So, what's up with Edwards?

[Colobo]

I mean, his performance in the debate, which was good but somewhat flat, has not created any kind of buzz, either positive or negative, while it seems like Obama and Hillary consolidated their positions as the two main candidates for our party's nomination, with Hillary getting some good momentum out of it. They are getting all the attention now, and even Biden is getting more attention than Edwards... he's being ignored now more than ever...

Edwards seemed to be gaining some momentum before the debate, but now it seems to be gone. No one is talking about him, and he doesn't seem to be energizing crowds or anything. I'm almost sure the next 2 polls will show his numbers drop a bit.

So, my question is: what's going on with his campaign and him? What can they do to get back in their pre-debate position?

Anyone sensing the same thing?

[AlCzervik]

1. imo he looked tired, very tired and i think thats why he's off his game. I would think it would be

extremely hard to concentrate on anything other than your spouses health when they're battling cancer. Just my opinion.

[SaveElmer]

2. I was just thinking the same thing actually...

It does seem as though Obama and Hillary have kind of pulled away some on the buzz meter, with Biden of all people generating some as well..

The next round of polls will be very interesting...especially to see if Biden moved up at all...

[jillan]

10. Well I certainly hope so

about Biden that is.

I do agree that Edwards looked flat. Altho I have read some post-debate analysis saying that he did better than in 2004.

Hang in there - it was only one nite, one debate of many.

[rsmith6621]

3. $400.00 haircuts

Anyone sensing the same thing?

and a house larger than the white house....doesnt seem to be someone who can know the world most of us live in....unlike Kucinich who has lived in the same home since 1972....

People don't want hypocrisies anymore.........I to have cooled on Edwards.

[edwardsfeingold08]

6. At least check your spelling

before you regurgitate right wing talking points.

[mtnsnake]

29. He got it right so who gives a rats ass about the spelling

BTW, right wing talking points in this case are the same as what's coming from the left wing, too. Wake up.

[Catchawave]

31. Which "left wing" ?

The ones who live under bridges? :shrug:

[Adelante]

36. What does that mean?

Just curious.

[Catchawave]

42. Dem bashing trolls, as in

I thought we were all on the same team :patriot:

[Adelante]

44. Under the bridge?

That part.

[Catchawave]

50. Ask Wes, jr :) n/t

[Adelante]

53. Try making sense

Just once.

[Catchawave]

55. I'll leave that up to the Clark Team :) n/t

[Clark2008]

74. Clark isn't running...

...so... um... we don't know what you're talking about.

We have no "talking points," if that's what you're suggesting.

[LittleClarkie]

59. I watched as Rush did the same to Kerry re: elitism and haircuts

I will need something more than that to not pick Edwards to support.

I actually thought he sounded pretty good. He was speaking in his lawyer voice, not his "aw shucks" voice, which I appreciated.

As for seeming flat, I bet the bit about his wife is sapping his energy somewhat.

[illinoisprogressive]

4. He seemed aloof. for a day or so I thought he seemed also snotty then it occured to me

that maybe something is up with Elizabeth.
I do hope that is not it and he was just jet lagged but, it did cross my mind.

[Colobo]

5. The thing is that there's something going on with him

[SayitAintSo]

85. I thought he was solid in the debate...

He seemed far more "presidential' and serious than before. He scored no big wins but he didn't lose points either. I have sensed that he is being ignored as well - I think he's the one 'they' fear actually and is being marginalized in subtle ways.... my opinion.....

[november3rd]

98. imho you're right

He's the one candidate the big money special interests who control the media, the military, Wall Street and the political parties can't take.

But he's a likeable guy. His wife has cancer. Instead of smearing him to death, Murdoch and co. are going to try to ignore him to death.

[Gloria]

7. I thought he was calm. I think I see the genesis of some RW talking points here if

we're going to talk about the "burden" of Elizabeth, etc.

What "rhetoric" was he supposed to deliver in 30 seconds? I listened to all the talk post-debate...they wanted him "flashier."

What I saw was a very CALM Edwards. I didn't get yelled at (Hillary), pontificated at (Obama), bloviated at (Biden), etc, etc.

[madfloridian]

8. I hate these concern threads.

They are not really being honest.

It would be better to say you are pumping your candidate by trying to make Edwards look bad.

What's up with Obama? He sounded nervous.

What's up with Hillary? She sounded tough.

I could go on.

[Colobo]

9. In this case, you are wrong.

I'm actually curious about how the media has reacted after the debate, in which my candidate didn't do that well, by the way.

I like Edwards, by the way. In fact, a little secret for you: I have donated money to his campaign as well. So, I'm asking out of curiosity.

[Cha]

52. These Californians

like John Edwards, too..

"John Edwards For President
Sunday, April 29, 2007
----
San Diego, California – As Senator John Edwards addresses the California Democratic Convention today, Democratic leaders from across the state are endorsing Edwards for President. California Democrats ranging from state senators to community activists to Democratic Party members believe Edwards is the best candidate to put a Democrat back in the White House.

The California Democratic leaders endorsing Edwards for President are:

*John Burton, Former Congressman and Former President of the State Senate
*Los Angeles City Councilman Herb Wesson
*State Senator Leland Yee
*State Senator Darrell Steinberg
*State Senator Gloria Negrete McCleod
*Assemblyman Anthony Portantino
*Assemblyman Dave Jones, Chair of the Judiciary Committee
*Scott Wiener, San Francisco Democratic Party Chair* (for identification purposes only)
*Conway Collis, Former Chairman of the Board of Equalization
*Mike Roos, Former Majority Leader of the State Assembly
*August J.P. Longo, Regional Director, California Democratic Party
*Wiley Akin, Former Orange County Democratic Party Chair
*Chris Kerrigan, Eureka City Councilman
*Evan Low, Campbell City Councilman
*Dale Minami, Civil Rights and Community Leader
*Tom Cochrane, Political Outreach Director, Santa Clara County Democratic Party
*Gregory Pettis, Cathedral City Councilman
*Mary Jung, California Democratic Party E-Board Member
*Jason Wong, California Democratic Party Elections Committee
*Francis Tsang, Delegate
*Judith Christensen, California Democratic Party E-Board Member
*Dave Burruto, Vice Chair, San Mateo Democratic Party
*Sandra Lang, San Mateo County Committee
*Lyn Hilfenhaus, Chair, Women's Caucus, California Democratic Party
*Rich Meager, Chair, El Durado County Democratic Central Committee
*Cheryl Conway, Vice-Chair, San Luis Obispo County Democratic Central Committee
*Dr. Kirsten Roling, Vice-Chair, Children's Caucus, California Democratic Party
*John Fengler, President, Plumas Democratic Club
*William McRae, San Diego Regional Coordinator for Moveon.org"

http://johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070429-ca-leade...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3241171

[Catchawave]

26. I noticed that too.

Like the RW pundits say "when you see the internet Smear Gangs show up, you know which Democrat is ahead" :evilgrin:

[mtnsnake]

30. They never seem to bother you when they're about anyone BUT Edwards. nt

[madfloridian]

33. Actually that is not true.

And I think you know it.

[Clarkie1]

11. Edwards is trying to win by releasing detailed plans for this and that; it won't work.

It's still almost 9 months until the first votes are cast in Iowa. What voters are looknig for is character traits for their next President. Someone who has intelligence, integrity, the ability to handle a crises, someone the feel good about voting for, someone they feel can get the things done that needed to be done, etc., etc., etc. It's a long time until January 20, 2009. Detailed plans aren't what voters are looking for, what the people need is a vision for the future.

There will be plenty of time to write legislation, America is looking for a leader.

[PurityOfEssence]

23. Will this pissy hatefest never end?

This feud is so tiresome that the last gasps of vengeance are simply baffling.

It seems that the most strident Clark supporters would rather see the world consumed in flames than ever see John Edwards have a political future. Damn him anyway; he should have dropped out of the race when Clark rode in on his horse to save the world late in the '04 primary campaign. For this, the most vehement Clark partisans will fight a rearguard spoiling action until life itself drains away.

For shame.

The awe of "the leader" is a continuous through-line among the most die-hard Clark supporters, and the taste and feel of it all is deeply conservative: it's an almost monarchic worship of the savior. Even though Clark is either staying out of this race or trying to game the pitch with another last minute called-by-the-people crusade, the extremists of his camp cannot contain their unbridled hatred for John Edwards. How dare he not have stepped aside when the savior rode into view. How dare he confront Clark's unprincipled lies (that Edwards voted for Bush's tax cuts and that his voting record was "with Bush"). The very gall of John Edwards not bowing out and pledging his fealty to someone so superior kindles the ire to no end.

Having said it many times, I'll say it again: although many Clark supporters genuinely admire the man and see him as a hope for the future of the country, the appeal for many of the others and certainly the strident stalwarts is that of hero worship. The tactics used by these extremists reek of conservatism: belittle and ridicule any rival, and aggressively attempt to destroy him/her.

Mercifully, the carping of the partisans has stilled of late, but the beat goes on.

The extremists of this camp are anti-pluralist and their need to have their champion triumph is more important than doing what's best for us all.

It's just sickening.

Here: have a taste of your own medicine. Those of you who clog the board with endless hatred of Edwards for defying Clark's obvious superiority: your guy lost resoundingly and he did so while lying, misrepresenting and feigning some sort of privilege. It was a nasty episode in American politics and it failed. The record is clear, and it's time to move on. The real lasting result of all this is a cult of personality and the hallmark of conservatism: people who disagree with me or get in my way don't deserve to exist. This shows the extremists among the Clark camp as being anti-pluralist and inherently conservative.

Me? I like different people to have a voice, and as a fan of pluralism prefer that all get to have their say.

[windbreeze]

40. I just have to ask.....

how the hell this became about Clarkies???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????all of a sudden....because one or two Clark supporters may have posted a response to the question asked?? crap...get off our case, would ya?? I haven't read one damned thing on this thread so far, from a Clarkie that calls for this kind of bullshit being written...
wb

[Catchawave]

43. Check the avatars and sig lines w/the smackdowns....

Oh wait, I just noticed yours? Sorry.

I agree with your bullsh*t comment though. :eyes:

[Adelante]

46. Oh, please, CW

Every other candidate has been criticized on this debate. Edwards is not exempt, for crissake.

[GreenArrow]

49. I wouldn't stress about it...

the level of unintended irony in that post is breathtaking. Talk about "leader worship," whew! Now, settle yourself, and light a candle for St. John Edwards, (blessed be his name).

[Catchawave]

51. Kewl subthread so far

:silly:

[bling bling]

63. LMAO

Thanks for the laugh. I found that funny because I see the hint of truth in it. Especially lately.

[GreenArrow]

64. I'm glad to hear

that someone was amused by it.

And I in turn appreciated your post on the now locked "Edwards, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the IWR" thread. You laid things out very clearly, with a lot of passion. That issue'll come up again. And again. And again.

:thumbsup:

[bling bling]

65. There's other issues, too, that I hope we'll be able to discuss someday.

I've got questions about Edwards voting history on other topics too, that don't jibe with his new populist image.

But I already know it would end up being ugly and I'd regret asking such questions. So I'd rather risk being mis-informed right now than initiate what would inevitably turn into a flame war.

on edit: just my observations. no big deal, really. but it is nice when combing through all the madness to see the humorous side of the irony pointed out by people like you.

[Clark2008]

81. Oh, I'd like to read your thread.

It's probably filled with the same issues I have with regards to Edwards.

None of which, btw, have anything to do with Wesley Clark. :7

[jcrew2001]

106. If I told you Edwards can beat the entire GOP field?

would you still want to guarantee losing to the GOP in 2008.

If I also told you that if Clark was VP, we would beat the GOP, would you support that?

I wish Clarkies could see that if we don't win the WH, then things will only get worse.

[Clark2008]

80. Edwards lost, too.

What of it?

In fact, Clark beat Edwards in five of the nine races in which they both competed.

What of it?

I don't dislike Edwards because of Clark.

News Flash: Clark isn't running (or hasn't yet announced) and I STILL don't like Edwards. I don't like him for his war vote, his PATRIOT Act vote, his sudden interest in poverty after having done very little to combat it as a senator, his stance on Iran, his hypocrisies and his personality (I see him as a flim-flam man - that one's just my opinion and I'll own it). I don't HAVE a candidate, thus far, but I know it won't be Edwards.

Those of you who clog the board with endless and false accusations about why this Clark supporter or that Clark supporter doesn't like Edwards - or any other candidate - is childish, insincere and, frankly, becoming quite stupid.

And, if you like people having a voice, then just shut up when someone - anyone, no matter WHOM they support - offers constructive criticism or simply an alternative opinion.

Geesch.

[Cameron27]

83. YES!

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you !!!!

[jcrew2001]

96. Where did clark place in Iowa and NH?

cuz afterwards, no one cared - why do you think all the states are moving their primaries up - How do you think Clark will do now?

Clark lost big time to Kerry.

Who came out better in 2004 - Edwards because he was the VP.

I've heard Clark doesn't even want VP, so he can go back to his foxhole.

2004 was a Lost Cause for Clark, and what is he doing now?

[Crunchy Frog]

100. He didn't run in Iowa. He came in 3rd in NH, after Kerry and Dean

and ahead of Edwards. Everybody lost big time to Kerry. Clark won the same number of primaries Edwards did. This entire discussion is really stupid and pointless.

[PurityOfEssence]

103. Everyone's entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts

That's from the late great Patrick Moynihan.

Clark won one primary; Edwards won two.

The primary Clark won was Oklahoma, where he beat Edwards (who came in second) by 1,216 votes. This is four tenths of a percent.

In New Hampshire, Clark took third (after Kerry and Dean) and beat Edwards by 838 votes, or less than four tenths of a percent (.00384)

Edwards had many hard close calls; he missed beating Lieberman for second in Delaware by 26 votes.

Edwards also stomped everyone in South Carolina, beating Kerry by 15%, and besting Clark--who took fourth--by a whopping 38%. He also won his home state even though he was out of the race by that time.

Yes, this is ridiculous, but misrepresentation of history either through sloppiness or deception doesn't help.

[PurityOfEssence]

105. A little correction here...

That's Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Ooops.

[PurityOfEssence]

104. Absolutely incorrect

Clark withdrew from the race on February 11th, 2004. Since he didn't choose to campaign in Iowa, I'm leaving that race out of the mix.

They competed in thirteen races before Clark bowed out, and Edwards bested him in eight of them.

Clark did better in Arizona, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, New Mexico and North Dakota.

Edwards did better in Washington, Tennessee, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Virginia and South Carolina.

Please look at post 103 for some more reality.

[jcrew2001]

94. I personally like someone who presents a plan

rather than trusting someone's fluff and rhetoric.

If Clark were a candidate, I want to hear more about what he intends to do, domestically. Having never passed domestic legislation, Clark is a big question mark - the military is very different than political govt. Throughout history, many generals have tried and failed, Grant was a disaster, Ike did well. Unlike 3rd world countries, we have well qualified private citizens serving in govt.

[wiley]

12. All Horserace cheddar

The pukes are scraping the sewer muck and we're talking about Edwards. How can they all not be exhausted by all this jockeying when there are important things to be done?

Obama is a little off right now, but smart enough to get back in the ring. His looks are at least fifty percent of his support right now - and a big reason why white men just might not vote for him in huge numbers. So let them stay home or go to the gym.

Hilary is actually a very funny person and a great campaigner when she's on. She was on low temp and did very well but she better turn up the accessibility factor really soon.

How can Edwards not be tired? He's got it made financially and his wife does have cancer - although we're pulling for her - and nothing says he has to run for President. He's been doing so for many years, and I'm tired of it, but would vote for him in a second if he started using his legal skills to expose the crimes taking place NOW in the US.

Biden will never be President - although he's a great drinking companion on Amtrak - and the rest are just wasting money that should be going towards congressional and state legislative races.

But it was the first debate, so it's no big deal for anyone at this point. Honestly, most voters would go for Obama based on the right photos. If he can get women between 21 and 55 to vote for him, he wins.

They'll all get better. The Pukes will just get more heinous and hysterical.

[Byronic]

13. I thought he did just fine in the debate.

He seemed calm and in control. With everything that John Edwards has to contend with at the moment I think he is doing superbly. I really do.

Plus, nasty colds can floor the best of us.

He will bounce back. The fire is burning as brightly as ever.

What a wonderful batch of candidates we have this time round.

[cleveramerican]

14. he did terrible in the debate

he was too subdued, too layed back, low keyed, he came across as preoccupied.
and he flubbed the "Moral Leader" question. You just know he wanted to say Jesus or God but he remembered W had answered that way, and he edited himself to the more banal, bland "Lord".
There are moments wher you must speak from the heart, from the core of your being. This was one and he didn't do it. He made a calculation and gave the poltical position, instead of the more visceral gut reaction. This will cost him dearly. In that momnet he showed himslf to be more calculating than passionate. He was supposed to be "The Passionate One".

[venable]

17. wow, what a bizarre reading of that answer

- he thought of w???

- he calculated the word 'Lord', excuse me the "banal, bland 'Lord'"????

- he 'gave the political position'????????,

This is a strange and rather ungenerous reading of a thoughtful answer.

[Catchawave]

25. Yes indeed, "thoughtful answer"

came to my mind and the media's as well. Sign of a great leader :D

[cleveramerican]

68. well then... all knowing one

what do you think he was pondering while he paused before answering?


You don't think Jesus or God was on the tip of his tongue first?
I remembered W has said Jesus, so I'm sure he did too.
If he had said Jesus, would you have thought any less of him( You being his ardent supporter)?

Of course not.

This is where he got it wrong. He should have spoken from the heart and been more honest, less calculating.

and I.m not even referring to his FIRST answer that he couldn't even identify one at all, he knew that wouldn't fly.So he calculated, and came up with a very fake sounding, safe answer.

He should have said his parents, who he refers to often in speeches. It wouldn't have offended anyone and it would have been more genuine sounding than "Lord".

[venable]

82. excuse me, please, 'All-Knowing' is precisely what you are proposing you are

when you say you know what he was thinking, why he was thinking it, why he hesitated, what thoughts and calculations ran through his mind, etc.

how come many were touched by his answer? are they all stupid?

come on.

[cleveramerican]

89. this is the politics section

He is a professional politician.He was doing exactly what I've described.His response is tailored to get your "response" without offending anyone.You just don't like it.He gave the political answer, not the genuine one. I'm not surprised it worked well with many, but it could have been so much better. I've seen him do it better.


I am part of this business, I know from which I speak.You want generous see the red cross.

[venable]

99. I disagree

you think it was one thing, many others think it was another thing.

telling me what politics consists of does not make you right about his answer.

standoff.

[cleveramerican]

101. you haven't offered anything

you think he nailed that question? did you even see the debate?
What would you surmise he was considering while he paused to answer such a softball question?

I've seen him speak up close, he can do it much better. He was off his game.

Its not personal, I'm more of a handicapper than a cheerleader.

[venable]

102. saw the debate

and have seen him, maybe hundreds of times, up very close. that's not an exaggeration.

The question was out of the blue, he thought about it, and gave a thoughtful answer, and an honest one.

i would have answered it differently - I am not religious - but I believe he was honest.

why do I have to offer something in order to say I believe he was honest and thoughtful?


we both have different reads on it. Maybe you're right, maybe I'm right, only Edwards knows for sure.

It's a small matter though, except for those who don't trust him (and see this calculation in everything he does) - by the way, I'm not saying that's what you're doing - you seem very fair and sensible about this.

[Edith Ann]

15. Edwards

Brian Williams asked Obama and Clinton 3 questions to Edwards 1 in the beginning of the debate. The questions Edwards was asked were bad ones and didn't give him a chance to express who he is or his views. Go to his blog and read the "Questions they didn't ask". It's the same as msm talking about the top candidates and only mentioning Obama and Clinton and including Edwards in "others", but not mentioning his name. This has to be PLANNED. MSM has to be trying to chose our candidate for us by putting Edwards in a bad light or ignoring him. No matter who you want to vote for Democrats should not allow this. We should pick our candidate not the sad likes of a Brian Williams.

[venable]

18. on the same day that Rasmussen says Edwards the only dem to beat all repubs

he is not mentioned by the pundits for an hour and a half of Obama/Clinton love after the debates,

I don't believe the MSM is trying to pick our candidate, mainly because they are not that organized and capable - but they are so hot after the 'story' candidates that they don't see that the voters are choosing Edwards (in these head to head match ups with Republicans).

Most would subconsciously prefer a Clinton, a woman, an African-American man of great style and buzz...keeps them from having to do work - ie the character is the story, when it should be something else - like policy.

[Edith Ann]

34. MSM

I agree they aren't organized or capable and that they go for the quick story. They are also too lazy to actually do any research or investigation. Most of the news we get we can get with a police radio. But, those who don't look for information on the internet and only see our candidates on MSM are bound to get the idea the Obama and Clinton are our main candidates and that Edwards was last years model. In that way they may effect who our candidate will be. Look at the stories about his house and hair. Republicans have more money but you don't hear what they pay for anything or even where their money comes from. These stories are designed to make Edwards look disingenuous. I've said before we need to stop watching these people and maybe if we effect their bottom line they will start doing their jobs.

[Catchawave]

47. I really don't blame the MSM as much as I do

their blind followers, and probably why Katie Couric is still on the air, and Imus is off ?

It's still too early for apatheic voters to pay attention. Ya'know, those 75 million who stayed home in 2004?

[mitchtv]

90. Don't blame the MSM,blame the mean spirited "Dems"

who mistaken believe that by tearing someone down, it helps their candidate.They only succeeded in making us resent the object of their advocacy. There is a certain non candidate who I can never vote for because of the behavior of their "followers".
Edwards by the way did very well here in California which is worth many south Carolinas. I tend to lean toward Edwards, and dread defending Hillary from 5th column Dems, but I will.

[Adelante]

16. Edwards has always been better on the stump than in a chair

He did seem to be somewhere else in his head on Thursday, but I've seen him that way in other interviews.

[Hersheygirl]

19. Your right about Edwards,

But I didn't see Hillary's or Obama's performance being any better. All except for Kucinich and Gravel, they seemed very staged with no shine whatsoever, IMO they lacked "the fire in the belly." It was a very ho-hum, definitely nothing there that would make a republican sit up and take notice. They seemed to be afraid of taking a mis-step, having every word carefully choreographed.

My husband and I were very disappointed.

[dsc]

20. Edwards actually was hurt worst by Obama's fundraising numbers

Edwards needs impressive wins in Iowa and South Carolina to become the anti Hillary candidate. Obama's huge fundraising numbers make that harder to see happening. That said, he still has a pretty good hand to play. He is very likely to win Iowa and could win South Carolina. If he does and only one of Obama or Hillary make it out of New Hampshire and Nevada with wins, then he still can be the anti someone candidate. Edwards will do well in the South against Hillary and well in the Midwest against Obama. I wouldn't let one debate, where I actually think he did pretty well, get you down.

[Catchawave]

21. He's doing just fine, thankyouverymuch....

You can catch up here:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/28/21851/0087

[PresidentObama]

22. It was one debate, Edwards is fine.

This isn't even close to the nail in the coffin for the Edwards campaign. The campaign is doing just fine right now. I will be the first to admit, Edwards didn't do as well as I thought. But I was reading some reviews of the debate, and most said Edwards seemed the most human and showed the most humanity in the debate. They said on healthcare, he had the most substance. And was the Daily Kos poll that Edwards lead the pack when asked who won the debate?

I guess I expected him to stand out, but really besides Gravel and Biden (maybe Kucinich) no one really stood out. Hillary stood her ground as the frontrunner, Obama played it safe and maintained his position as a heavyweight, and Edwards seemed a big nervous maybe and laid back at times...but he did well!! My thought is this debate won't mean much. Edwards is connecting with Americans all across the country, and he's got the third biggest fundraising number. He's doing fine in the polls, and leading in Iowa. I'm proud of where Edwards is!!

[Adelante]

24. I agree it doesn't mean much

It doesn't mean anything really.

[dave_p]

27. What's up with Edwards??

He's nothing to contribute to a presidential race in this age.

John Edwards feels passionately for the frustrated hopes of Americans denied their rightful place in a society more divided than at any time since the Gilded Age.

That's not the issue. It's the issue on which John Edwards can contribute unforgettably to the creation of a fairer US society that makes fuller use of its people's potential. But he doesn't need the Presidency for that.

The United States needs a forward-looking agenda for a relationship with the rest of the world if it's not to find its standing diminished forever by the lunacy of the outgoing Administration.

John Edwards can't deliver that. And he knows it. He's a powerful, dynamic, charismatic figure who deserves a commensurate role in building a better future. But he hasn't the answers to a challenged US international role.

[venable]

38. I believe his message of justice and fairness and opportunity

is something that he has been very conscious of applying to the US standing in the world.

"We must show the world our better angels", refers, in Edwards FP, to Darfur, Uganda, Guantanemo, AIDS in developing countries, fairer trade policies that protect the rights of workers worldwide, rebuilding alliances, speaking with our adversaries (hell, understanding who our adversaries are), signing non-aggression pacts with countries like Iran, getting the US face and hands out of Iraq, defending civil liberties in our own country so we can legitimately be a model to others....all this is part of the same message, which he is delivering unapologetically and with great courage (especially things like non-aggression pact with Iran - who else would have the courage, in this overheated environment, to suggest such a thing?).

[dave_p]

41. Read the small print

But look at the detail behind the soundbite. Edwards isn't offering a stance of non-aggression to moderate Iranian policy, he's demanding that Iran surrender on every point at issue first. Iran must abandon its nuclear ambitions: What about Israel's regional nuclear monopoly? Iran must cease supporting Hezbollah and Hamas: Why? The US supports Israel to the tune of $2bn of arms funding a year. Who's going to moderate its far more warlike stance? Not JE, sadly: he's AIPAC to the core.

JE's position on Iran is identical to that of the White House; it's just dressed in cosier rhetoric to comfort the party base. He's just about the last man on the planet to come up with a creative, insightful foreign policy initiative - and that's what America needs lots of right now if it's to recover its international moral authority and to make the world a less deadly place.

[GreenArrow]

54. this is a very nice post

very astute, very succinct, but sadly, America is not yet ready to look in the direction you are pointing to, even as it yearns for it on some level, most American's are not ready to question the "USA! USA! USA! We're Number One!" mentality. I'd go further; much of what has historically passed for America's "moral authority" has always been based upon the carrot and stick, both of which are proving less viable. I suggest that the country needs to examine the idea that it actually has the right to impose its version of "moral authority" on other countries.

[zulchzulu]

28. This debate will mean nothing a month from now

From a political standpoint, with 8 months and 17 days from the time of this post, the Iowa caucus will be full of discussion on what is happening near that time...the end of 2007 events, the new year...whatever is on the American plate.

This debate will be one for the political junkies and not much more. The same with any polls at this time...

[ripple]

32. I thought he did quite well

I especially liked that he seemed to have toned down the salesman-type style and spoke more from the heart. In my view, he came across as much more genuine than he has in the past.

I think he was right up there with Hillary and Obama, in terms of his performance. I'm not sure why the media seems to be disregarding him lately, other than that they're too busy fueling the Hillary/Obama competition. I suppose that makes for better sensationalism. :shrug:

[madmom]

35. could this be a simple case of the media trying to pick our candidate for us?

[Cameron27]

37. Yep, that's exactly what the media's always tries to do..

but I also thought that Edwards looked tired in the debate. No biggie, I thought most of them weren't at their best, and it's very early in the campaign.

[GreenArrow]

58. no, the media doesn't pick, it sells

.

[PassingFair]

39. That WAS Edwards.

His daddy was a mill worker, ya know.

I heard that SAME LINE 40 times in 04.

He is flat like a pancake. And exciting like a piece of
Wonder-bread. I have seen him on TV, heard him on radio,
and stood in the rain, the sunshine and in cloudy weather
to listen to him in person. He is B-O-R-I-N-G.

I thought he was AWFUL in his debate with Cheney in the last election cycle.

I LOVE his wife. SHE lights up a room. SHE makes me like him a little bit more.

[Catchawave]

45. So, he's not your cup of tea ?

So what?

Tell me more about your candidate :shrug:

[PassingFair]

57. I WANT to like him. I really do.

Because the rest of the field leaves me cold.
He was my number 2 pick last time out.

I am not fired up about any of them.
I suppose if I HAD to choose today, Obama
would get my reluctant vote.

[MGKrebs]

48. Didn't he recently hire Joe Trippi?

I'm just sayin'. :shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

56. he looked dead tired to me n/t

[Adelante]

67. I thought he looked worried, preoccupied

Given Durbin's remarks the day before on the Senate floor, maybe Edwards thought he might finally be held accountable for the IWR. It's possible.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/28/sen-durbin-drops-bombshells-on-the-senate-floor

[Cameron27]

76. I sincerely hope so...

After Durbin's remarks, he should be worried.

[jcrew2001]

60. What about John Kerry?

compared to John Kerry - Edwards is in perferct position.

Also, no one complained that Kerry was too Rich and you all still voted for him - I hope.

Kerry has 5 houses - boston, nantucket, pitt, DC, vail and all he wears is expensive clothes and drives expensive cars, yet no Democrat worried about that stuff.

[karynnj]

62. The difference is that the Edwards have made on issue of

not being "of the rich elite". It is true that Edwards comes from a poorer, less connected background than many other candidates. However, when they speak of "being poor" when they as two law school graduates married, they run the risk of having people see it as either phony or clueless.

Their combined income at that point was more than most people's and their expected future income was extremely higher.

Kerry actually did the opposite - he grew up far less rich than people think. He was though incredibly connected and lived in an elite circle - one of his first girlfriends was Jackie Kennedy's step sister.

He would have looked crazy had he tried to explain that he had a summer job in college of unloading trucks (true, though) to earn money. The fact is he was (and said he was on his Senate web site) born to privilege and brought up to think that public service was something he should do.

[jcrew2001]

75. Should rich Lawyers not serve the poor and abused?

Should you abolish pro bono work because rich lawyers buy expensive houses and clothes? Its John Edwards' job to serve the under-represented and abused. Sure, it might not be as glamourous as working corporate law for Halliburton or lobbying on behalf of cigarette companies and industrial companies.

If you've been screwed over, do you want the first year law graduate, or do you want the Best Lawyer out there?

[Cameron27]

84. Did Edwards ever take a pro bono case?

[jcrew2001]

93. He won a lot of money for his clients

and I'm sure if you ask every one of his clients, they will say he did everything possible for them.

Don't you want to hire the best lawyer for yourself?

[mtnsnake]

71. Kerry didn't make the theme of his campaign a populist theme

so his "5 houses" and "expensive clothes" are irrelevant to that particular notion.

[jcrew2001]

73. yeah, and Kerry lost to Bush

so you want Edwards to lose again?

The populist theme might work this time around for the democrats.

[Mass]

92. The pb with Edwards is not that he is rich and leads a populist campaign.

(except for the far right, of course, but who cares).

His problem is that he insists he is still the same regular guy he was as a kid, and that he looks ridiculous doing that. They could be a compelling couple admitting they have succeeded and are happy to be able to buy nearly everything they want without thinking, but they insist telling us that they have kept the same lifestyle, still shop at Target, ...

This is exactly where the problem is, and this is why it did not matter for Kerry, Kennedy, ... They did not try to tell us that they live just like us.

[saltpoint]

61. What an intelligent, thorough, and prepared candidacy is John Edwards'

in 2008.

I pity the fool Republican who has to match demographics with an Edwards nomination.

McCain's on his last gasp or two. And Edwards' star continues to rise and shine.

[Clarkie1]

66. McCain has as much chance of being the Republican nominee as Edwards has being the Democratic. nt

[jcrew2001]

69. strange, but Edwards has a better chance than Clinton/obama

at winning the general election.

[Clarkie1]

87. Prove that statement with current data. nt

[jcrew2001]

97. According to Rassmussen, Edwards beats all the GOP

while Hillary and Obama can't beat Rudy.

That's why I think Edwards has a better chance against the GOP nominee than the others.

[benny05]

72. I agree

And to whom it may concern about "What's Up with Edwards?"

Perhaps you ought to check out his speech at the CA Convention yesterday morning. He rocked the crowd.

http://johnedwards.com/media/audio/20070429-california-convention.mp3

And if you still don't freakin' agree, check out this report:


http://www.beyondchron.org:80/news/index.php?itemid=4461

[DrDan]

70. I was not impressed

but then again, I certainly can understand where he may have more pressing issues.

But I kept waiting for him to check his watch . . .

[rinsd]

77. Edwards will remain static though I don't think he wowed 'em at the debate

I think Richardson will take the biggest hit. He had by far the worst performance in the debate IMHO.

[Colobo]

78. Richardson blew it, and now Biden

is the "VP candidate" par excellence.

[rinsd]

79. I knew Biden would be good but he practically stole the show

He was the statesman up there; diffussing a loaded question with wit, offering defenses of his fellow Democrats, spelling out successful Democratic policies (crime prevention).

If Gravel hadn't been throwing grenades, most of the post-debate talk would have centered on him.

I thought Obama really settled in(the calm disagreement with Kucinich was great) though in the beginning he seemed a bit nervous.

[KingofNewOrleans]

95. Biden won't be a VP candidate

not even for Obama. He's just not a good strategic fit.

[Andromeda]

86. John Edwards did just fine.

He doesn't try to dazzle people with his charm; he talks about poverty, healthcare and all the issues that affect everyday people.

Edwards is genuine, likeable and sincere when he says he wants to improve people's lives.

I don't expect to be swept off my feet, just talked to by somebody who tells the truth.

[thoughtcrime1984]

88. Very true

I like Edwards for the reasons you mentioned; he is a very strong candidate. I could easily see him getting the nomination, and I would back him 100% if that were to happen.

[Vinca]

91. He could reinvent his health care plan. That's what lost me.

We need universal health CARE, not universal health INSURANCE.