Quote: [[GUEST,GUEST - PM
...
I think most people, regardless of their party affiliation, realize that neither Obama or Clinton can beat McCain. So I think a whole lot of Dem voters on Feb 5th will jump ship from both the "idealistic" (sic) camps of Clinton and Obama, and vote for Edwards, who has a much better shot at going one on one with McCain.

It ain't as easy to swift boat one of the countries smartest trial lawyers as it is silver foot in mouth, not very intelligent (in the Bush sense) Ivy Leaguer like Kerry.

Edwards relishes going up against the big boys. Kerry is one, and not exactly the brightest bulb in the box at that.
...]]

Quote:[[Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: Little Hawk - PM   Date: 26 Jan 08 - 02:36 PM

After seeing that last debate, I would definitely back Edwards over Obama or Clinton. And yes, he can win it for the Democrats.

Obama and Clinton's squabbling with each other is very likely to destroy their chances of winning the future election.

It's most unfortunate that the media appear to be fixated on the Obama-Clinton battle and are downplaying Edwards, because the public's perceptions are moulded by the media. The tail, basically, is wagging the dog. He who controls the flow of information controls the entire process.

Considering who owns the media....I'm not surprised that they are downplaying Edwards. Why should they back a candidate who speaks out so strongly against the corporatocracy?]]

You are both right.    A number of polls by reputable pollsters such as Zogbie show that Edwards would beat any of the potential Republican nominees in the general election by a wider margin than Clinton or Obama would.

That makes sense, of course.   Especially in the South, there are quite a few voters who would not only never vote for a woman or a non-white but would be energized by such a candidacy to get out to vote and campaign against such a candidate.   Add to that the fact that, justified or not, Hillary Clinton has very strong negatives among the voting public at large.   A Hillary Clinton nomination would motivate a lot of Republican voters to get off their duff -- despite their own candidates' lack of ability to excite them -- and get to the polls.   If Clinton or Obama would win the Presidential vote, I fear it would be by such a narrow margin as to make it way to easy for yet another election to be stolen. E.g., by voter disenfranchisement (e.g., "caging" and electronic vote flipping) or voter suppression (e.g., putting lots of obstacles in the way of getting registered and voting).

Edwards has less in the way of strong negatives.   Plus, as a Southern white male, other things being equal, he stands a better chance of carrying a few Southern and midwestern states than either Clinton or Obama do.

Let's not forget that Edwards' 2nd- and 3rd-place finish in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, S Carolina, etc,, does not necessarily mean the voters are "rejecting" him.   All it means is that a lot of voters had Obama or Clinton were more people's FIRST choice (for whatever reasons).   Heck, the Democratic primary voters, for all we know, could be OK with ALL of their possible candidates. (The Republicans should be so lucky.)       If we had IRV, we'd know,    But Edwards could well be nearly every Democrat's first OR second choice, plus far more acceptable to independents and even some Republicans.

At any rate I really want John to stay in at least through Super Tuesday.    I detest the idea that a small handful of states' primaries/caucuses get to dictate who our nominees will be, as early as Jan. 31!