BS: John Edwards

Subject: BS: John Edwards
From: Alice
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 03:29 PM

OK, I started a thread awhile ago about John Edwards and a You Tube video of his biography that had a confusing title, so here it is again, especially if someone ever wants to search for it on the topic John Edwards.

"John Edwards and rural America"

http://www.johnedwards.com/watch/forthecountry/

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 04:07 PM

Very good! He is saying what needs to be said about the Corporatocracy and the damage it has done to people's lives in America (and elsewhere too).

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: michaelr
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 01:24 PM

GAWD, I hope he gets the nomination. Edwards is our only hope for a Democrat president. The Republicans are rooting for Clinton or Obama because they know those two don't stand a chance. But Edwards does.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Sorcha
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 06:06 PM

I wish he'd get it....but I'm afraid that Hillary the Hawk will...the Republican 'Democrat'.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 06:38 PM

I agree. I think Edwards is the Democrats best chance. Talk radio and the 527s will kill the others.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 06:50 PM

I think it's worrying that he overlooks the urban worker, who may be as downtrodden as the rural worker.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 06:53 PM

I didn't get the impression that he was ignoring the urban worker. I came away with the idea that his concern was for the working poor wherever you find them.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Genie
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 10:19 PM

For someone who "overlooks the urban worker," Edwards sure seems to have spent a lot of time campaigning in urban areas of Michigan (just to name one). He supports unions of all sorts and is one of the few candidates who has talked much about the problems of outsourcing.

The media corporatocracy hates (fears) Edwards for much the same reason they turned on Howard Dean 4 years ago.    Their quasi-monopolistic stranglehold on our radio and TV airwaves is threatened by any populist, pro-union candidate whose other qualities make him/her a viable candidate if given a fair hearing.

They have made way too much of the Edwards $400 haircut -- not a scandalously outrageous price for having a top-quality barber/stylist make a 'house call' to your hotel suite and far from abnormally extravagant where DC politicos' expenditures are concerned -- the way they did the fabricated "Dean scream" in 2004.    They are also pulling out all the stops to try to turn Obama's surprising results in Iowa into a very premature and self-fulfilling prophecy.

Notice that nearly all the "polls" given much attention in the "mainstream media" are within-party polls (or at least "Whom do you support in the primary?)?    They aren't giving much attention to polls that pit likely Repub v. likely Dem candidates in November 2008. Who cares if most Democratic primary voters prefer Obama or Clinton to Edwards, if their preferred candidate has little chance of carrying any states except the ones the Dems officially won in 2000 and 2004?

It's being reported that polls that focus on November 2008 consistently show Edwards beating all likely Republican candidates and by a sizeably wider margin than either Obama or Clinton would, both on an electoral-college and a popular-vote basis.
Whether those results will hold up over the next few months or not, that is what we Democratic voters should be asking themselves in selecting our nominee.

If the Democratic candidate cannot pull more than about 51-52% of the votes in 2008, the election will be stolen (or at least questionable) again because of "caging," black-box voting, and Rovian dirty tricks (such as robo-calls giving disinformation about polling dates and places).    The Democrats will (officially) lose the White House again this fall if they go again with a 51-49% strategy.

I think an Edwards-Obama ticket would be very hard to beat, and Obama would then be perfectly poised to be the hands-down favorite for President in 2106.    His being the "rock star" right now would make it hard for him to accept the #2 spot, but it still might be the best strategy for the party.    And if the media would level the playing field (by playing journalists rather than cheerleaders or prophets), Edwards might well rise a lot in the public's estimation.

Democrats seem to embrace Edwards's stand on most issues more than they do Obama's. But then, if you watch TV or listen to most "news" radio, you wouldn't know that.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: GUEST,Texas Guest
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 10:39 PM

Well, he's my guy. I heard him speak three years ago when he addressed the Texas Democrat State Convention and I was blown away.
He has presence, he has poise, he's articulate and he has heart - what's not to like? I, personally, would love to see an Edwards/
Kucinich ticket, but it'll never happen. I think his best hope is to
get a VP slot with somebody, but I don't know who.

On another note, it seems to me that Richardson (who is good, too) is bucking for a VP spot and I wouldn't be surprized to see him teamed up with Clinton for this go-round. Finally, I wouldn't mind seeing John Edwards run with his wife, Elizabeth, as a VP - another great ticket that we'll never see. Keep up the hope. Cheers.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Janie
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 10:41 PM

So far, Edwards has articulated a much more detailed plan regarding national health care than any of the other candidates.

I very much like his positions on most things. But as I said on another thread, I question how effectively he can lead. Here in North Carolina, he has not demonstrated much leadership in the public arena, and there are many North Carolina liberals for whom, like me, he is not their first choice among the Democratic candidates.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 10:48 AM

Janie - I noticed in the last debate that Edwards did seem to have a grasp on a number of problems--George Will calls him a modern day Trotsky--but he seemed to have trouble getting his ideas across to the public.

               It seems funny that a successful trial lawyer would have that handicap.

             Who would you choose to support, if not Edwards?

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Alice
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 11:32 AM

Edwards has not had the fund raising success that both Clinton and Obama have had. Clinton has the Clinton machine behind her, Obama has had media attention and Oprah behind him for fund raising. That has kept him out of the media spotlight and that is why his ideas are not being reported in the news. In the US news reporting, they have focussed on both Obama and Clinton, as if Edwards does not exist.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 11:36 AM

Edwards, in the debates at least, seems to be acting as Obama's pit bull ---providing attacks on Ms. Clinton while Obama takes the high ground. Soirt of like a tag wrestling team.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 11:39 AM

dick - That's the way is seemed to me, too. It probably helped Obama a lot, but it seems to me like that would have hurt Edwards. Maybe he's playing for a VP spot.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: freightdawg
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 11:54 AM

I posed these questions on another thread, after which Bobert came along and reiterated some of the same points. For those of you so in love with Edwards, answer these questions: Where was he during the last election? As Kerry's pick for VP the ticket actually lost points in some polls following the Dem. convention. Then he virtually disappeared. As Bobert pointed out, he could not even carry his own state (deliver the needed electoral votes) in the general election. Why is he so angry, and how can anyone suggest that a position such as Obama is projecting could be compatible with Edwards' rhetoric? Obama is scoring huge points with his "no more red and blue America" and Edwards is hell bent on convincing everyone that civil war is one cannon shot away. And I have to disagree with those who think Edwards could win the national election. The groups that Edwards is scoring points with are clearly Dem. strongholds (unions, the "poor and downtrodden" lawyers, etc). He cannot speak to the rest of America, as he has no message for us. And he certainly has no evidence to put forward that he can govern in the way in which he speaks.

In Texas vernacular, Edwards is all hat and no cattle. Put him on the ticket and make reservations for a Republican inauguration.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: GUEST,Janie
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 12:01 PM

Rig - I'm still on the fence, but at present am leaning a little bit toward Obama. Our primary is not until May 6. Electability is probably going to be the deciding factor for me, as I don't have strong reservations about any of the Democratic hopefuls. I don't support Kucinich, simply because I do not think he is electable under any conditions.   Right now, I would guess that Obama is the most capable of getting both liberal and moderate Democrats off their duffs and to the polls, and of attracting swing voters. I'm not sure Clinton could garner the swing votes, and might generate enough backlash to help the Republican candidate. Right now, I don't know that Edwards could rally the voter turn-out that might be needed for the Democratic candidate to win. Richardson is simply too much of a long-shot.

May is a long time off, and we all know how quickly the picture can change. I could support any of them in the general election. I'm gonna wait and jump on the biggest, brightest bandwagon come May 6.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 12:11 PM

Yeah, I guess that's what it boils down to, electability. And a lot can happen between now and May.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 01:11 PM

You say that Edwards is "angry", freightdawg...

Well, there IS a lot to be angry about. However, I tend to agree with you that the angry approach is not nearly as effective as Obama's much more upbeat message of crossing the red-blue divide and forming a united American movement.

Therefore, I expect Obama to do a lot better than Edwards, although I really agree strongly with most of what Edwards says when it comes to the specific issues he's talking about.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: freightdawg
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 03:05 PM

Exactly, LH,

Anger is a wonderful emotion - many things have been accomplished by the proper use of anger. But when you create a divide, or if you acerbate a divide that may already be there, the result is that you have to destroy your opponents in order to achieve your goal.

But, if you are angry and you say to everyone - "Look, we have a common problem here and it is a problem that is hurting all of us and if we all pull together we can overcome this problem to the mutual benefit of all of us" then you don't have to destroy your opponents - you win them over to your side. And in that case you have to project the fact that there is ONE America with some problems, not TWO or more Americas ready to slit each others' throats.

Reagan won two huge landslide victories by focusing on the bright side of America - our ingenuity, our capacity to overcome problems. If negativity wins an election the result will be more animosity and pessimism. For the life of me I can't see why anyone would want to be the president of a country he feels like is 50% deeply opposed to him and working to destroy "his" way of thinking.

I would rather have a president who looks at those who disagree with him as potential converts to his/her sunny outlook. The president may never achieve perfect unanimity, but it still beats this "us/them" mentality that destroys rather than builds.

Simply put, Edwards, with his rhetoric, can never lead a united America, no matter how accurate his interpretation of things might or might not be. Ultimately, I believe this will be Clinton's major downfall if she gets the nomination. She was so shrill when hubby was POTUS that she will always be viewed as the most divisive politician in America. But at least she has her experience in the Senate to say, "that was then, this is now." What does Edwards have?

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 03:49 PM

I have to admit, I'm having a lot of trouble with this line-up.

Hillary strikes me as "more of same, piled higher and deeper." If she winds up as the Democratic candidate, I will contemplate the alternative, shudder, and vote for her. But I'm afraid I will be holding my nose when I do so.

Barack Obama. Obviously bright and articulate. I hear a lot of generalities from him that sound good, but not a whole lot in the way of specifics. I find him sort of "warm and fuzzy," and I'm hoping for some substance.

John Edwards is not warm and fuzzy, he comes on strong when he speaks, and he says a lot of good things, things I agree with. But again, I hear darned little when it come to specifics.

If it's either Obama or Edwards, I will vote for them. But not without misgivings.

The one candidate who expresses my viewpoint almost point by point, and who does get specific is Dennis Kucinich.

Among other things, when it comes to the health care mess, the other candidates all "have a plan," but wherever they've been backed into a corner about it, they usually say that they will "mandate" health insurance—pass a law requiring everyone to have health insurance, like requiring drivers to have liability insurance. I don't see how that's any kind of solution at all! As Kucinich says, "The reason that 47 million Americans have no health insurance and another 50 million are under-insured is because they can't afford it! We need a single-payer, government financed health care program." Tried and true, like most of the rest of the civilized world. Ask him a question, he gives you a specific answer. He's an old-fashioned kind of Democrat and he has an established record of personal integrity (how many politicians can you say that about?).

If the candidate is Dennis Kucinich, I will vote for him gleefully!

But let's face it:   He is making the mistake of taking a practical, workable approach to dealing wiht real issues, issues that need to be dealt with, even if it steps on some pretty big toes. Not only that, he has a round head and big ears like Charlie Brown, and worse yet, he's a thinker and he cares about people. All the people, not just the Fat Cats.

Now, who's going to vote for someone like that, I ask you!??

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 04:02 PM

Don - Yeah, that's a problem. If one wants to get elected, one shouldn't care about too many people.

                It's too bad he can't get some internet savy guy to raise money for him like they guy in Florida did for Ron Paul.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 04:17 PM

Kucinich says that judging from what he reads on the internet, he seems to have a lot of grass-roots support out there. But the !#$%@&! media appears to be trying to pretend that he doesn't even exist!

Other than a good interview on Bill Moyers' Journal on PBS last Sunday night, nuthin'!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 04:20 PM

Yeah, and how many viewers does "Bill Moyer's Journal" get. The broadcast it so late in my area I can rarely even stay awake for it.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 04:21 PM

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Alice
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 05:13 PM

Have any of you read Edwards' specific plans?
If he has no specifics, why did I hear them in his speeches on C-Span?
Why have I read them on his web site if he has no specifics?
The Media is not reporting on him, that is why you don't think he has them!

Specific issues, John Edwards, you can drill down to details on this page.
http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 05:16 PM

I goofed. Bill Moyers' Journal is on Friday night here, not Sunday.

That's too bad, Rig. The Friday evening line-up on my local PBS affiliate (KCTS Seattle) is NOW with David Brancaccio at 8:00 p.m., Washington Week in Review at 8:30, and Bill Moyers' Journal at 9:00 p.m. Unless I'm out or there is something really compelling on one of the other channels (rare occurrance), I almost always watch all three.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Alice
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 05:23 PM

A bit more about some of his experience, which has not been reported by the media.

"Without taking a dime from lobbyists or political action committees (he never has), John ran for the Senate and won an upset victory, unseating an incumbent Republican who was a part of the corrupt Jesse Helms political machine.

As a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Edwards worked tirelessly for a strong national defense and to strengthen the security of our homeland. He authored key pieces of legislation on cyber, bio, and port security.

He is the former Director of the Center on Poverty, Work, and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill."

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 05:26 PM

Another worrying thing about the democratic party candidates is that according the the UK analysts I was listening to tonight, if you actually line up the policies of Clinton and Obama, and compare, you see that on balance Barack Obama is to the right of Clinton.

That makes it look as if he is the republicrat, not her, and the wooliness of his feelgood utterances and indeed those of his supporters interviewed on the news, looks in that light deeply suspect. He seems to be a "packaging and no content" candidate - a potential vicar of Bray.

Alas I have virtually no info about Kucinich, but his quote above about health is just so glaringly obviously correct that I think I would like what I might hear.

But since I don't have a vote in teh USA (or a spare army so that I might liberate Americans from the oligarchic dictatorship with sinister theocratic overtones under which whose yoke they groan) I suppose what I think really does not matter.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 05:30 PM

"The Friday evening line-up on my local PBS affiliate (KCTS Seattle) is NOW with David Brancaccio at 8:00 p.m., Washington Week in Review at 8:30, and Bill Moyers' Journal at 9:00 p.m."


                   Here they stick some Mack woman with a business program between Gwen Ifill and Moyers, so it comes on an hour later.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: topical tom
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 05:32 PM

I too am very impressed by John Edwards although it looks like Obama at the moment.Of course, Hillary could catch up.The question I have to ask is can the candidate face up to the lobbies of corporate America and protect the interests of the people instead? God, I hope so.At the very least the current health situation has to be remedied butI am afraid the unholy word "socialism"will prevent this.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 06:54 PM

Now, if Obama will just give me something I can sink my teeth into. But so far, not much. Pretty much the same with Edwards, although he seems somewhat more solid. I'm inclined to like him, but I've got to scrutinize him a lot more.

Re:   Kucinich. Here's a video of his interview with Bill Moyers.   CLICKY.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 07:21 PM

Edwards says a lot of good stuff. But I'm still not sold on him yet.

Okay, first of all, I am not a "one issue" voter. Far from it. But I find the approach to the matter of our current health care mess is a fairly good indication of a particular candidate's position.

This is from Edwards' web site:    CLICKY.

To me, this says "Band-Aids, patches, and duct-tape. But let's be sure to keep the insurance companies in the mix, or we might offend them."

And after specifying things like tax-credits and such, then he says,

"Once these steps have been taken, requiring all American residents to get insurance.

"Securing universal healthcare for every American will require the active involvement of millions of Americans."

In short, "Ante up, folks!"

I'm not happy with that!

Now, I have health care, both through my wife's insurance at work (pretty good bennies), and my own Medicare, so I'm in pretty good shape. But when I look at what various insurance companies are charging for anything vaguely near decent coverage—and when I talk to Americans, tourists, who have had occasion to make use of the health care systems in other countries and were often surprised to find them to be top qualitiy and free of charge—I get highly offended by the medieval, profit-oriented system we have!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 07:30 PM

Sheesh. Great interview.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 02:00 AM

I'm not voting for him, but according to some polling that JtS was showing me earlier, he's the only Democrat who can beat all of the Republicans (by at least 8 points, as of the time of the poll).

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 07:34 AM

As several posters have already noted, Edwards may be angling for Obama's VP spot--which would make a lot of sense for him. If Obama has 8 years of success, Edwards would be at that point the heir apparent--assuming he runs a better campaign than Gore did--(and of course Nader wasn't exactly helpful).

At this point, Edwards is Obama's attack dog, as I think Dick noted earlier.   Edwards says this is to possibly knock out Hillary--so it would be Obama vs Edwards. But attack dog has been a traditional role for VP--could be a job application, as I believe was also noted--allowing Obama to stay above the fray to some extent--which would also fit his plan.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: PoppaGator
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 06:17 PM

John Edwards announced his candidacy in the front yard of a flooded-out house in New Orleans's Lower Ninth Ward. So far, he's the only candidiate to visit our poor beleaguered town, and to even bother mentioning the Bush administration's cruelest failure to show the slightest interest in American citizens in need.

That impressed me. I had not previously been very enthusiastic about John Kerry's ineffectual running mate, but this time around I am willing to give Mr. Edwards more serious consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Janie
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 09:56 PM

Don,

One of the things that makes me uneasy about Edwards is that dissonance reflected in his health care plan compared to what I believe is his true concern for the little guy.   It looks like he does not think that government needs to be significantly involved in redistribution of wealth through significant increases and changes in taxation. Reading between the lines, I wonder if he believes that regulation, better labor laws, protectionism of American markets and industry to minimize additional job loss, some legal protections for the little guy from corporate excess, etc., will give the little guy enough collective clout to force a primarily private sector redistribution of wealth. It is clear that all of those measures are needed and necessary changes in addition to significant redistribution through taxation.   

If he is sincere regarding his concern for us little guys, and I have no reason to think he is not, his plan is completely unworkable and unrealistic. I think he may have too much faith in regulated Capitalism, or be a bit blind and undiscerning, i.e. lacking insight. I think Obama and Clinton both have insight, and are consciously philosophically more aligned with big money, and/or very pragmatic about where the power is and who typically votes in this country.   They both clearly hope to use big money power to get in power. What happens if one of them is elected remains to be seen. Are either of them incrementalists who envision being effective working within the power system to change the power system, possessing a long view? Are they an integral part of that system?   I don't think either of them are rampant proponents of laissez faire economics. That, in and of itself is a huge improvement over today's dominant Republican positions, made all the more scary by their religious right inspired conservatism.

Like you, Kucinich reflects my own views on what is desirable and necessary, nearly point for point. If we had a multiparty proportional representation system, I would be strongly supporting his party. Or if, as you noted above, I were not so fearful of what another four years of the modern Republican dream of this country might wreak, I would support him. In the unlikely event he won the Democratic nomination, I would probably resign myself to fighting for a lost cause in terms of the 2008 election, fight anyway, and figure I was working incrementally toward changing America, believing that we could survive current losses for the sake of more favorable change in the future.

But too much is at stake near term for me to be comfortable with that risk. (Sadly, and perhaps too cynically, I remember McGovern's trouncing too well and too painfully.) Bill Clinton moved the 'center' to the right with his welfare reform and no strings attached international free market moves. Kucinich is what this child of the 60's would have called a liberal. Which is what I call myself. We have been marginalized and by today's standards are leftist. Obama and Clinton are at today's center, which I consider to be a bit to the right. Edward's rhetoric is liberal, but his proposals are no further left than today's center, and really, not positioned much differently from Obama or Clinton.

When I say I have no major problem supporting any of the three most likely candidates for the Democratic nomination, I am not saying they represent my views about what this country needs. I am saying any of the three are strongly preferable to any of the Republican alternatives whether they be from the conservative or the libertarian branch of that party, and are potentially electable.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 10:31 PM

I agree all the way, Janie.

I will be voting for whoever the Democrats finally nominate, even if, as I said above, I have to hold my nose and perhaps shed a tear when I do so. The alternative is unacceptable, and if that were to happen, I see this country beginning to crumble internally and go the way of the Roman Empire—except, of course, we didn't last anywhere near as long.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Genie
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 12:02 AM

While Edwards may not have Obama's charisma or Clinton's machine, I don't think he has the kind of negatives that either Obama or Clinton do which might energize the far-right to get out and vote in opposition.   Even if Clinton or Obama won the White House, if those who hate or fear them are mobilized to vote, it could threaten or lessen the Democrats' victories in Congressional and Gubernatorial races.

Clinton's "negatives" are 1) she's a woman 2) she's a Clinton, 3) she's now seen as a northeastern urban candidate, and 4) her persona is viewed by too many as "cold" or "bitchy."   As undeserved as any of those perceptions or prejudices may be, I can't see her taking any southern states except maybe Florida or Virginia or Arkansas. But a lot of people seem to hate her passionately, dread the Bush-Clinton dynasty thing, or just abhor the idea of a female President.

Obama's "negatives" are 1) he's "black," 2) he's also seen as an urban Yankee, 3) his middle name is Hussein and his last name "sounds like Osama" and he once attended a Muslim school [aka "madrasa"].    These are the things that may mobilize a lot of racists, religious bigots, die-hard Southerners, and just people who are still traumatized by "the war on terror" to get their butts out to the polls to vote against him -- and his party.   His charisma could still sweep him into the White House, but with no "coat tails."

Edwards, according to polls, has very low negatives.   I think he faces a real uphill battle to win his party's nomination -- but, as with Kucinich, that battle is as much with the mainstream media as with the American people.    If he can win the nomination, I think he is not only the most electable Democrat but the one who might have the longest coattails, if only because few people either fear or hate him,

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 12:35 AM

My daughter told me someone in Iowa said they didn't want to vote for Obama because they were afraid he would be assassinated if he were elected!

I'd like to see Edwards and Obama get together. Failing that Clinton would do well to join with one of them IF she gets the nomination, imo.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Genie
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 04:46 PM

I think the most electible ticket for the Democratic Party this year, and the one that would have the best chance of a landslide that would bring in sizeable Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, would be Edwards-Obama.   Obama's charisma and oratorical skill would be a huge draw and help mobilize the youth vote and appeal to a lot of African-American voters in the South. That, combined with Edwards being a Southerner and populist, would give the Dems a good chance of winning states like the Carolinas, Virginia, Florida, Arizona, New Mexico, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Tenessee, Kentucky, Georgia, etc.    And 8 years as Vice President would position Obama perfectly to be elected President after Edwards -- probably much better than another term or two in the Senate would.    (Longstanding Senators seldom do well in Presidential races.)

The problem, of course, is that Obama is the media darling (for the moment) and is upstaging Edwards, partly abetted by the mega-corporations that control the major media.
But should Clinton pull ahead in the Primaries, if Edwards stays in the race and can win or come in a close second in a few states, we might have a brokered convention in Denver or something along those lines.

I wish all the Democratic candidates and the party faithful as well would look to the question of electability and consider various ticket options rather than each candidate just running in isolation and the Dems just voting for their own favorites among the candidates.

Our methods of choosing slates for the two major parties kind of sucks.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Alice
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 05:06 PM

Obama attended a public school where some of the students were muslim.
He didn't attend a muslim school.
Fox News erroneously reported that and now it is all over the internet.
Not true.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 05:24 PM

Alice - I think this is just the tip of the iceberg. Fox news and a number of outlets even shadier than that are going to report things like this to promote their own political agendas.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: GUEST,Janie
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 05:36 PM

I think trying to gage how the South will go in the general election, regardless of what the Dem. ticket turns out to be is going to be very tricky to gage. I think I agree that Clinton would have the toughest time in the South, but no matter how you slice it, I think the South is going to be a major battleground in the general election and whoever wins, it is going to be close. The Dems. need to pay close attention to both the voter turn-out for the primaries, and to the demographics of who turns out, and even more importantly, who doesn't turn out to vote in the primaries.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 05:36 PM

You know, if we can't get some bi-partisanship going we can talk about every issue and see where there is no fix to be had...

Edwards, though I like him, hasn't exhibited to be anh ability to get things done...

Yes, I love all of Dennis's ideas... Dennis is a Green party guy with a Dem label... He has good ideas and would make a great advisor to a future president but whoeven is the next president will ***have*** to be able to sit down with folks from accross the isle and work hard...

Obama did that in Illinios and as far as I cans ee is the only candidate that dragging around so much baggage that it would be possible to forge bi-partisan relationships...

Yeah, we can take every issue and find great solutions... That's fine... Won't do US any goood if they cannot be implimented...

Einstien said that "a problem cannot be solved with the same consciensness that created it" and I hold that to be true... Edwards, IMO, is part of the old consciensness...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: GUEST,pattyClink
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 10:33 AM

Genie, I like your plan. If Dems don't get it together and get real, we will all be facing another 4 years of Bush Lite/Armageddon in the form of McCain or worse.

The only thing that will get a Republican in the South to cross over to the Democratic candidate is if they think the Democrat will take a big axe to the rampant federal government, its social engineering, and its K street friends the huge corporations. Obama and Clinton will not do that, their record is clear.   Edwards may be shining us on about it too, but I'd rather have someone in charge who realizes this has become a plutocracy and at least claims to be serious about restructuring it, than someone who is basically going to repaint the deck chairs blue while the ship goes down.

Meanwhile, Obama gets training and seasoning. That could work!

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 02:17 PM

So, has Edwards commented on Kerry endorsing Obama?

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: EBarnacle
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 11:33 PM

I was an early supporter of Edwards' campaign.

Lately though, I have been having doubts about his openness since they announced that they were green. Their greenness is not open to discussion [at least from me] or suggestions for improvement. I have found them to be utterly unresponsive to requests for discussion.

They are good at asking for money every day, though.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: GUEST,pattyClink
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 09:29 AM

Same here, EBarnacle, only with the Paul campaign. Some very poor commercials are actually working against the campaign instead of converting new supporters, but they don't want to hear how much the supporters hate the spots.   It's kind of tragic that all the fundraising is going towards a negative force.

But, all the campaigns are short-staffed chaos machines trying to stay on a moving train; their staffs are exhausted, long on heart, and low on logic and systems, and God knows the candidate has no time to manage day-to-day. I can't expect too much from them, they certainly are giving it a big effort even if they screw up a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Genie
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:34 AM

John Edwards was on Ed Schultz's radio show yesterday and was asked about his reaction to Kerry's endorsing Obama.   He was exceptionally gracious and showed no sign of feeling gut punched by that or down about it. He acknowledged that he is the underdog right now and that Kerry and Obama have become friends and allies in the Senate and said he was neither really surprised nor offended.

Very smart political response, I thought.   But to me Kerry's action was, by its timing, a really low blow and probably totally unnecessary.   I could give Kerry the benefit of the doubt -- as I did Kucinich when he asked his Iowa supporters to support Obama if he did not meet the 15% threshold on the first vote -- on the grounds that his primary motive was either anti-Clinton or just to try to help avoid anyone being prematurely 'coronated' by the media.    But as Edwards (like Kucinich) has been getting the short end of the stick from the corporate mediocracy, and as his birth state is one where he has a good deal of support and it could well be a make-or-break test of his candidacy, I found Kerry's timing thoroughly despicable.   Had he waited till after the S Carolina primary to endorse anyone, I would have thought a lot more of Kerry.

That said, I'm not really surprised. It's widely said that Edwards and Kerry almost came to blows after the 2004 election because Kerry conceded so quickly and refused to make good on his promise to make sure the Ohio race had not been lost due to election fraud.   And Kerry disappointed me over and over in 2004.   Though I thought he would have made a pretty good President and light years better than Dubya, He and the DLC just kept making faux pas after faux pas and being very ineffectual in fighting against the neocon Rovian machine.

Unfortunately, I think Obama may similarly suffer from an over-eagerness to please EVERYONE and to push for premature reconciliation when there are fights that still need to be fought and serious wrongs that need to be made right.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 09:13 AM

I never understood why Kerry didn't at least ask a few questions, anyway, about what went on in Ohio. The lady (Congress woman from Ohio) who tried to push it had to get Barbara Boxer to stand up for her in the Senate just to get some action. The whole incident made me respect Barbara Boxer a lot more.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: GUEST,pattyClink
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 02:47 PM

Good insight on Kerry. He really did let us down. If he and Gore had teamed up to insist on cleaner elections we would have a more honest system.   

But I don't think he'll have done damage to Edwards in South Carolina.   The main thing he's got going for him there is he is not considered an effete northeastern liberal like Kerry, so to have Kerry supporting someone else is actually a sparkling recommendation to a lot of the voters.

Subject: RE: BS: John Edwards
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 10:24 AM

That's a good point, patty, reinforced by the reality that Kerry didn't even try to run for the nomination in 2008.