see a post on DK about Edwards being Charleston Recently?

I heard it was a diverse crowd and that even a McCain worker was curious about Edwards. The post doesn't mention the McCain part, but I know the Kossack who posted from the JE08 group.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/10/9364/03667

[charlyvi]

39. Just read it. Thanks.

I think people are seriously underestimating Edwards. He has the smarts, the wonkitude, the compassion and the drive to take it all. I've heard many people don't trust him; I'm not sure why. He seems like the real deal, FDR-style, to me. But then again, I voted for McGovern in '72.

[Clark2008]

96. I live in a Southern state, too, and the only people I see supporting

Edwards are young women - who will likely rush to Obama now.

:shrug:

[last_texas_dem]

104. That's interesting

I live in a southern state, too, and, at least judging from the people I talked to regarding the elections, I would say that Edwards seemed to have the most diverse group of supporters (in terms of age, race, gender, etc.) of any of the candidates, during the '04 primaries. (I'm not sure about this time around; I really haven't gotten a feel for who very many people that I know are planning to support this time around.) Anyway, I know it's just anecdotal information, but that's interesting that we've seen such differences in who is supporting Edwards in our particular areas.

[venable]

106. just wrong. demographics show Edwards support is deep and wide and varied

[Clarkie1]

38. LOL.

That's my first reaction to "Obama's announcement will put Edwards ahead of Hillary."

You say the Obama announcement will hurt Hillary. I agree, but it will also hurt Edwards more (in my opinion) because people who are attracted to youthfulness and freshness of Edwards will see a better option in Obama.

It's time for the world to change.

[citizen snips]

86. As much as you would like to

see Edwards go down it is not going to happen. Hillary is the big leader now and with her losing attention it will help Edwards even more. Edwards has a base out their and I don't see it going away. Edwards has a message that is different then anybody else and it is going to work for him.

[benny05]

14. Oh I'm so surprised about this thread

Started by Clarkie1?



:sarcasm:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

17. Hey!!

I'm a Clarkie and I like Edwards. I think he's a good Democrat and a viable candidate. If Clark decides to run I'm backing him, but you won't hear me slamming Edwards -- he has a lot to offer.

[benny05]

20. I like Clark too

It's just that Clarkie1 always does this when he's bored and cannot say something good about General Clark instead.

[Clarkie1]

58. Edwards co-sponsored the decision to go to war, and I will continue to hold him accountable.

See post #49.

[mzteris]

23. "take on Hillary"

Spoken like a "true democrat". . .

:eyes:


I like Obama. I like Clark - a lot. I like Edwards. But this Hillary bashing has GOT to GO!



Question: Would you or would you not vote for her if she is the Dem candidate?

[Colobo]

27. Is staying home an option?

Just joking... but honestly, Sen. Clinton doesn't make it for me at all. I like her as much as I like Romney: Not at all.

[mzteris]

37. Clinton or McCain

Clinton or any repuke -

And you'd just NOT VOTE?

I can't understand that. I really can't. If you really feel that way, I suggest you sincerely and honestly try to fathom in yourself why. And don't take the glib response. Really examine your heart and your motives.



edit typo.

[Colobo]

48. I made the mistake

Of voting for someone I truly didn't like once. I voted for the wrong motives, ignoring what I felt in my heart and what my conscience told me. I promised myself I would never do such thing again.

Clinton has not made it to my heart and mind yet, so she's not an option right now. Maybe in the future she will convince me of her capacity and abilities, but right now Edwards, Obama, Gore or Clark are the 4 individuals I think have what it takes to take this country out of the disaster it is right now.

[charlyvi]

31. If she is our candidate, I will vote for her.

I actually like Hillary; she must be made of iron to take the crap she's been taking for 12 years. No one should be subjected to that.

The problem I have with the media trying to push her as our candidate, though, is that we have such a deep bench this time. Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, perhaps Clark and, hope beyond all hope, AL GORE!!!! I would be proud to vote for any one of them. I want each to get their hearing, issues-wise. I don't want the "Hillary is inevitable" meme the media is pushing to derail our primaries. I don't want the rank and file to be deceived into thinking "what the hell."

[mzteris]

45. I don't think they are

trying to "push" her. It's a matter of perception, I think.

I don't have a "favorite" at this point - I could / would vote for any of them I think. There are pluses and minuses to EVERY candidate.

But lord knows I do think it's high time that a Pres - or at the very least - a VP - is NOT a 'white male'. Not that that should be THE deciding factor - but everything else being equal - then hell - I'd say America is way past due.

[charlyvi]

52. I think they're doing their best to create that impression.

Because the tabloid value of a Clinton running is like Christmas morning to them. Sorry if I seem cynical, but the last 8 year Clinton witchhunt left me forever dubious of the MSM's motives.

[Kahuna]

28. I hope you're wearing a flame retardant suit....

:popcorn:

[PresidentObama]

35. I don't think he'll fade.

I think in Iowa he'll always be a top contender, and as far as the nomination in the polls I think he'll stay in the top three. Maybe Obama and Clinton will steal most of the oxygen in the room, but I think Edwards will still remain popular till the very end.

I do think some surprise candidates/candidate will emerge, and make this a four way or five way race compared to the media hyped three way race. Not saying that surprise candidate will last, but I think they'll definitely give the top three a run for their money!

[charlyvi]

40. I think he'll stay, too, Kerry2008.

His ideas are too good to fade.

[Clark2008]

97. That's too bad.

I hope I get to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2008. If it's Edwards, I won't.

Now, before I get bashed... Edwards won't carry my state anyway, so it's not like my one vote would make or break him.

[chimpymustgo]

100. Per DU rules...

See ya.

[venable]

109. you have a problem, then

if you are willing to not vote for a Democrat who is today calling for troops to be withdrawn, then you are talking about something other than Edwards - you are talking about a personal issue you have with him, not who he is.

Enjoy pulling the lever for a Republican, or staying home on election day - an experience I'm proud to say I'll never have.

[Indigent A-hole]

41. Sadly mistaken

I would not discount Edwards so readily- despite the "man-crush" most people seem to have with Obama you cannot discount someone with so much support from the labor movement.

Not to mention of all the candidates his name has been on the ballot and he's technically won the popular vote once!

[Adelante]

50. It remains to be seen

where the labor movement's support actually ends up. This is one of the problems with this obscenely early primary campaigning. Over a year's time the picture will go in and out of focus. For example, I don't expect Hillary to remain 15 points ahead of Edwards in North Carolina for the whole time. It's just how it is today.

[Indigent A-hole]

51. Good point,

However the stated positions of the Kerry/Edwards ticket going into '04 surely is enough to persuade the big boys to favor Edwards imo.

[Adelante]

74. I don't see why

Other candidates have their own history or proven loyalties with organized labor or may have platforms that will appeal to labor. It's too early to know.

[Indigent A-hole]

75. The point is...

He won the general election popular vote on those terms. That's a good bet- pro-labor positions that appeal to a majority of Americans.

[Adelante]

77. Well, it's stretching it, in my opinion

Labor will support a candidate based first on its own best interests (any Democratic candidate, practically, fills the bill here, but one with a strong pro-labor voting record gets more weight); and second if it thinks the candidate is the winner in the field. It remains to be seen who that will be, but I think loyalties to the Clintons will play into it and if Hillary remains as strong as she is, she will get most of the labor support.

[Clarkie1]

56. Edwards co-sponsored the decision to go to war, and I will continue to hold him accountable.

See post #49.

Obama needs to hammer him with that.

[Trajan]

57. More anti-Democrat rhetoric ....

Wesley ? ... I will STILL support you, should you win the nomination, IN SPITE of the self destructive nature of some of your supporters .... Wesley Clark is a FAR BIGGER man than his supporters ; in the generosity he offers the other presumed Democratic party candidates, both in heart and spirit, and how he attempts to foster a sense of unity and togetherness , instead of bitterness and divisiveness, like some of his supporters here at DU prefer to affect ....

Wesley is the man ... Edwards is a decent Democrat, and surely receives that absolute respect of General Wesley Clark .....

Why dont you follow the General's example ? ... And stop cutting down our own ....

[Clarkie1]

59. Edwards co-sponsored the decision to go to war, and I will continue to hold him accountable.

See post #49.

[question everything]

63. I would have botheres to read and take you seriously

had you not set as your mission to go after every single thread praising Edwards and pipe in how bad he is.

But... since there are so many blacks who come out front and saying they support Obama becaue he is black, why not whites supporting Edwards because he is white?

Yes, I know, same rationale.

[Clarkie1]

64. Edwards co-sponsored the decision to go to war, and I will continue to hold him accountable.

see post #49

[Moloch]

69. Kicked & Recommended!

Obama is mezmerizing and Edwards will fade into obscurity soon.

[Clarkie1]

91. I agree. nt

[venable]

110. do you know what mesmerizing means?

it means that you have lost the ability to think, cognition is disabled. I think, unless you mean to insult Obama, you ought to find out what the words mean before you use them.

Edwards is inspiring.

[SaveElmer]

76. I don't think it will change all that much...I mean Obama's "announcement"...

Is hardly a surprise...he has been running for a month now...

He will probably get a bump based on enthusiasm for his announcement today...which I did not see but assume he did a good job...he is a great speaker...

But I don't think it will change the fundamentals of the race all that much

[LonelyLRLiberal]

80. Draft Gore - he's the most qualified candidate.

Then keep the stupid political strategists away from him and let him run on the truth.

I think the American people are ready for it - hopefully everyone has learned what happens when you vote based on whether you'd like to "have a beer" or snort a line with the candidate.

[BlueStater]

81. Never miss an opportunity to slam Edwards, do you?

Yawn.

[Clark2008]

99. It's OK to remind voters that he not only voted for the IWR, but

that he also co-sponsored it.

That's what primaries are for.

[flyarm]

82. wow ..i feel my B.S. meter working over time!!...please do tell us all

about Obama's experience??

who did he beat in a throw away race ????????

not to put down Obama...but i happen to think Edwards was in a much bigger race..of which i believe he and Kerry won..nationwide..not just an Illinois race against Alan Keyes........

and i happen to like Edwards and respect him the utmost!!

I do not have enough knowledge about Ombama..nor do i believe anyone does!!

and don't even ask me about Elizabeth Edwards..she is a gem..a real diamond..a jewel ..that i adore!

I don't even know one thing about Obama's wife..or really anything about him other than his speech on the floor of the Democratic convention of which i was a delegate..

But i sure do know alot about John Edwards..and i respect him and trust him completely!! His integrity knows no bounds.......

fly

[Clarkie1]

90. Edwards lack of integrity began with his co-sponsorship of the Iraq war.

see post #49.

[beaconess]

115. Pitting Edwards' electoral "experience" against Obama's might not be the wisest move

for Edwards supporters. Edwards has won ONE election in his entire career, not counting the primaries. If you count the primaries, he's won two, just two.

Obama, on the other hand handily won a difficult primarly for the U.S. Senate and won several previous races for state senate, hardly a mean feat.

This, in addition to the other things that have been pointed out - Edwards' Iraq war vote v. Obama's early and prescient opposition, Edwards' experience as a trial lawyer v. Obama's experience as a civil rights lawyer and community organizer - don't necessarily put Edwards much or even at all ahead of Obama in the experience battle.

I like Edwards and supported him in 2004. But I can see that trying to pit him against Obama in an argument about experience might do him more harm than good.

[last_texas_dem]

87. Does it somehow make your prediction more likely to come true

if you repeat it ad nauseam?

[FrenchieCat]

94. What I will say is that sometimes ad nauseam can be useful....

considering that many forget what was said as recently as yesterday.

jus sayin'! :shrug:

[Hippo_Tron]

98. Say what you want about Edwards, the "Two Americas" is a clear message

Obama and Hillary don't have that yet. But I agree that if they get it, Edwards is screwed.

[Andromeda]

102. Clark probably isn't going to run...

much to the chagrin of all the Clarkies at DU. Obama is impressive but I don't think he will be any better than Edwards when the debates take place. It's really too early to tell (2 years off) so why are you sticking your foot in it, whoops, I mean sticking your neck out, so soon?

Hillary is still leading the pack and I know that's upsets you but you just might have to accept it when the primaries start. It will be an interesting race.

I predict that some of the candidates will drop out as they inch further and further down the polls. The Dems are stronger now than they've been for a long time and we have a good shot at the White House.

[Crunchy Frog]

103. This the sort of post that gives "Clarkies" a bad reputation

and inclines other posters, especially Edwards supporters to want to engage in attacks of their own.

I'm not a fan of Edwards, but this sort of slamming of him seems counterproductive and unneccesarily antagonizing. I also think that it's in very poor taste to promote one Democrat by attacking another. I don't think either Obama or Clark would approve.

Why not simply post why you like Obama, without having to turn it into an attack on Edwards? Are you trying to antagonize other DUers and make Clark and his supporters look bad? :shrug:

[venable]

105. Clarkie 1 is obsessed with Edwards

this is not healthy.

I can't go to a single mention of Edwards without reading of your distaste.

Why don't you promote Clark instead?

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

107. Gore-Obama

What do you think of this ticket? Potential for 16 years?

[Skwmom]

111. No. Edwards is a gift to the republicans. There is no way

they will let him fade.

On edit: When they talk about how Edwards was tested in 04 I have to laugh. Does anyone really think the republicans would be stupid enough to kill the "golden goose" they'd love to see as the nominee in 08?

[cali]

113. I look forward to hearing a lot more from both Edwards and

Obama. I like both of them. I'll support one or the other of them, unless Gore gets into the race, but your prediction is born out of nothing so much as your own antipathy towards Edwards. Edwards has built a formidable base in Iowa and among the netroots. He gave a very strong speech at the DNC winter meeting last week. I don't think he's about to be eclipsed by either Obama or Hillary.

[cobaindrain]

118. I think Clark supporters are still bitter Edwards did away with Wes in 04

It is still so damn early, Edwards has a great chance of toppling Obama. The luster will wear off eventually. Remember how unbeatable Dean seemed? Even Gephardt seemed formidable.