Edwards our best candidate

[DemDogs]

From Ohio for Edwards blog:

Edwards Winning Ohio

Pay no attention to the following headline or the inexplicable conclusion in the lede graph stating Giuliani making strongest overall showing in the tree major swing states.

The NEWS is, in a head-to-head match up against the former NY Mayor, John Edwards beats the GOP's frontrunning candidate by a larger margin than any other Democratic Party hopeful.

Polls say Giuliani does well in Ohio, other swing states: "In Ohio, the Republican Giuliani and Democratic New York Sen. Hillary Clinton are in a virtual tie, 44 percent for Clinton and 43 percent for Giuliani in the latest Quinnipiac University Poll. But Giuliani leads Clinton in both Pennsylvania and Florida.

With some 20 months to go before election day, the Ohio race is a virtual toss-up among the presumed frontrunners. Former North Carolina Democratic Sen. John Edwards narrowly edges Giuliani, 45 percent to 42 percent, while Giuliani leads Illinois Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, 44 percent to 40 percent."
Like our dear friend Cindy reminds us every day on As Ohio Goes -- So goes the Nation.

The numbers are close, it's early and a lot will happen between now and then. But Edwards Buckeye Backers can take heart that we're backing a winner.

This is all you need to remember:

The road to the White House still goes through Ohio.

Ohio picks Edward over Giulliani by a larger margin than anybody else.

Giuliani is beating Obama, ties Clinton, and loses to Edwards in THE swing state.

[saltpoint]

1. Fluctuations in early polls to late polls notwithstanding, Edwards is

a damned appealing soul. He is a Citizen, and a Doer, a Democrat who is willing to marshall the positive energy in our party.

I haven't felt even an ounce of that energy from the Rethuglicans. Most of the GOP 08 field are raving lunatics, and those who aren't psychotic are hopelessly corrupt.

Ohio is one of those breath-taking states. I remember that late-night finish in Ohio between Carter and Ford, and those knock-down Senate contests with Metzenbaum. You Buckeyes know how to keep people's interest in politics, that's for sure.

I also feel I owe a debt of thanks to Ohioans for dumping Ken Blackwell in last year's gubernatorial contest. Mr. Blackwell needed dumping. And you folks came through in landslide numbers. Mission accomplished.

[Colobo]

2. He's a great candidate, and let's be honest

He is a white male. It does help. Not flaming, because I would vote for Edwards in a heartbeat...

[saltpoint]

4. I can't deny that John Edwards is a white male, but I'm not drawn or

repelled to candidates based on gender or race or physical personality. I'm interested in what they have to say and how they say it in a more acute way because George W. Bush has been so piss-poor at saying ANYTHING. He can't even fib very well. His vice president CAN fib very well, but sounds delusional doing it.

I'm really starved for a Democratic administration on Pennsylvania Avenue.

I'm ready to cast my blue vote this instant. Go, Democrats.

[AshevilleGuy]

36. Edwards and Gore are the two who can win, IMO.

The others?? No, and that includes Biden and Kucinich who are also white males. Richardson? Dunno yet.

[jcrew2001]

60. Edwards is the only southern white male

who is in the race. I'm more excited about having Edwards in the WH than Gore.

Did Gore even win Ohio last time?

[Labors of Hercules]

68. why do you prefer Edwards to Gore?? Just wondering...

[jcrew2001]

76. I think Edwards will be more exciting and interesting

as a president. I'm ambivalent about a Gore campaign but he would make for a great president.

[Labors of Hercules]

81. well. at least we agree he'll be a great president.

But I think if Gore announces, you'll witness the most exciting election campaign in the history of this country. Count on it.

[jcrew2001]

83. it could be exciting but i feel that 2000 was a

terrible campaign and i would cringe if it happened again. Also, will he pick lieberman as the VP again? that would kill the campaign.

and what swing states can gore win? he won't get florida. He's still not popular in the red states.

[Labors of Hercules]

85. Lieberman? Are you nuts? You really give Al no credit at all, do you?

Gore/Obama is the likely ticket: The two of them would be a fantastic team, and they already know and respect each other.

[jcrew2001]

90. I think gore would be better at convincing Clark

to serve as his VP - Obama's great, but if gore wants to win big he can't with Obama.

[Labors of Hercules]

92. To that I cannot yet disagree... we'll have to see how Obama washes

over the next few months.

[NYCGirl]

100. He won Florida last time, why do you say he wouldn't this time?

And remember when Gore endorsed Lieberman in 2004? Well, no you don't, because he endorsed Dean instead.

[jcrew2001]

101. Kerry lost florida big time, but wishful thinking will

help gore win florida now. I was not excited about lieberman in 2000 and i hope gore will pick a better VP.

[NYCGirl]

102. Who was talking about Kerry? He's a different person. NT

[jcrew2001]

103. So all the voters who voted GOP

in Florida in 2004, will go back to voting for Gore in 2008? I hope that happens.

[Labors of Hercules]

104. Gore "lost" Florida by less than 600 votes...

Kerry may have lost it "big time" but Gore didn't, and according to political historians who have gone back and researched the vote count, if the Supreme Court had had a less biased conservative majority, he would be our president today.

[jcrew2001]

108. So are the votes in florida still there

for Gore to take - even if he is up against Rudy or McCain?

[Labors of Hercules]

109. You'd have to ask a Floridian that one...

[AshevilleGuy]

96. No, Ohio would have made FLA irrelevant.

And a tragedy he didn't win it.

Technically Gore is also a Southern white male, but he really grew up in DC (some residence hotel on Mass Ave) and spent Summers in TN. I don't think of TN as being culturally Southern anyway, more Midwestern.

[Labors of Hercules]

105. Living in Western, NC you can really see the difference...

TN is more midwestern, yep, that's definately the right way to put it. :toast:

[Democrat 4 Ever]

5. I'm still listening and weighing the different candidates. But I have got

to admit that Edwards certainly shot up in my estimation when he refused to take part in the debates in Nevada hosted by Faux. I still can't figure out what Reid was thinking by giving this event to Faux to smear, distort and screw up. NO Democratic candidates will come out looking good with that smarmy bunch at the helm and a whole lot of damage can be done.

I would like to see ALL Democratic candidates make the pledge not to appear in ANY event that includes the sycophants and toadies of Faux Snooze. Everyone knows they do not have an ounce of journalistic integrity and why the Dems would give them even an hint of respectability by allowing their participation is beyond me. I would like to see the national discussion on WHY Democratic candidates refuse to appear on Faux - then maybe some of the sleeping masses who watch Faux might wake up and wonder what is going on. Long shot, yes, but worth the attempt.

Boycott Faux Snooze. Period. No exceptions.

[DemDogs]

7. Let's be honest???

What country do you live in? Unfortunately, I live in the USA where a white male has a better chance of being president. Edwards, to his credit, says if you won't vote for Obama because he is black or for Hillary because she is a woman, don't vote for me. But there are plenty who won't for them, whether they feel free answering that way in a poll or not. Pollsters know this. The problem is that limits the states HRC or BO could reasonably contest and put us in a hole again. A hole where the election turns on OHIO. Which is where Edwards is the strongest.

If he thinks the right way, has the right stuff and can be elected, I don't care what color his (or her) skin is. I want a Democrat in the WH. It looks like Edwards is the one who can make that happen.

[Colobo]

9. I would vote for Edwards in a heartbeat

And I live in Florida.

[Czolgosz]

13. Let's be honest: 43 out of 43 presidents plus every major party candidate ever has been a white male

so you may be jumping the gun a bit to conclude that this is a fatal weakness in John Edwards.

Next, you'll say his candidacy is doomed because he's a Christian, right?

[spooky3]

17. I thought he was agreeing with you?

He said being a white male does help, not that it was a "fatal weakness."

[Colobo]

18. Thanks for reading my post :)

[Czolgosz]

28. my bad

[Labors of Hercules]

107. was that an apology?

How about, "oh, I'm so embarrassed that I spewed a bunch of junk at you without actually reading what you wrote..."
"My bad"... why not just say you don't give a shit or whatthefuckever?

:rant:

[NDP]

39. The story that I saw online about Ohio, didn't even show Edwards' numbers against Guliani

Why?

Because the media only want to shove Hillary and Obama down people's throats.

When in the world will people accept that truth?

[saltpoint]

41. Hi, NDP. I don't know how Ohio is tilting on our Democrats but I like

the election results in November when we in essence threw Kenneth Blackwell into the Ohio River.

It was a strong blue wave in the Buckeye State, and I expect our 08 candidates will want as big a chunk of that momentum as can be had.

The Cincinnati-area media have never impressed me. WLW radio has a long line-up of rightwing kooks on a lot of the time, and the Cincinnati ENQUIRER is pretty lame. Democrats fare better in the Columbus area and in the NE. At this point, I just don't know who's going to win, except to say it's going to be a real dust-up.

I think Ohio's primary is fairly late in the calendar, so that may take some of the tension out of the race if one of the candidates grabs a commanding lead in delegates. I hope an Ohio DUer will jump in and give us the primary date.

[jcrew2001]

61. I'm glad the media is focused on Hillary

and Obama. They want a story, but both will fizzle out by November. We don't want Edwards peaking too early like Hill and Barry. When the fall comes, everyone will realize that Edwards will win Iowa, NH, Nevada, SC and Ohio.

[durtee librul]

111. You should also thank them for indicting

the 'ladies' who screwed up the recount and were found guilty of vote fraud....even tho MSM didn't cover it the way they should have.

[gratefultobelib]

3. He was impressive in the Hardball interview Tuesday. He answered the

questions about the Libby verdict forthrightly and intelligently, and I know this shouldn't matter, but he did not look so young and fresh as he has in the past. He looked more seasoned and mature which will, of course, play well with many in the future.

[Double T]

6. The election 'jury' is still deliberating..............

the 'verdict' will NOT be in until next year(2008).

[elfin]

8. I agree ---- unless Al jumps in

Also like Richardson and fear it is too late for Clark to get traction. Dodd is good as well, but noot "known" as much as he should be.

Edwards/Richardson or Edwards/Dodd makes an excellent ticket. I do not think he would ever pick Clark due to bad feelings between them during the last go around.

[AshevilleGuy]

37. Gore's entry would finish all candidates, except Hilary.

But he could win in November; I can't see Hilary doing that.

What else matters?

[jcrew2001]

66. I'm not very excited about a Gore presidency

i see his time as having passed, and I would prefer someone fresh and exciting like Obama or Edwards.

[Labors of Hercules]

78. give me a frickin break...

always the same thing... new and exciting! entertaining! whathefuckever...

If Gore runs, Gore WINS.

And he WILL be a fantastic president.

He WILL end the policies of hatred

and he WILL lead this nation into a better future...

How can you be "not very excited" about that??

[jcrew2001]

84. but which Red states can Gore win over

because that was his weakness last time.

[AshevilleGuy]

86. Which red states could Obama win??

For that matter, how many blue states could he hold onto? He will always poll high, but on election night it will be a disaster.

[jcrew2001]

95. I agree, are only chance is Edwards

he can win Ohio and possibly Virginia and NC.

[Labors of Hercules]

87. this isn't last time...

And the perception of Al Gore has changed. I used to think myself that he was boring and annoying, but now, obviously, I think the opposite. Have I changed? Maybe, but not so much. Gore has though... He stopped acting the part and started being it. That's what comes through now, and I'm sure as hell not the only one who sees it.

[jcrew2001]

89. but which Red states will gore win?

Will he win Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Arkansas? Though he is better, i still have my doubts.

[Labors of Hercules]

91. There's no way to really speculate on that yet...

What we can speculate on is his increasingly strong overall appeal... I mean let's face it, the guy is HOT right now. He won the popular vote in 2000, and his appeal is far greater now. Political analysts across the country are saying that he would be the strongest candidate by far and that he should wait until the fall to announce his candidacy. They are excited as hell to see him build his popular support into a successful presidential bid.

[jcrew2001]

94. I'm still not convinced that any red states

will go to gore with the exception of Ohio. There's a reason many southerners distrust Gore and that will not be easily overcome. He may win the popular vote again, but we saw how useless that was last time.

[Labors of Hercules]

106. um... I'm a southerner, and aside from my TN parents who didn't find him entertaining until...

I proved them otherwise, the swing voters I know trust him more than they ever did in 2000, largely because of his speaking out against the war and they were moved by "An inconvenient truth". Does that mean he'll earn the trust of Conservatives? Possibly. He has a better shot at them now than he did then.

[Cameron27]

112. never mind

[jcrew2001]

65. I've heard Clark doesn't want to be VP which

is unfortunate because he would be an asset to any ticket. I'm going with Edwards/Bayh, we need Ohio and Indiana.

[BeyondGeography]

10. Edwards didn't win a single primary in 2004, added very little to the ticket in the general

and is currently running a distant 3rd in a three-horse race.

Other than that, he's looking good.

Look, I respect Edwards' campaigning abilities as much as anyone. In 2004, he got his groove going and soared past Clark, who was my guy, so I've seen him catch fire. Of course, we did hold on to win Oklahoma, which Edwards refused to acknowledge, but that's another story...

In the general, whether it was Kerry's use of Edwards or the difficulty for any VP candidate to show much value, Edwards was a non-factor. The worst of it was the result in his home state, where we got hammered. His supporters have this annoying habit of glossing over these shortcomings, which I attribute to their deep fondness for their candidate. That's OK, we all do it. But taking a poll 600 days out from the election which has all of the top three within the margin of error of winning in Ohio over a Republican who may not even be the nominee and saying VOILA, you see, Edwards IS our best candidate borders on the absurd.

[saltpoint]

11. Iowans place Edwards first at the moment, and so do North Carolinians.

Recent polls in those states reflect the competence of the Edwards campaign team and the viability of his candidacy.

John Edwards won the 2004 primary in South Carolina and finished an impressive second in several other states.

Run or poll or don't run a poll, Edwards is one of perhaps a dozen Americans, one of which will be our next president.

Over half of U.S. voters are already seriously thinking about the presidential race in 2008.

No reason the OP here shouldn't be one of them.

[AshevilleGuy]

88. So far as I know, our (NC) primary is not until May!!!

What the hell good will it do Edwards then?? :mad:

[saltpoint]

97. The North Carolina Democratic Congressional delegation has

unanimously endorsed Edwards.

That's some big league organization. Always helps a candidate to have his or her state's delegation lined up like that.

We'll move (one of these days) to a national primary, or 2 or 3 regional primaries system.

I think a vote in North Carlina or Indiana should count as much as one in Iowa or New Hampshire.

[spooky3]

12. Not true

Edwards won South Carolina. He also garnered more votes than did Clark in most states in which both were candidates.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/scorecard/index.html

[Jai4WKC08]

15. Maybe more total votes, but

Clark led in more states, which is far more relevant. Ask Al Gore.

More relevant still, Edwards didn't help Kerry win anywhere. May have actually hurt him in NC, where Kerry did worse in Edward's own home town than did the Democratic governor.

[spooky3]

16. not true

Please go to the CNN link I provided and count the number of states in which Edwards led Clark, vs. those in which Clark led Edwards. Edwards finished ahead of Clark more often. That's a fact.

As for your opinion, I don't share it, but reasonable people can disagree.

[FrenchieCat]

19. Thru Mini Tuesday, you are wrong....Clark won over Edwards in more states....

and considering the free media positive publicity that Edwards was receiving while Clark received none at all, it is actually pretty remarkable that the results were as they were, with Clark coming in ahead of Edwards in more states until the Tennessee/Virginia Races.

Had Wes Clark been given proper dues and "normal" press coverage, considering his campaign started late, the future might have not turned out in the way the media wrote it. Certainly Clark choosing not to contest Iowa hurt him the most, because after Iowa, Kerry and Edwards became the juggernauts, and apart from Dean getting coverage for "the scream", no other candidate were talked about following Iowa, which was the first primary...so go figure!

Even when Clark beat Edwards in New Hampshire (albeit it was close), he received no media for it....and in fact the press for quite sometime afterwards kept saying that Edwards had won 3rd place when he hadn't. Same for Oklahoma....they refused to give Clark the win even after all of the votes had been counted....because Edwards winning his birth state was the only news worth reporting that day. No matter that Clark came in 2nd to Kerry in North Dakota, New Mexico and Arizona on the same day...with Edwards having 2nd place wins only in Missouri and Oklahoma (to Clark's 1st place). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-Tuesday


It was clear to many that the media had actually decided prior to Iowa who was going to come out on top based on the coverage that they each received pre-Iowa.

NETWORKS ANOINTED KERRY, EDWARDS BEFORE IOWA DID

OTHER MAJOR FINDINGS:
Golden Boys Get Midas Touch-Not one person quoted by the networks had anything critical to say about North Carolina Senator John Edwards (100 percent favorable coverage) in the two and half weeks leading up to the Iowa caucus, while 96 percent of the evaluations of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry were positive.
http://www.cmpa.com/pressReleases/NetworksAnointedKerryEdwards.htm

Before the Virginia and Tennessee primaries ocurred that next week, Edwards had already been proclaimed Kerry's only competition still standing....which wasn't really the case, but the media made it so...evidenced by the story below with Clark MIA written BEFORE Virginia and Tennessee voting but after Mini Tuesday

"AND THEN THERE WERE TWO"

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/02/04/primaries/index.html
Kerry breaks into the open field, with Edwards still in pursuit -- while the Dean meteor continues to burn out.

February 4, 2004 | After a month of surprise, confusion and tumult, the race for the Democratic presidential nomination is, suddenly, much more clear: The nomination is John Kerry's to lose.

John Edwards won in South Carolina Tuesday, and he made a strong showing in an Oklahoma race that was too close to call even after all the votes were in.

In other words, the primary season was manipulated via the type of publicity they the media decided to bestow on each candidate; Kerry was "electable", Edwards was "the only competition", Dean was all about the scream, and Clark was simply ignored, and Kucinich just was.

http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/wes_clark_did_hella_goodthe_20.html
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9242.html

In the end, Clark was actually a stronger candidate who was given less media coverage. Had the media reporting been more balanced, Edwards would not have fared as well. I am of the opinion that Edwards was given advantages that he many not have actually earned but was given.....and there is no guarantee that this positive unbalanced promotion of Edwards would happen during a general election 2008....with Edwards at top of the ticket.

[spooky3]

22. Please separate facts vs. opinion & speculation

According to the results posted at CNN (linked previously) Edwards received more votes than did Clark in more states when both ran, and in FAR more states in total.

Opinion is opinion (e.g., about media coverage, or why the outcomes were as they are), as is speculation about what could have happened if other facts were different. So I will leave those to others to argue about.

But the actual outcomes of the state races is a factual matter. If you will review my posts you will see that I disputed only allegations of fact, with more facts. Unless you have data showing that CNN is incorrect, I don't see any reason to dispute them.

[FrenchieCat]

29. The amount of media coverage is NOT an opinion....

or speculation. It was and is a reality. There are real numbers that stand behind the analysis of media coverage that are facts, not opinion.

The point is that media coverage directly affects the eventual "Factual" data. It's like saying that somehow the Swift Boat coverage had no affect on the fact that Kerry/Edwards were defeated....and anythings said about it is simply opinion. I disagree with that premise.

It's almost like you're saying that there is another reason why the current 3 frontrunner are who they are...and that this has nothing to do with the media publicity they have received to date.
That might be your opinion, but if one were to simply tabulate and analyse media coverage to date, the positive and negative nature of such coverage.....the figures arrived at would be the hard facts in this case.

You will understand better what I am talking about as this race goes on.

Till then, you can believe that you have facts that negate what I have evidenced, but you really don't.

[venable]

42. this will not be read by Frenchie Cat, because she has me on ignore, but

I will challenge her view that who gets 'free and positive press' is not a matter of opinion. Of course it's a matter of opinion.

I do agree with her, though, that Clark did not receive much press, and should have received more. But, thing is, I think the same is true of Edwards.

Some people here, from one camp, believe Edwards got a tremendous amount of press coverage, and that he still does.

How do you account for the fact that the person leading in Iowa, and as stated here, is the strongest Dem in Ohio, is considered an afterthought to the HRC/Obama race?

Edwards and Clark both get less press attention than they should - and, guess what, this statement is my opinion, and is a MATTER OF OPINION.

[ultraist]

52. M$M reporting is based on FACTS?

LMAO! :rofl:


BTW, is Wes Clark still on Fox News' payroll?

[FrenchieCat]

54. You can laugh...but I don't know what you are laughing at?

I'm not sure what you are referencing in your post based on my post....to be honest. :shrug:
----------------

I don't know if Wes Clark still has a contract with Fox. And if he does, what of it?

All of the Television networks are whores. Some are just more apparent about it. It's the ones that do it covertly that I most worry about. Sooner than later, you will understand exactly what I mean.

Plus I'm sure that many liberals watch American Idol. That's Fox too.

What I will say, is that anyone who offers themselves up to run for the highest office in the land should be willing to talk to all of the citizens of this country, regardless of the means. Some of the DISH package only offer Fox News in particular in the rural areas.

Bush is one that comes to mind who would only speak under certain circumstances. I'm not into that utilizing all means to "control" the message or the audience stuff so much, because in the end, it is impossible. I'm sure when we won those 36 seats that were previously occupied by Republicans in order to win the house back last year, fox viewers were some of the ones that voted for Dems.

I have not commented on Edwards decision about avoiding Fox in the many threads about it. But personally, I don't agree with his stance, since you seem to have invited my comment on the matter.

Wes Clark spoke up against the conglamoration of media loud and clear for all to see long ago.

I hope to hear John Edwards speak those words sooner than later as well. If he has, please provide the link.

[KingofNewOrleans]

27. And Edwards had won more delegates than Clark

thru mini Tuesday--18-0 in Iowa for Edwards, neither got delegates in NH, and Edwards 66-50 on mini-Tuesday. Granted an 84-50 delgate lead is hardly insurmountable (and of course both were well behind Kerry at this point, but given that it's the delgates who choose our nominee, it's incorrect to portray that Clark was doing better than Edwards thru mini-Tuesday.

[FrenchieCat]

30. Counting delegates in a state in where Clark didn't run kind of skews

comparing the two to each other, don't they? So even in looking at the 66-50 lead (thereby counting the size of the state, as opposed to the states themselves) is not a very big lead considering the difference in media coverage.

Those denying the role that media coverage has on election results will soon be eating your words. Trust me!

[DemDogs]

26. Nonsense

Of the Southern states Kerry conceded by not fighting there, his loss was worse everywhere than Gore's. The least change was in NC. You Clarkies have to quit blaming Edwards for Kerry's decisions. Edwards at the top of the ticket will win NC in November 2008. Mark my words.

As for your "led in more states" comment, I have no idea what that means.

[iamjoy]

80. Because the VP Doesn't Help

not in matters where Kerry was weak.

To many, Kerry lacked charisma. He was perceived as weak and inconsistent, not one to trust with national security. There was nothing any VP candidate could have done to overcome these "weaknesses" Some one with stronger defense credentials would have either been swift boated or it would have been the most uninspiring ticket in as long as anyone could remember.

OTOH, take a candidate who people perceive as likeable, but worry about lack of experience and the right VP candidate can help set those fears to rest. It happened w/Reagan in 1980, Clinton in 1992 and Dubya in 2000.

If Hillary is our nominee, no VP candidate will help her win over red voters. If Obama is, the right person (experience) will. Same with Edwards. At the top of the ticket, the right running mate can complement his weaknesses. As a running mate, he offers nothing. Obama may offer a little as VP candidate, he may help bring out the African American vote - but even that is not assured. I think he's actually more popular with whites than blacks.

[jcrew2001]

62. Is clark someone who's running

in 2008, maybe sharpton should run again, he was entertaining and funny.

If we want to talk about 2004 results, can Lieberman run as a Dem or is he officially kicked out of the party?

[jen4clark]

110. No. JE did not gardner more votes

than did Clark in most states in which both were candidates:

After the Iowa caucuses, which Clark chose not to compete in, the four main Democratic candidates — Kerry, Dean, Clark, and Edwards — met in eight primaries. Kerry won six and effectively wrapped up the nomination in the first week of February 2004. But taking a closer look, Clark did pretty well, particularly if you compare him to Edwards.

In those eight primaries, Clark finished ahead of Edwards in five (AZ, NH, NM, ND, and OK), while Edwards bettered Clark is just three of the eight (DE, MO, and SC). If you include Iowa, Clark still outperformed Edwards in five of the first nine contests.

In fact, in those first eight post-Iowa primaries, if we look only at top-two finishes (candidates who came in either first or second), Kerry had seven, Clark had four, Edwards had three, and Dean had one.

But the media was unimpressed. A day after Clark and Edwards each won their first primaries, and Clark outperformed Edwards in a majority of the mini-Super Tuesday contests, news outlets praised Edwards and dismissed Clark. Salon, for example, ran a major feature, taking a look at the race for the nomination. The headline: “And then there were two.” A big picture accompanied the article with Kerry and Edwards. The article said Clark “posted disappointing numbers in the seven-state primary” and “may not be long for the game.” Again, this was a day after Clark actually did slightly better than Edwards...

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9242.html#more-9242

[jcrew2001]

113. 2nd place is the first loser but

according to delegates gained, Edwards was ahead - which is really all that matters.
After SC, it was still Kerry's to lose against Edwards. Clark may have picked up meaningless votes after SC, but it would not have prevented Kerry from getting the Nom. So many voters may not have voted because they knew Kerry would win, but it was impressive that Clark's supporters came out, even if the states had few delegates and if they were outside of Edwards' strength in the South. So Clark wins a regional battle in the mid-west and west. It still is meaningless, and at the end of the day, the candidate that picks up Iowa, NH, Nevada, and SC will pick up the nomination.

[DemDogs]

24. Won SC, lost OK by 1000 votes, close 2d in IA, WI

A few corrections.

And he didn't "refuse to acknowledge" Clark winning by 1000 in Oklahoma (a state he camped out in, like he had in NH, by the way). What nonsense.

As for NC, Edwards was beating Bush in NC in the last poll taken before he dropped out of the primary race. Kerry didn't contest NC. No commercials, no field operation. Helped us lose the Senate race with that decision. Like he did in Missouri, too. You cannot win if you don't get in the game.

[BeyondGeography]

32. Forgot SC, but Edwards played cute about OK for days

and his website even advertised it as a tie/victory at first. Us Clarkies will always remember that one. One could also say that no money was spent in NC in 2004 because the hoped for Edwards bounce never happened there.

I like Edwards for the most part, I just find him to be on the superficial side. If he somehow gets the nom, which I highly doubt, I will be an enthusiastic supporter, in no small part because his wife is one of the more impressive human beings in the party. His choice of her as a lifetime partner speaks as well for him as any of his other attributes.

[jcrew2001]

69. Does it really matter if Clark or Edwards won

or led in more primaries. They both lost to Kerry and if Clark has a gripe in 2004, it should be about losing to Kerry and why he lost to Kerry.

Its pathetic arguing about 2nd place, especially since Edwards is still in the game and trying to get the prize. He's the only 2004 contender still fighting and reaching for the Nom, while everyone else from 2004 is out.

...not counting dennis.

[ddeclue]

34. WRONG - He won South Carolina, I was there working for Kerry

at the time. Edwards was the only Dem candidate besides Kerry to win ANY primary in 2004.

He won SC with 45% of the vote.

Doug D.
Current Edwards Supporter, former Kerry/Edwards Staffer in Orlando, Kerry Traveller in Charleston SC.

[MGKrebs]

40. Distant third might be good at this point.

Kerry won from third in Iowa last time after Dean and Gephardt beat the crap out of each other. Being in third this time around is shaping up as the place to be, IMO.

[jcrew2001]

67. Edwards could not stop the Swift Boat attacks on

kerry - however Clark as VP would have. It was not Edwards' fault, it was Kerry's fault and Kerry's problem.

Still, Edwards will make a great president and presidential candidate.

[Learn2Swim]

14. that's cool but...

it's still very early. I think eventually all of the major Dem candidates will lead Rudy G. in Ohio in the coming months with how these polls go. And it will fluctuate several times, when it comes to who currently leads who, etc.

Now, having said that, I agree with you 100% that John Edwards is a great person, and an EXCELLENT candidate. I like John Edwards very much, and if something were to happen to my guy in this race, Edwards would have my unwaivering support.

[JNelson6563]

20. If Edwards wins primary I'll work to get him elected

But for now I am holding out for President Gore. :toast:

[quinnox]

21. Edwards is impressing me lately

I like his universal health care proposal and he is coming across much more authentic than I have seen him before.

Edwards may be the last one standing if Hillary and Obama both aren't able to clinch it, and it should be said that they are a black man and a woman and Edwards is the closest white male to the leaders. I read a recent poll about Democratic party voters and they said they think there is a high probability the nominee will turn out to be a white male.

[bluehighways911]

23. Flip-Flop

Isn't it just what we need. Another election with the term flip-flop every day.

And BTW. What makes you think Edwards wouldn't be stupid enough to buy the lies to the next war?

And how exactly did Ohio react to Edwards in the last presidential run. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

And don't give me the crap, Bush lied to start the war. He may have, but plenty of people knew he was lying. A five year old that could work google would figure out Bush was lying.

So is Edwards stupid? Or does he just go which ever way the wind blows.

Same with Hillary btw.

FLIP-FLOP, FLIP-FLOP-FLIP-FLOP.

Edwards as the Dem nominee, and Gulliani will be in the White House.

Guarenteed.

[DemDogs]

25. Truthful Edwards- Scummy Giuliani: The South is ours again

Edwards is the only candidate who says things people don't want to hear and talks to affluent audiences about poverty and to Wall Street audiences about organized labor. Which he has always done.

Rudy vs. Johnny? A dream match-up for us.

[saltpoint]

33. Hi, DemDogs. I think you raise a great point on the South.

There are a handful of Southerners the GOP could put at the top of their ticket, but Huckabee is the only one announced. McCain is the far desert southwest; Brownback is windblown Kansas; Romney's an up-north, back-east Mormon from Massachusetts; and Gingrich, even if he's from Georgia, is multi-divorced and a bit of a city slicker.

I suppose they could throw Haley Barbour into the veep slot.

But if Giuliani, the current GOP leader, were to go on to win their nomination, and Edwards were to win ours, a lot of southerners would go for the home town fella over what they perceive as the big-city liberal.

[Catchawave]

50. Especially after the Firefighters union dissing Rudy today....

http://www.firefightingnews.com/article-US.cfm?articleID=27125

[jcrew2001]

70. Kerry lost Ohio on his own, there wasn't anything

Edwards could do to help. Edwards will beat rudy in a general election match up. Edwards was at least in the Senate and voting on IWR, unlike others who were on the sidelines. This is Bush's war, he coerced everyone into letting him go to war and he's the most powerful man in the country unfortunately. We need any Dem in the white house to stop these nutjobs.

[young_at_heart]

31. How about Edwards/Clark or Clark/Edwards?

I think Clark is the ideal candidate.

[AshevilleGuy]

35. If this board is indicative of the entire party,

the animosity between Edwards and Clark supporters, which was at fever pitch in 2004, would preclude such a ticket, I think. Why this is so, I don't know, but it all began during the primary season in 2004..

[FrenchieCat]

43. I don't recall "fever" pitch animosity between Edwards and Clark supporters

in 2004.

In fact, in 2004, there were few Edwards supporter on DU apart from AP. Most members were for Clark and Dean, and a few were for Kerry.

And in fact, Clark supporters supported the Kerry/Edwards ticket without nary a bit of hesitation.


So can you provide a few links on this?

[AshevilleGuy]

46. Links?? It was almost three years ago

It was so bad that at the time Edwards was picked for VP the mods had to ban the constant attacks from Clark supporters, once he was officially nominated. Will Pitt made an appeal to them; it didn't seem to matter - the attacks were very personal against Edwards and no one really knew why.

And now you still see residuals of this. I don't get it.

I have nothing against the General myself but I could never support him now because of what happened at that time. I don't know how to provide links from that time.

[FrenchieCat]

53. I suggest that you donate to DU, get yourself a star and do a search

on this that you talk about.

I don't remember this, nor was I a part of it.

I just did a search from Feb 2004 to May 2004, and out of 625 results searching "Edwards, Clark", I don't find these great big flame wars you are referencing!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=513918
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=513542
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=512369
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=510359
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=503246
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=499914
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=493448

I remember Flame wars in reference to Dean and Kerry folks, and later Dean and Clark folks....but not so much the ones you seem familiar with.

[AshevilleGuy]

55. I do not need to search.

There is nothing wrong with memory. It peaked just before the convention; the mods shut down criticism of the nominees at that time.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

48. Clarkie here who likes Edwards.

In fact, I like almost all of the potential candidates (Biden and Hillary not so much, though I'd vote for them if I had to). We are lucky to have such good people to choose from.

[venable]

49. excellent, Ocelot

and I'm an Edwards guy who likes Clark, and should he run, and get the nom. I will be out there every day working for him.

just wanted to give the friendly nod back at ya.

[saltpoint]

57. ocelot and venable, you folks are the cat's pajamas. Bravo & thank you.

[NDP]

38. Cindy needs to be working to get those voting issues solved in Ohio

[Dr Fate]

44. Eddie is the man. I love him & Obama the best.

It is between those two for me- I hope I get to have them both!!!!

[chimpymustgo]

51. I like Edwards/Obama. It just works on so many levels.

It's got new ideas, experience, excitement.

[ripple]

59. But lacking in foreign policy experience

I like Obama/Clark myself.

I like most of Edwards' positions, but something about him screams slick-talkin' lawyer to me. :shrug:

[jcrew2001]

71. Does Obama have foreign policy experience

because I just am not convinced he does.

[Labors of Hercules]

72. not particularly, but Clark certainly does.

[jcrew2001]

73. but clark does not want to be vp so its pointless

to even mention him. I think the VP will either be Bayh who will win Indiana/Ohio or Richardson but the west has less electoral votes.

The Dem field is a bit weaker than the Rep field. Rudy has a long resume, as does McCain.

[TwilightGardener]

74. Is he not on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee?

Does he not have a degree in International Relations? That sounds like as much or more foreign policy experience than Edwards OR Hillary.

[jcrew2001]

79. If you count experience based on years of

service in congress or of national service, Obama has the least.

[TwilightGardener]

82. I suppose you're right, but I don't think that's an insurmountable

flaw. We've had a lot of presidents who didn't have the ultimate resumes, many who did quite well!

[jcrew2001]

93. But veteran politicians like Rudy or McCain

will hammer Obama on being weak on foreign policy.

[JNelson6563]

77. I do hear enthusiastic response to that ticket

moreso than either of those names singularly.

Julie

[Clark2008]

45. .

:puke:

[jcrew2001]

75. why is it inconcevable that a Democrat

can beat Rudy for the WH. Are you hoping for the Dems to lose in 2008?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

47. It's too soon to pick the "winner" yet...

But I have to say, Edwards gets a bunch of brownie points from me for shunning the Faux Noise "debate." My total fave is still Wes Clark, but it remains to be seen whether he will run -- he's been too busy lately trying to prevent the Bushies from attacking Iran. If he doesn't run, I could easily consider going with Edwards. I didn't like him much during the 2004 primaries, but I'm becoming more impressed with him now. I am still concerned about his lack of foreign policy experience, but Obama has the same weakness. Biden and Clinton have more of that experience, but I don't like either of them much at all; I haven't made up my mind about Richardson; and it looks like Gore, whom I like almost as much as Clark, is staying out.

So... time will tell.

[Dispassionate Lib]

56. Leave me a note next time someone reposts my stuff, ok?

I'm glad this is making the rounds, but it would have been nice to have been able to get in on the discussion earlier.
Mark Adams, Ohio for Edwards.

[DemDogs]

63. Sorry - loved it and posted it

Should have checked in with you. It is a great post, by the way.

[Nutmegger]

58. R&K for Edwards.

:kick:

[jcrew2001]

64. I agree that national polls are dubious and quite

bogus. The important polls will be done in Iowa, NH, Nevada, and SC; and the swing states esp Ohio.

I think Edwards is in good position, and I've always believed that when the dust settles, he'll be the Dem Nominee and he can beat the Repubs on their own turf - they won't vote for yankee. He's got solid, loyal supporters in the primary and swing states.

I think Hillary will have a very difficult time winning any swing states.

[PresidentObama]

98. Of the current field, I'd agree.

Edwards is the best.

He shares many of the same qualities of Obama in that he's got the unity message, very energizing, fresh and exciting. He has more experience this time around, and he's been to the dance in 2004 and knows what to do and not to do. And overall, he's staying really competitive in Iowa and has a great campaign. I think with the media overshadowing him with Hillary and Obama, it'll work in his favor in the end.

Don't count John Edwards out. If Gore or Clark get in, I'll support them. If not, I'll gladly and warmly endorse Senator Edwards. He'd make a fine President, I think!!

[skipos]

99. He has his pluses and minuses

He is the only candidate who has as much name recognition as HRC, and he certainly polls better against Dame Rudy and Weathervane McCain than she does.

He wouldn't win NC in a close election. His approval ratings were never extremely high (in the 50s if I remember) so he would probably get 10% boost there. He got a 4% boost there in 2004, but the state votes about 14% more Repub than the national average.

He doesn't have much to win over the security voters.

I very sure that if poverty is the main thrust of his campaign, many people will have trouble buying it because of his house.

His "likeablity" ratings are good, better than HRC.

White male southerns tend to do well for Dems in presidential elections.