They're right--Edwards IS the most "electable" of the Big Three...but...

[Bicoastal]

...if this so-called electibility factor DIDN'T partly have to do with Clinton being female and opinionated, and Obama being black and having a foreign-sounding name, then I would dismiss the other two and vote for Edwards in a heartbeat.

But I can not in good conscience throw away a candidate ONLY because of their gender or background--not because of those backward types who think only white WASP-y males should hold the Presidency--not because my candidate might physicially stand for everything the worst kind of Americans detest. I would rather see our party lose the presidency than give in to such a mentality.

This is not to say that the White, Southern, and Christian Edwards doesn't captivate me. But I wouldn't pick him simply because he's the "safest" alternative. And this is not to say that I would vote for Clinton or Obama ONLY because they're "different" than the traditional mold. In fact, I still believe ALL of our candidates would make excellent nominees in their own right.

I think it's safe to say that I still haven't decided...lucky thing I'm not an Iowan, huh?

[adnelson60087]

1. I can sympathize with you but the Country needs a

Democrat in the White House. Make your choice wisely.

[The Traveler]

2. I have a different take on it

I see a definite benefit in getting a woman or a black man elected at this point in history. And to be perfectly honest with you, I think we could do far worse than running Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

However, outside the two political parties, there are indications of a general yearning for a populist message. This is largely because poor and middle class people have been systematically exploited, bled dry, and abandoned over the past 8 years. Go figure.

This far out, all those statistical measurements are pretty much meaningless. They suggest a populist like Edwards has to potential to do well, and I of course like that ... but they do not constitute a guarantee, nor do they indicate that either Clinton or Obama are doomed to failure.

Erase race and gender. Examine the platforms. Decide where your heart and/or interests really are. Vote accordingly.

[JDPriestly]

4. I agree.

The irony here is that the white male has the most populist message. If Obama or Hillary were more populist than Edwards, I would probably support them, and I think Americans would feel drawn to them also.

[JDPriestly]

3. I don't think that gender or race have anything to do with

Edwards' electability.

Edwards is strong on rural issues. That is what I believe will make him electable in areas that have not been voting Democratic for a long time.

[adnelson60087]

5. I agree completely

and it will make him MUCH harder to defeat across the South and Middle of the country. He would have very long coat-tails to help PROGRESSIVE Dems pick up House and Senate seats that would help cement the mandate we need to totally remake this country.

[whirlygigspin]

6. and then what?

some crisis will hit and the republicans will scream, defence, defence, defence

and who can beat them at that game?





only Biden

[adnelson60087]

12. Fine, Biden for Veep! He'd be a good one!

[aquart]

7. So you're saying we've got three great candidates.

In the top tier. True.

[AdHocSolver]

8. Clinton's being female is the LEAST of her negatives, and Obama's being black is not his biggest ...

negative.

Clinton's negatives include her corporate leanings and supporters, and by her own words, the fact that she does NOT understand the problems facing middle class and working class Americans. In one of the debates, she said that she would work for health care reform "by the end of her second term". By the end of her second term, she would be a lame duck president with no clout, and another 47 million Americans would likely be without health insurance. Moreover, she supports continued US occupation in Iraq, and voted for the Kyl/Lieberman amendment. These are negatives that totally outweigh her gender for many people.

Now if the woman running for President were Elizabeth Edwards, I would have no hesitation in voting for her.

As for Barack Obama, he is just not ready for "prime time". If the country were not in such a mess, he would probably make a reasonably good president. However, this country has been royally screwed over for the past seven years, and his "feel good" approach just isn't going to suffice. We need a competent president ready to do battle to undo the damage done by the Bush/Cheney cabal. Foremost we need a president who understands the issues and has the expertise to deal with them. The only candidate who is up to the task is John Edwards.

If our party loses the presidency, considering what the opposition party is running, this country is going to be in such a deep hole, that it may never get out. Edwards is the best candidate to win, and he will make a good president.

[cali]

9. JE doesn't have more expertise than BO and

he's run a far less effective campaign. Beyond that he's simply not a viable candidate. He accepted matching funds. He's already spent half the money he can under the caps. He's raised almost all he can raise under the limitations. He's not viable in the primaries. He can't compete on Super Tuesday. Yes, he's electable, and if he hadn't taken matching funds he'd be the most electable. But he did, so he isn't. I don't think people quite grasp the intricacies of this dilemma. I'm not big on making predictions, but I'm confident of this one: JE will be out of the race in a month.

One other thing. I want a smart fighter, not someone who advertises how tough he is. That scares no one.

[ngant17]

10. IMHO, JE is all image but no substance

Of course, Je has a background as a trail lawyer which is fine with me. However I not convinced he is very authentic overall and he might become more conservative and rightwing once in office. He comes from a state which is saturated with the military-industrical complex (Special Forces bases, Army, Marine bases, plus NC is infamous as a 'right to work for less' state).

At least with HC, I already know she has some of those conservative traits, she will probably be somewhat of a war-hawk based on her previous actions. So you should get less suprises with HC.

BO is the best candidate for me overall, and I don't care whether he is 'electable' or not. He says he's for peace, and his previous actions prove that much.

[Rydz777]

11. I agree with your analysis. I would add another factor. The

next President is going to face unprecedented problems and there is no guarantee of success. The last thing we need is compromise or triangulation; we need strong, serious, and committed reform. No one is going to "bring us together," and it is at least possible that, if our problems persist and resist solution, the next President will become very unpopular.