Obama, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Gravel, Richardson, Kucinich

[Ineeda]

were the 2008 Democratic Party primary candidates. With the exception of Edwards, each of them stand head and shoulders above the crazy clown car of the current rethug slate. The only one who has a modicum of ethics and intelligence is Huntsman (at least that's my take.)

[soleft]

1. Huntsman would probably be a terrific general election candidate

Thanks God they're too myopic to see that.

[progressoid]

2. Isn't he a Mormon too?

[immoderate]

3. He is. No less qualified than any other theist, though.

Seemingly more qualified than the other Republicans. He might be more liberal than Obama.



--imm

[progressoid]

4. Yep

But for "real Christian" Republicans, I think the Mormon thing is a problem.

[karynnj]

14. He is NOT more liberal than Obama

He was a Republican governor of Utah, who was not right wing. That does not make him a liberal.

[immoderate]

23. I know. It's a tough call.

--imm

[Shagbark Hickory]

15. Unless you're a conservative voter then it does make him less qualified.

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. On which issue may he be more liberal than Obama?

[immoderate]

22. Wealth disparity in general.

Everything Obama does exacerbates the disparity. There are feints to the left, but those somehow never materialize. Occasional bones are tossed to social issues, but not if it costs money.

Has Obama done anything liberal? :shrug: DADT? :rofl: Staffing the armed forces? What about DOMA?

--imm

[JDPriestly]

5. Excuse me. Edwards would not have made a good candidate because

of his moral weakness, but he had excellent ideas, far clearer than any of the other candidates.

He was the only one with a really fresh, critical view of health care (remember you can't sit down at the table with the insurance companies?), the housing crisis (he predicted it way back when), the impending economic crisis (remember the video of the empty factory in his hometown). Obama would have been wise to include Edwards on his council of economic advisers.

Obama would be stronger if he had included a few pro-plaintiff consumer lawyers among his top advisers. They know where the money is at, so to speak.

[Merlot]

7. Edwards was also the only one to bring up the subject of poverty

It was a funny thing with Edwards - I really didn't like him very much, but felt that he had the better ideas. Had high expectations for him, thought he would end up in Obamas cabinet at least. Good thing that didn't happen.

Also liked that he wanted to keep fighting for Kerry in Ohio.

Well, my vote is usually the kiss o'death in primaries anyhow...

[karynnj]

16. He lied about wanting Kerry to keep fighting in Ohio

The fact is the Kerry team sent him out on election night when THEY were unprepared to concede. By morning, the numbers were such that there were not enough votes outstanding to hold out from conceding. Even then, Kerry spoke of the fact that the votes would continue to be counted. (If there would have been a completely unlikely new source of valid ballots and had the count changed the result or even brought it close enough where a recount was warranted, Kerry -like Gore - could have "unconceded". The fact is that in any election, the numbers are not final until long after the loser concedes.

As to not bringing up poverty, how did you miss Obama's biography? After earning an Ivy League degree, he accepted a job on the Southside of Chicago, dealing with poverty up front. He then left, went to Harvard Law School, was a law school review editor - and then rather than taking a lucrative corporate job or a prestigious job as a clerk to a powerful judge, he returned to the south side of Chicago. Edwards first job was out of law school was with a corporation - then he made a fortune as a trial lawyer. While it is true that he got judgments for people, he made a fortune himself.

In addition, Hillary, out of college, worked on Watergate (against government corruption) and with the Children's Defense Foundation.

Even in 2004, Kerry and Dean could both point to things they actually did that helped people in poverty. (Kerry was the Senate sponsor of Youthbuild, was the lead sponsor for years for affordable housing, and worked with Kennedy on the bill that ultimately became SCHIP. Dean expanded healthcare in VT.) Edwards voted for the awful bankruptcy bill - and you can't claim he didn't understand its impact - Elizabeth specialized in bankruptcy law.

The fact is that in 2004 and 2008, Edwards, who had done very little public service ran against opponents whose biographies showed consistent, long term dedication to public service - they included (at a minimum) Kerry, Dean, Lieberman (awful on many issues, but lifetime commitment to civil rights), Gephardt, Obama, Clinton, Biden (even with his awful record as chair of Judiciary and his leadership on bad bankruptcy bills), Dodd and Richardson (both very flawed).

[Merlot]

28. My point was only that Edwards brought up the subject of poverty

No one else did. Not that no one else had DONE anything about poverty.

As for missing Obamas biography, Obama did not run in 2004 so wasn't relevant to my post.

My understanding of the votes is that there were over 200K unopened provisional ballots when Kerry conceded. Since provisional ballots would probably tend to be democratic leaning there was a good reason to wait until all votes were counted.

So you dislike Edwards, I get it. Still doesn't change my opinions.

[karynnj]

13. Edwards would have been a weak candidate - he never was tested as a front runner

My contention is based on his mediocre VP debate performance coupled with a few bad moments in the primary debates. He never had to undergo the spotlight a front runner is placed under, but there are indications he would not have done well.

The other problem is that when you compare his Senate record, his positions in the PRIMARY in 2004, and his 2008 positions, he makes Romney look consistent. Then throw in his actions - like "earning" $500,000 for a couple of days work a month - self directed - for a hedge fund that foreclosed on New Orleans residents. The problem is that his record was extremely thin and he was rejecting nearly all of it. More than any Democrat in the last few decades, he was a creature of media hype. (I think the partisan media tries to spot new superstars using the template of the last winner in their party - they latched onto Edwards the moment he won his Senate seat and labeled him "Bill Clinton without bimbo eruptions - which ignores that Clinton actually had 12 years as governor. In addition, the handsome Edwards winning in NC has parallels to Brown winning in MA.

Edwards spoke a populist language that you and others liked, but his views were not original or fresh. He was less eloquent in stating them than Mario Cuomo, who actions were consistent with his beliefs.

As to predicting the Housing crisis, he was no Paul Krugman. He was not even one of the co-sponsors of the Senate bill against predatory lending in 2000 or 2002 - here's the link to 2000 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s106-2415) and 2002 ( http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s107-2438 ). He did sign on in 2003 when Sarbanes had 15 sponsors - and Edwards was the LAST to add his name in December a month before the Iowa caucus.

Now there are two main roots of the housing crisis and bad, predatory loans was the one that was more visible. The other was financial speculation, lack of adequate regulation and the SEC chair raising the allowed leverage from 1:12 to 1:44. There were very few you could point to who spoke against this - and Edwards was not one of them. He did not have a reputation in the Senate on the issue at all. He was not a leader on this type of issue - and he was supportive of the banking/financial corporations and voted for the 2001 bankruptcy bill.

Other than speaking often of income inequality, which as I said you can find is a long term major Democratic issue, Edwards did not predict the economic cliff. The things he described were things that the 1968 Kerner report showed and existed even when the economy was good (1968) or fair (2004).

As to his comments on NOT sitting at the table with the insurance companies, that was Joe Trippi language - and if actually followed might have completely destroyed our best chance to pass a HCR bill. As Bernie Sanders says single payer could not pass the US Senate as only about 10 Senators would have voted for it. If you listened to TRIPPI in 2004 and in 2008, you would see that he was the one who threw accusations of selling out to lobbyists and corporations against his candidates' opponents. In his book, Trippi ultimately blames Dean for not acting like Trippi thought he should - to Dean's credit as an honorable man!

[XemaSab]

24. He had a weak character and would not have made a good front runner

but I'll say that he was FAR AND AWAY a better candidate than Cain, Bachman, Perry, or Gingrich, and just a better candidate than Paul or Santorum.

Which leaves Huntsman and Romney alone in the same sphere.

And bear in mind that I can't stand Edwards and never could stand him. :P

[karynnj]

25. I agree completely - Edwards was poor relative to our other choices

- which is likely why even with many in the media enthusiastic about him, he won only one primary in two years.

But I agree with you that this year's Republican field has many people who really have major problems. Perry seems better suited to being a Fox News talking head - as long as there are no expectations that he know anything! Even before the accusations, there were major problems with Cain - mainly that he just made stuff up - and his plan never amade any sense. It stuns me that the right completely ignored the basic analysis that proved it was a complete failure.

[Cal33]

26. If you think that those who have had extra-marital affairs are incapable of

making good presidents, I heartily disagree. These are two
separate concepts that may or may not blend well together.

I'd venture an opinion that the percentage of presidents and
presidential candidates who have had extra-marital affairs is
not significantly different from that of the general population.
And the majority of American married people have had them.

Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy... It's just that during their
time, this topic was not broadcast by the news media. Today,
things have changed.

Europeans laughed at the curiosity displayed by us at the widely
broadcast extra-marital affairs of Clinton. It reminded them of
the curiosity displayed by juveniles at the sexual activities of
their elders.

I think that the adolescent lack of self-control is very typical
of the right-wingers, who wanted to destroy Clinton (as well as
any president who isn't one of their own) at any cost, has
played a big role here.

Unfortunately, once they've stupidly started the ball rolling, it
isn't easy to be stopped, because the latent childish sex-drive
still existing in many normal adults has been reawakened, and has
now acquired a momentum all its own.

[Motown_Johnny]

6. and not a TV show between them

Unlike Palin and Huckabee

[Kurmudgeon]

8. I was very disappointed in Edwards too. He was my choice until I got more familiar with Mr. Obama.

[Erose999]

9. Kucinich was my first choice and Obama was my last. The DLC private jet is just as bad as the GOP

clown car in many ways.

[Vinca]

10. Edwards is an intelligent man - with one exception - and still stands head and shoulders above

the roster of idiots making up the GOP race.

[Ineeda]

11. So true. n/t

[Capitalocracy]

21. I truly believe what Edwards was horrible and would prefer not to vote for someone like that...

but the horrible thing that Edwards did is what Newt Gingrich refers to as "an average Thursday".

[inna]

12. Are you fucking "joking", or what?? WAY uncalled for attack at Edwards.

Totally gratuitous and in bad taste.

:thumbsdown:

[Ineeda]

27. Is this directed at me?

I thought I was mild in my exclusion of Edwards.

[rusty fender]

17. Richardson, really?

Do you actually know anything about Bill Richardson? He is a serial womanizer. It is an open secret in Santa Fe. When he decided to run for president, he hired 2 private investigators. Why? So that he could use them to keep anybody who brought the subject up quiet by threatening to dig up dirt on them. His wife as much as admitted to his womanizing in a local TV news interview when she said that, at the end of the day, he always came home.

Richardson also lowered taxes on the richest New Mexicans. Now the current Repuke Gov. is adamant about not raising taxes on them and is, instead, auditing all small businesses in order to collect much needed state revenue. Meanwhile, Wal-Mart pays no income taxes in NM.

Richardson was the poster boy for cronyism. He hired more politically based state employees at ridiculously higher salaries than any New Mexican governor ever. When he left, our state was 1/2 a billion dollars in the red.

Although he endorsed domestic partnerships, he opposed gay marriage because of his religion's opposition to it. I don't have the time to list every personal politically ambitious thing he did while governor because it was just about everything he did.

[JoePhilly]

18. Gravel was kind of a nut.

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. Gravel sought the Libertarian nomination after failing to secure the Democratic nomination