Why John Edwards Changes Everything

[Bob Geiger]

In the backyard of a Hurricane Katrina victim in New Orleans' 9th Ward, former Senator and Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards announced today that he is running for the Democratic presidential nomination. And, in what can be better characterized as a talk than a formal political speech, Edwards changed the dynamic of the fledgling Democratic race for 2008 with both the tone and substance of his message.

Asking Americans to "be patriotic about something beyond war," Edwards stood in the middle of a New Orleans yard and talked about getting Americans mobilized to create domestic change now and not just in conjunction with a political campaign. He talked earnestly about the need to restore America's battered global image, the critical mass being hit in the country's health-care crisis and the fact that he believes his vote to allow George W. Bush's war in Iraq was just flat-out wrong.

Edwards says he strongly regrets his 2002 vote on the Iraq war resolution, that it was "a mistake" and rebuked the entire notion of a troop surge and escalating U.S. presence in Iraq.

"We need to reject this McCain doctrine of surging troops and escalating the war in Iraq," said Edwards. "We need to make clear we're going to leave and we need to start leaving Iraq."

But more than anything, Edwards announcing so early and, more importantly, the way he's entered the race has changed the entire landscape for aspiring Democratic nominees.

For Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich -- the only other declared candidates at the moment -- Edwards is setting a standard for energy and relevance that they will either equal or drop quickly from the radar screen, as Edwards attracts all of the early support and media attention.

For Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Barack Obama (D-IL), Joe Biden (D-DE), John Kerry (D-MA) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT), along with General Wesley Clark and Governor Bill Richardson, the sheer magnetism and established support that Edwards brings so early, forces them to either declare their intentions as well or risk losing support to the former North Carolina Senator with every passing week.

And why exactly would I say something like that when we're not even out of 2006?

To begin with, Americans are bone-tired of disliking and disrespecting their president and, I believe, are unusually anxious to begin the presidential season to, if nothing else, give them the feeling that a change is coming sooner than later. People hungered for a change in the Congress and made it happen -- now that strong desire to take out the trash moves to the executive branch of government.

Second, Edwards is starting his campaign in an interesting way by making it not about him personally, but about the problems of the world, the loss of global American prestige, our domestic strife and the extent to which his campaign is about getting people to make change now and not wait for the actions of a newly-elected president.

"We want people in this campaign to actually take action now, not later, not after the next election," said Edwards this morning. "Instead of staying home and complaining, we're asking Americans to help."

Finally, many people, including yours truly, believed in hindsight that Edwards would have defeated Bush in 2004 had he been at the top of the Democratic ticket. Edwards was undeniably a more engaging personality than John Kerry and with so much of the vote driven by sheer disgust with Bush, Edwards would have picked up Kerry's 49 percent of the vote and then some based purely on the likeability factor -- that's not the way a president should be chosen but, in our country, it just is.

And, after six years of Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, death in Iraq and the growing sense among Americans that life was much better -- and safer -- when we were liked and respected in the world, Edwards has a central theme that may resonate with millions of voters.

"The biggest responsibility of the next President of the United States is to reestablish America's leadership role in the world," said Edwards in his announcement this morning.

America is starving for genuine leadership and Edwards delivered an honest, inspiring message this morning -- let's see how his future opponents for the Democratic nomination respond.

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. he says a lot of nice things, but....

his credibility on Iraq is modest, at best. Regardless of his mea culpa a few months ago.

[wisteria]

2. Honestly, I think Sen. Kerry has more dedicated support and has

appeal that transcends beyond just magnetism. Senator Kerry also has much more credibility on many issues from his years of actual service to this country and the causes he supports.

Now, I am not going to knock Edwards, he certainly has a message that people notice, but I don't think his entering the race changes very much. Most of us knew this day was coming a least a year ago. If fact,my opinion is, he never stopped running since 04.

So, lets all look forward to an exciting primary and may all those with a message and ideas be heard.

[laureloak]

41. Kerry is history. Edwards is the future. n/t

[wisteria]

73. I disagree. Edward's offers nothing new.

Senator Kerry has redefined himself and has been a true leader. Edward;s in the meantime has been concerned with himself. I would not be to quick to dismiss Kerry.

[blm]

91. If you cared about anti-corruption and open government you'd see Kerry as very relevant

to preserving this nation's democracy.

You claim Kerry is history, and you'd be right - he's REAL HISTORY, as in the single figure who has EFFECTED this nation's history more positively than any other single figure of the last 35 years.

The next president has to be about OPEN GOVERNMENT with a strong anti-corruption background. Every other issue is effected by the central problems surrounding secrecy and privilege.

NO MORE SECRECY AND PRIVILEGE - the cost to this nation and the world is TOO GREAT.

Everything else will work itself out once TRUTH MATTERS to a president.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[JDPriestly]

4. Edwards is saying what will be relevant in 2008.

What we should be doing now in Iraq will be obvious by November 2008. If whatever Bush decides to do leads to worse violence or a wider war or destroys the insurgency will be very clear. It will be name and blame time either way. The American people will get stuck with the tab either way, and the question will be who picks up that tab. Edwards is focusing on that issue.

Edwards is a strong candidate. The talents and skills that make him a successful trial lawyer will make him succeed as a candidate and as president. I am pleased that he is running.

[Clark2008]

42. What a crock.

Iran will be THE issue. Foreign policy will be THE issue.

And Dems always win on poverty issues. His opinion won't matter, nor be necessary.

[venable]

49. is 'crock' the word you were looking for? or something more likely to

encourage dialogue. or, hey, maybe you're not interested in that re. Edwards.

anyway, language and manner of usage are both clarifying indicators of something.

you don't like JE, we get it. others do. a lot of other like him quite a lot.

[Fovea]

51. I think that there will be no one issue

by the end of 2007, we will be in such deep shit that there will be a host of issues. By next fall our problems will involve a nexus of domestic and foreign policy blowback.

Our policy on energy will drag our foreign policy through the muck. Our public health policy, or the lack thereof will confront returning troops *broken* by conflict, horror, heavy metal poisoning and all the things that made Tim McVeigh what he became.

Our foreign policy will lead to our currency being dumped world wide. And that will cause Bush to create a command economy. Who knows, the dollar might become for all practical purposes unconvertable like the old Ruble.

In an environment like this, Edward's concrete efforts to steer the ship of state away from its current kamakazi mission in Iraq/Afghanistan, and soon to be Iran and Saudi Arabia.

[MontanaMaven]

68. Well said and scary. We need to start now. Hold Congress accountable.

Lead or move aside. Cut to the Revolution.

[JNelson6563]

96. Wow!

His opinion won't matter, nor be necessary.

Harsh, un-necessary and oh-so-small.

Julie

[ClassWarrior]

100. .

[still_one]

12. I agree, and that is my major issue with him or anyone who supported the IWR

I do not understand why many are so blind to this. The IWR was a direct violation of the War Powers Act, and the intent of the Constitution

There were enough people in Congress who realized this and voted against it. Why did they see it, and others not?

Feingold and Byrd are just two examples

Would Edwards still be appologizing for his vote if the Iraq war went well? I have no doubt that Feingold and Byrd would still be against the IWR either way

[MeanBone]

64. Actually, it was more than a year ago...

...that he said 'I was wrong.'

A couple of key passages from that Nov. 13, 2005, Washington Post column:

First, we need to remove the image of an imperialist America from the landscape of Iraq. American contractors who have taken unfair advantage of the turmoil in Iraq need to leave Iraq. If that means Halliburton subsidiary KBR, then KBR should go. Such departures, and the return of the work to Iraqi businesses, would be a real statement about our hopes for the new nation.

We also need to show Iraq and the world that we will not stay there forever. We've reached the point where the large number of our troops in Iraq hurts, not helps, our goals. Therefore, early next year, after the Iraqi elections, when a new government has been created, we should begin redeployment of a significant number of troops out of Iraq. This should be the beginning of a gradual process to reduce our presence and change the shape of our military's deployment in Iraq. Most of these troops should come from National Guard or Reserve forces.

[MontanaMaven]

70. He connects the economy and working people to everything

He must have listened to the great Naomi Klein who talked about how we stole all the reconstruction jobs and all the security jobs away from the Iraqi people. Naomi is in her 30's. Bush listens to only old hacks. If he would listen to old geniuses like Howard Zinn. But nooooo! Same old fossils. Klein and others saw that the Iraqi factories were shut down. The military was dispersed. We came in there and raided them like a bunch of Pirates. Edwards is going to the heart of the problem. War Profiteering. War for profit and nothing else. Our children are dying, their children are dying, the earth is being poisoned with depleted uranium, all for profit. Edwards doesn't speak in vague phrases like "redeployment" sometime in Friedman's 6 months language. Get 'em out now. Let Halliburton's 100,000 contractors watch their backs as they get out. Last Americans in Baghdad should be Blackwater and KB&R.

[fuzzyball]

102. Edwards waited too damn long to recapitulate his support of IWR

and that is what scares me about him. He comes across
as someone who would stick his wet finger in the wind,
and look for which way would be the best benefit of JohnnE.

[keta11]

3. I do not know what exactly qualifies him to be taken

seriously - thin on experience, can't even win his own state, sophomoric debate against Cheney, championing Iraq war back in 2002 (now claims he was fooled, how come dumb me sitting in my living room wasn't fooled?), now is mealy-mouthing said war.

It is about time these clowns search their consciences and realize it is the lives of innocent civilians and poor people they are playing with around the world, as they jockey and position themselves for mere "political power".

[venable]

14. there is so much wrong with your post

I don't know where to begin. His performance against Cheney was fine, in fact was impressive to almost everyone besides republicans and the anti-edwards forces on DU. His experience is slight in Washington (though not as slight as some suggest) and pretty impressive in the world and in life, he is not after political power as you say, but just continuing the work of his whole life, his position on Iraq has been gone over much, so suffice it to say that it is tremendously irresponsible of dim of you to claim that this man is playing with people's lives as if he doesn't care.

Your antagonism is so deep there is really not much point in trying to persuade you, so I am answering just for those who happen to read your unpleasant post, so that they might see something counter to it.

do some research with open eyes. this man could very well be your party's nominee.

[keta11]

20. Impressive in the debate? Are you kidding me?>

Keep living in your fantasy land and seeing what you wanna see. Edwards is very light on foreign policy and government experience - that is why he got completely creamed in that debate by Darth Cheney- with his grinning and "deer in the headlight" non-answers!! I did not hear ONE original thought just canned talking points from him on the Iraq war, the Israeli-Palestinian issue, the economy etc etc.

The problems that Dumbya and the GOP have created in the last 6 years are going to be very challenging for the next President of the United States. That is why we do not need another cookie-cutter mealy-mouthed politician full of bromides with little substance. I watched extensively during the 2004 campaign and I do not get Edwards' appeal. In fact it is arguable that Kerry could have done better choosing a more experienced Veep candidate, not that I am a big fan of his either.

You are right- I cannot be persuaded. I do not have deep antagonism towards him, I just do not believe that he is qualified to be the next President, thats all.

[DemDogs]

27. According to CBS and MSNBC polls debate night

Geez. He won CBS by 65-35 or something like that. But maybe you are right and those undecided voters Edwards was trying to reach are wrong.

[keta11]

31. Online poll, no?

[calimary]

32. Hey, I was squarely for Kerry and Edwards, but I was seriously

underwhelmed by Edwards' performance in the debate. Objectively speaking, I actually thought cheney did a little better, in that he kept the Darth Vader part of his personality under wraps and came off a little less scary and evil. He was smooth, slick, and contained, and came off a lot more harmless than he'd been portrayed, at least to the perception of Joe Sixpack ("hey, look, he doesn't seem like such a bad guy"). And I was very disappointed to see how many openings he left for Edwards that Edwards never picked up and ran with. And by now, you should know very well where I stand on the subject of dick cheney and how revolting, treasonous and criminal I find him to be. A sympathetic figure he will NEVER be, from all that I know about him. He will NEVER convince me or win me over, EVER. But from that debate, it was clear to me that he WOULD INDEED be able to have that effect on others who were not well informed or still asleep at the switch or lazy enough just to buy the perceptions being packaged and sold to the masses without question.

Like the whole affair with cheney's lesbian daughter, just to give one example. It would have been an absolute CHECKMATE if, while Edwards was being gentle-hearted and supportive of a fellow dad (which was sympathetic and supportable), he had then turned and said he felt bad for cheney that, on nomination night at the GOP CONvention, cheney couldn't even stand up there on stage in the spotlight in his big moment with all of his family BUT Mary, because the religious extremists who've hijacked the republi-CON party might be offended. That would have been a BEAUTIFUL smackdown, and he didn't seize the moment. I can't remember the others, but I do remember taking notes that night, because I had a column to write about it the next morning, and I kept making notes in the margins about missed debate point opportunities that Edwards let slip through his fingers. I found myself screaming at the TV at him at things I thought he should have said, that should have come easy to him.

Perhaps it was because he didn't have a huge amount of experience on a national stage. Maybe it was just the horrendous stress of that night. But I also was expecting much more of his VP nomination acceptance speech, and was disappointed there, too. His reputation may have undermined him a little - all that background info about his days as a trial lawyer, and how his closing arguments and other courtroom presentations were so boffo that outsiders would pack the courtroom to watch them.

Let me make clear - I am firmly in the Edwards Admiration Camp. I'm DEFINITELY a fan. I appreciate what he's about, what he's accomplished, who he is as a man and a husband and a father, as well as a politician. I LOVE his wife. I love his priorities. I'd support him and vote for him enthusiastically if he's our nominee. But last time around, I was disappointed. I'd expected (and yearned for) much more. But he's been out in the wilderness since then, earning more stripes and doing advocacy for the poor that is so incredibly essential in this country. They need a voice and his is a good one. I'm sure he's gained and benefited and grown logarithmically since he left the national stage. I hope so. His is an influence that is sorely needed, especially now. It'll be nice to have him back in the center ring. He deserves to have a larger impact on this country. A MUCH larger impact.

[keta11]

21. Which famous "hawk" said this??

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."- October 10, 2002

For your enjoyment
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2934244

Ha ha ha!!!!!

[venable]

26. please explain the gleeful laugh

and yes, many people believed this at the time. Edwards was told, point blank, to his face, without equivocation, by George Tenet - keeper of all the intelligence available - that this statement was true. to his face, without equivocation. unless Edwards had his own intelligence gathering operation to contradict this, he would be irresponsible to not heed this. He was wrong. Tenet lied. He knows this, now.

You didn't believe Tenet, I would guess. Either did I ( not without some hestitation - I was asked to go to Iraq as a journalist during shock and awe, and my uncertainty as to what Saddam ACTUALLY HAD, WHAT HE MIGHT DO, kept me from going, being a parent and all).

I was against the war, and wish that Edwards had fought against it. Unless you, too, were in the room, privately, with Tenet, how can you know how you would respond.

And do drop the childish laugh track.

[Clark2008]

43. Good GOD. I am SICK of hearing that being an

AMBULANCE CHASER makes one fucking qualified to do anything but rake in cash and spend it on three houses. He is NOT a Constitutional attorney. He did NOT do anything in his life as an attorney to warrant his knowing about anything but faulty pool valves and medical malpractice. All worthwhile things, I assume, but not leader-of-the-free-world material, I'm afraid.

Yes, I dislike Edwards for so many other things (and my support for Clark IS NOT one of them - I disliked Edwards long before Clark thought about running), but even before he dissed an entire group of people asking for his help and turned me off to him for good, I STILL wouldn't think him qualified to run this country because he doesn't have any fore-thought or sense of good diplomatic goverance. He goes along to get along.

This is NOT 1992. We cannot afford another huckleberry with a pretty face.

Geesch.

[venable]

46. calling JE an ambulance chaser indicates you don't know a thing about him

read his book. or read accounts of his career. you are way, way off-base.

straighten that out before you trash the guy.

[Cha]

95. Besides, Edwards has grown so

much since then, as has Kerry,Dean,.. Gore. The only ones who haven't grown but instead have only gotten seedier are the bushits.

"It was a crowd to warm any candidate's heart — even in a New Hampshire winter.

Over a year ahead of the nation's first presidential primary, so many voters turned out Friday to hear Democratic hopeful John Edwards' call for a new spirit of American activism on problems ranging from poverty to global warming that hundreds were left standing outside in freezing temperatures.

Nearly a quarter of the crowd of more than 800 were unable to squeeze into the elementary school cafeteria where Edwards was to speak.

The former North Carolina senator and 2004 vice presidential nominee ended up giving his introductory remarks outside, using a microphone that broadcast his voice inside, before heading indoors.

"What we're asking is for you, the people of New Hampshire, not to wait for the next election to take responsibility," he said. "Identifying a problem and talking about hope is talking about tomorrow. We can't wait until tomorrow."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061229/ap_on_el_pr/edwards2008

[underpants]

5. The time is ripe for an "outsider"

You may think that having been on the ticket the last time doesn't make him much of a "outsider" but to many people it does.

One of my human political litmus tests told me not three weeks ago that he like Edwards and the small-businessmen-don't-take-my-hard-earned-money-Republican buddies liked him too. He sells in the midAtlantic as well as elsewhere.

[renie408]

7. Yep. I live in SC and that is my experience here, also. n/t

[karynnj]

57. NJ is as midatlantic as you can get

and I heard NO one in 2003/2004 or this year mention edwards as their favorite. And yes, I have gone to Democratic events. I don't think this is a big area for him.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. A lot of realignment and retooling going on here.

I don't want a Goddam shapeshifter for a candidate.

Oops--Pro-war didn't play too well. Now he's anti-war.

Damn. Hillary's got the center. Better run to the left.

Oops-the unions weren't too thrilled about him. Better say some mean things about NAFTA.

People are starting to wake up to the idea that there's a difference between agribusiness and family farmers. Gotta ditch those Big Agra stances.

Whoopee, people. This Edwards guy really excites me.

[venable]

15. he would excite you if you didn't just assume the worst about everything

having to do with Edwards.

You are pretty wrong about your operating assumptions, I'm here to tell you. He is a decent, honest man. Just for the sake of it, study him with that premise, and you will see things you currently are not, and they are true.

[Alcibiades]

18. He's saying the same things he said

during his run in 2004. He's very liberal on social issues, and always has been.

What he's saying today is the same as what he was saying on NAFTA in 2004, so if you want someone who is committed, who isn't just a poll watcher, who cares about principle, John Edwards is your guy.

Here is is from the 2004 primary debates, on the subject of NAFTA:

"This cost jobs for Americans. And it is unequivocal evidence that it costs Americans jobs. People were unemployed. It also went below labor and human rights standards abroad. We need to cancel NAFTA unequivocally."

Having a southern accent doesn't automatically make you a centrist or right wing Democrat.

If you want a shapeshifter, a poll watcher, get another Clinton in the White House. They'll triangulate us all the way into four more years of Republican rule.

[cali]

23. Do you care about poverty in America?

Whatever the end results, all of us who are concerned about inequity, owe a debt of gratitutde to Edwards. Poverty is a much ignored topic in this country. Edwards is continuing to shine a spotlight on it.

[Clark2008]

44. LOL!

Thank you for saying what I should have said - only nicer. :)

I'm stealing the Shapeshifter bit. That's spot on!! :thumbsup:

[Morgana LaFey]

47. Interesting points

He does strike me, at times, like an opportunist. A more polished one than, say, Kerry, but an opportunist nonetheless. And what self-respecting lawyer ISN'T an opportunist???

[MethuenProgressive]

8. If it stays just Vilsack, Kucinich, and him, he has a chance.

But claiming his lack of experience is a plus, and that even though he was the VP candidate and a senator he's still an outsider? Geez...

[LEW]

9. I agree with Bob Geiger

I liked Edwards three years ago and voted for him in the primary. If Gore does not run I like Edwards, he is offering genuine leadership and I work hard for his election.

[renie408]

10. Edwards has become a strong candidate. and he is a good 'learner'.

The one thing that has struck me about Edwards from everything I have heard from him and about him is that he appears to be a 'good learner'. He is someone who studies his mistakes, studies the situation and learns and can change. I find that attractive in a President. We have been pretty much lacking that for the past six or so years.

[Pithy Cherub]

11. Edwards judgment and leadership skills are impaired

and beyond repair on issues of national security. He uses his regret to shore up support on a decision that will reverberate for the next century and wants to parlay his legislative incompetence into being President. Glad he's running as he gives an opportunity for comparison to other qualified candidates. The candidate that gets my vote will not have a legacy of apologies and lack of national security credentials as a platform for president.

[venable]

16. in my opinion he has amazing leadership skills, excellent judgement

and the capacity to recognize when he is wrong (not unlike your candidate, who was not as great on the war as you like to post).

so, you have that opinion, as do others, I have mine, as do others.

I wish Edwards very well. He would make an excellent President.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemDogs]

28. Edwards wins any comparison with your guy

Which is why your guy dropped out in 2004.

[BlueManDude]

13. It's gonna be another election about national security...

and I think in the end he's not credible there.

[Alcibiades]

19. Actually, it will be a referendum on George Bush

I think people realize that the nation is secure. The question is whether we want to continue to use taxpayer money to support Exxon's objectives in the Middle East, to continue the imperial occupation of Iraq indefinitely, or to do something else? Even if the "something else" is to eat a big booger sandwich, I bet "something else" will be a big winner in 2008.

[DaveinMD]

22. the economy

is going to be a major issue. We are about to head into a recession and we continue to bleed jobs. Edwards is a great candidate for this environment.

[Conscious Confucius]

24. Edwards's speaking skills do not inspire me

I do like him, though. I do like this quote too, "be patriotic about something beyond war."

[MontanaMaven]

71. He's not an orator, but he has eloquence aka simplicity in explaining the complex

He is used to explaining complex cases to a jury of his peers. He's comfortable talking to you as his peer not as being superior to you.
Eloquence is the phrase you mentioned. Eloquence is "rewarding work over wealth.' Eloquence is saying "Optimists built America, not cynics."
But each phrase is backed up by a thorough understanding of the case. A thorough understanding of what needs to be done.

[zulchzulu]

25. "Edwards was undeniably a more engaging personality than John Kerry"

That is utterly an opinion...a poor one at that. As for Edwards probably beating Bush in 2004, I also find that fairly unproveable and even tenuously contrived given that Bush/Rove would have certainly "swiftboated" anyone who ran.

But back to the old wives' tale that Kerry doesn't have an "engaging personality"...

I'd seen Kerry dozens of times giving speeches in Iowa, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Illinois and Missouri, answering questions and engaging the crowd that he spoke to with a clearly complete majority of the people there very interested in his "engaging personality". Each speech was a little different, very well done with many parts would include humor as part of the experience. The Senator knows his stuff and appreciates those that want to understand where he stands on the issues. He can also back it up with years of experience that makes him even more "engaging".

I also saw Edwards a few times in Iowa and Wisconsin and he would give a nearly identical speech. It seemed contrived and rehearsed as well as, dare I say, a bit corny. He didn't "command the room" like people like Kerry or Dean did. I was always left a bit perplexed as to why people thought he should be the Leader of the Free World.

Good luck to his campaign and those that support him for President. I'm glad he's running. The more, the merrier. We'll see how the electorate judges him over a year from now.

[Conscious Confucius]

30. Edwards doesn't give off the vibe of a singular leader

He plays the second banana role well, but I don't see Edwards as a strong leader. A contender has to have that presence of importance. Kerry has it. Gore has it. Dean has it. Obama is severely questionable.

[zulchzulu]

53. Welcome to DU!

...and I agree...although Edwards can certainly be a strong candidate.

We'll see how this pans out over the year.

[laureloak]

55. Sure he does. He was better than both Kerry and Gore.

Not to mention Clark, et al.

[zulchzulu]

59. Could you explain your opinion a bit more...

If Edwards was a better leader than Kerry or Gore, why wasn't he the nominee?

[wisteria]

76. I don't recall him winning the support of a majority of Americans like Kerry and Gore.

Apparently, he lacks something you look for in real leaders.

[wisteria]

75. Good point! And welcome! n/t

[bpeale]

88. I am not interested in...

As a democrat, my vote is mine. I will not absolutely vote for Hillary (she too... too). I will not absolutely vote for Kerry (he quit the last time, he won't get that chance again). If they are the candidate, I will vote for another party ... not republican, but another party. I don't trust Hillary or Kerry. Edwards was my first choice last time, and will be my choice this time. And don't give me that tired crap about throwing my vote away. It's mine. If I don't cast it my way, then someone else gets 2 votes (mine & theirs) and I get none.

NO HILLARY. NO KERRY. Wish Gore would run but don't think he will & perhaps its not his place. He can best be utilized thru TV or whatever.

[Laurab]

94. Actually it wouldn't be throwing your vote away -

it would be giving it to the republicans. I don't care much for Hillary, and hope to God she doesn't get the nomination, I like Kerry, but I don't think he has a chance this time around, Edwards does nothing for me - I think we need someone who can get us out of this hell * has gotten us into.

The bottom line for me though is to get the repukes out of there, so no matter WHO the dem candidate is - they've got my vote. We need every single vote, and voting for someone who doesn't have a prayer just seems like such a waste at such a crucial time.

Your vote is your vote, my vote is mine, and if there was a sane republican out there somewhere, maybe it wouldn't be so critical, but do you REALLY want to take a vote away from a Democratic administration? It's not only a president we'd be voting in, it would be an entire administration, and I don't think this country could survive another repuke administration.

[bpeale]

98. I don't care

if hillary or kerry is the nominee, i will not be voting for them. and these days i don't see much difference sometimes between dems and repubs so that is not a selling point for me. there is just something so repugnant about hillary that i couldn't even hold my breath to pull the lever for her. obama maybe. hillary or kerry never.

[wisteria]

74. Corney, that is the word I have been looking for -re-Edwards. n/t

[Dr Fate]

29. We should all thank Edwards for trying to bring NOLA back into the spot light.

He deserves major props- I dont support him in the primary but I think he is terrific- I look forward to hearing his take & debates on the issues of our times.

[IndyOp]

33. Major props to Dr. Fate for thinking Edwards is terrific even if not his choice for primary...

:applause:

Seriously, friends -- how about we try to say ONE NICE THING about each candidate before stating whether we do or don't support that candidate.

I am for Gore. If not Gore then Edwards, but if Edwards then Clark as VP is necessary.

[blm]

34. I disagree Bob - Edwards was fairly lethargic as a campaigner and as VP candidate

it was his JOB to lead the trampling of Bush and Cheney.

I believe he won his debate against Cheney, but he didn't do any damage to him or Bush.

I completely disagree with your assessment of 'personalities' - I have spent time around both Kerry and Edwards and I feel no 'sizzle' at all from Edwards.

I suggest you read Walter Shapiro's book about the 2004 Dem primary candidates. None of the Dems come off bad, but the beer drinking test results may surprise you.

[wisteria]

78. I had forgotten about that, but you are right.

All three times I saw him, he seemed to be just going through the motions and not really connecting very well. Personally, I never thought he help the ticket out at all in 04. Maybe, Sen. Kerry made a mistake in chosing Edwards as VP in 04?

[blm]

84. In fairness, Elizabeth was already sick, but just not diagnosed yet. Cancer takes its toll

and even effected Kerry's early primary performance in 2003.

[NMDemDist2]

35. my husband (who has been 100% predicting the presidency in our 14 years

of marriage) says Edwards has a real shot. People are looking for another JFK to bring hope back to the country and to stick up for the little guy.

Hubby says Edwards push on economic parity will be what a lot of people want to hear.

I'm still on the fence and won't declare for a candidate until at least next spring, but I have ignored my DH's predictions in the past and been proven wrong every time.

[Catchawave]

37. You, and other DUers, are smart to stay on the fence :)

It will just make our Dem nominee that much stronger :grouphug:

Did you mean Kennedy or Kerry for JFK ? I know they share initials, and agree with what you stated, but I, a High School Democrat for Kennedy in '60, always referred to Kerry as JK in '04 :)

[NMDemDist2]

38. Kennedy

DH really really thinks Clinton doesn't have a shot and Obama is way too young and green to go very far this time

He says (and I agree) that is Gore decides to jump in, it's game over. and if Al does, I'll be off the fence for sure

[Catchawave]

39. Gore's a good guy

Wish he ran in '04 with one of his original VP short listed Edwards :D It was his Lieberman choice that made me vote for Bush :banghead:

[laureloak]

56. Once again Edwards is the only Man with a Plan. n/t

[karynnj]

58. What are Kerry's 4 Faneuil Hall Speeches?

They articulate far more detailed plans than Edwards. I can't wait to see if he has more speeches coming. They are on Johnkerry.com under multi-media.

[wisteria]

81. Oh please. Where have you been? Sen. Kerry has been out with plans

since 04. Don't try to peddle that lie around here. To many of us know how hard Kerry has worked at detailing plans and positions.

[laureloak]

103. I'm talking about the 04 primaries. Only Edwards had a plan. n /t

[Clarkie1]

63. My God, you voted for Bush????? nt

[Catchawave]

83. Yep, and Edwards brought me back !

As well as many other Dems who tuned out or turned off in 2000, thanks to Lieberman on the ticket.

[karynnj]

82. Just curious

The 2000 Lieberman before Iraq was NOT that bad. He had a great environmental and civil rights record.

But Bush picked CHENEY. Who voted against school lunches for poor kids. Who was for arpartheid in South Africa. Was he better?

So, if it was the VP choice that swung your decision, are you saying that you preferred CHENEY to Lieberman? I could buy you saying that you bought the media's sunny depiction of the nasty, mean spirited Bush.

[Morgana LaFey]

48. I'm not excited, but we COULD do worse, I'm sure.

I rather like Mrs. Edwards heaps more. I think she's more authentic.

[NMDemDist2]

50. that's kinda my feeling n/t

[AP]

52. A friend of mine stood next to an old guy at an Edwards rally in '04

and the guy was crying like a baby. He said that nobody has inspired him like Edwards did since RFK ran for president.

This guy wasn't a loon. He was an old-school, pro-labor, working class, Erie County Democrat.

[wisteria]

79. Edwards is no JFK. I agree he has a shot, but so do others. n/t

[stevedeshazer]

36. Bob, I agree

America needs some serious navel-gazing, which Edwards will provide in spades.

But even more, the other candidates you mentioned are nowhere near this focused this early on.

Good piece.

[dk2]

40. John Edwards is my candidate!

I think you are right. He is the new approach many have been looking for. I am thrilled that he has come to the net, watching the v-logs, being in the live blogs, and then the live coverage from Iowa. He is transparent, he is bringing he ideas directly to us without cuts and splices from the MSM..
He is right, it is what can we all do?
John Edwards if the candidate for 2008!

[usregimechange]

45. k and r

[karynnj]

54. The comments on 2004 are completely speculative

and from the primaries are completely inaccurate. The media was far more positive to John Edwards than to John Kerry. Yet in primary after primary, except SC and NC (and OK where Clark won), Kerry very convincingly beat John Edwards.

The time that Edwards could have taken the lead and won the momentun was in the first multi-state primary. Kerry had won Iowa with 38% with Edwards coming in second with 32%. Edwards was greatly helped by an endorsement in the Des Moines Register and an agreement with Kuchinich where he asked his supporters to join Edwards if they didn't have the required 15%. In NH, he came in 3rd to Kerry and Dean - but could have made the case that this was their back yard.

The next contests were in SC, OK, MO, NM, AZ, ND, and DE. This was not a great set of states for a NE liberal - as some tried to cast Kerry. The media ramped up Edwards stories - where he was described as "sunny". In 1992, with a differentset of Southern states, Bill Clinton, who had lost NH and Iowa, swept and became the new front runner. If Edwards was the magnetic candidate the media is now telling us again he is, he would have followed in Clinton's footsteps. Instead, Kerry won 5 states and did reasonably well in the other 2.

The idea that Edwards would get ALL of Kerry's vote and more because he "unlike Kerry" was likable. Putting aside the fact that I think Kerry is more likable - I KNOW Republicans in my county who voted for Kerry that would not have voted for Edwards. Kerry was able to appear extremely Presidential and more knowledgable than Edwards in teh primary debates. Additionally, in 2004, the biggest issue boiled down to terrorism and foreign policy. Kerry was prescient on the danger of non-state terrorism and was incredibly impressive in the foreign policy debate. Kerry was almost able to convince the country to change Presidents in the middle of a war. I seriously don't think Edwards could have done it.

[Leilani]

67. I believe Clark finished ahead of Edwards in New Hampshire

Clark also finished ahead of Edwards in a few other places before he dropped out.

I agree with your assessment of the primaries. The majority of Dems chose Kerry early on, & to rewrite history is just plain silly.

IMO, people were looking for experience & Kerry fit the bill.

[karynnj]

77. They both had counts that rounded to 12%

but you are correct - Clark's 12% was from more votes. (I was lazy - I remembered they were said to be tied for third and didn't check to see who was really third from a more detailed source) Thanks for the correction.

I think there has been a major efffort to re-write that history and it slights Clark as well as Kerry. In Elizabeth Edwards book, she expresses the idea that he could have won had Dean conceded before Wisconsin and endorsed Edwards or if Clark would have pulled out earlier.

In reality, Kerry had a very strong clean win and Clark was as strong as Edwards as an alternative until he pulled out. In WI, Kerry likely would have still won because Dean got only a small% of the vote and not all of those people would have switched on command. Also, even if Edwards won Wisconsin, he would have had to win most of the remaining states - and he was over 20 points down in CA, MA and NY which were all in the next batch of states.

In Oklahoma, Clark and Edwards had 30% each - with Clark winning. Kerry had 27%. Had Clark dropped out, many Clark voters having picked him for gravitas and the experience of being a 4 star general and head of NATO may have been more likely to go to Kerry rather than Edwards.

There were polls then that asked people to pick Kerry or Edwards - which Kerry won by large margins. Elizabeth Edwards is a lawyer whose specialty required some competence in math - so she knows what she wrote was not likely based on the true numbers in 2004.

[truedelphi]

60. You had me till you cited incorrect numbers

<<Edwards would have picked up Kerry's 49 percent

Bush only got 48 or 49 per cent. The computerized voting systems that we used (over sixty million votes cast on those clunkers) allowed the votes to be switched.

That fact, combined with the number of voters who were purged from voting rolls, voters who were dissuaded by long lines from voting, proviisonal ballots never counted, including over 200,000 in Ohio, etc. gave the popular election to Bush

And shenanighans in Ohio and New Mexico gave him the electoral college.

But as for Edwards, i am thinking he's my current choice. His announcing from the 9th Ward of New Orleans gives me hope tht attention will at long last be paid to first the genocide and now the swindle that has been Bush's protocol toward the Big Easy.

[omega minimo]

61. 2008 is about Corporatist vs. Populist. Edwards has thrown down the gauntlet

[Clarkie1]

62. Edwards is on top...until Obama announces next week. nt

[Cronus Protagonist]

65. I like to picture him naked. He's so cute. A little cherubim.

He can sit at the end of my bed, naked, smiling at me, holding a tray of fresh fruit.

:sigh:

John Kerry, on the other hand. . .

:puke:

[rman]

66. Yeah it's all about personality

Bush's main selling point was that he's a good drinking buddy, Edwards is cute.

Who cares about issues these days?

[Cronus Protagonist]

90. Too true. Bush was touted as a handsome man in his campaigns

I wonder if the same people think so today. I always thought he was an ugly somnabeech.

But one cannot discount the face-appeal factor as that's as deep as some people get into politics. If it were on issues alone, I think Dennis would have a good chance, but he's too short, not good looking enough, etc. Edwards, while not my fav candidate, is easy on the eyes, and that matters a lot for someone who's going to be on our TV screens for the next 8 years.

[liberal N proud]

69. patriotic about something beyond war

I like that, that is going to be my theme going forward.
It gives patriotism back to us "We the people"

[Chewbacca]

72. Sorry if this is a bit off topic;

Check out this excellent anti war video, and please help to spread it;

Guernica Iraq
http://911blogger.com/node/5219

[NoSheep]

86. Hey

You don't have to hijack posts. Just keep posting and soon you can start your own thread. It won't take long. It's just that if everyone did this, imagine how difficult a thread would be to read! Welcome to DU!:hi: I'll check out the video.

[mnhtnbb]

80. Enough of the Edwards lost to Cheney criticism...

If you're talking about debate mistakes, I still remember Al Gore being lobbed the very first question by Jim Lehrer in the very first debate with Bush to comment on Bush's qualifications for the Presidency. Gore SIDESTEPPED the question. He had the chance to blow Bush away and he didn't take it. And we have all suffered the consequences. I also believe Bushco have stolen two elections.

All the discussion about Edwards losing to Cheney, blah, blah, blah,
is not reason to diss him now. I dissed him in '04, because I was a confirmed Deaniac and I did not appreciate the way Kerry/Gephardt/Pelosi/Edwards/Kucinich piled on Dean, all the while stealing/modifying his platform. But now, faced with Hillary or Obama, my choice is Edwards--if--and only if--Gore doesn't run.

[vkobaya]

85. "Ambulance Chaser"

The accusation that Edwards was an <i>ambulance chaser</i> who filed <i>fivolous lawsuits</i> are buying into right wing corporate arguments against lawyers who are on the side of the people. Granted there are a lot of really scummy lawyers out there, still, one of the purposes of lawyers is to represent the rights of the little people against the corrupt interests of the rich, powerful, elite, corporations and big government. The powerful would like to eliminate these "frivolous" lawsuits which protect us against products which are faulty and dangerous such as dangerous toys, badly designed, dangerous furniture for infants, dangerous cars, badly made tires, dangerous drugs like Vioxx, as well as dangerous jobs, companies who negligently endanger employees, and corporations who unfairly abuse and fire employees. Corporations would love you to give up your rights to a lawyer and a lawsuit holding them responsible for such things as Chevrolet bean counters deciding that the Vega could produce more profit than they would lose over the lawsuits over the dangerous design of that car. They want you to believe that corporations have your best interests at heart and would never jeoparadize their good name by selling unsafe products, would never endanger your life. The reality is the only thing that keeps them to the straight and narrow is the fear of lawsuits that will destroy their bottom line. In the time of Sinclair's "Jungle," food corporations used arsenic as a food preservative. Times are different of course. Today, they are so obsessed with massive, massive, greed is god, profits that they would happily put a bullet between your eyes if it enhanced their bottom line. Some of the ambulance chasers are scum, having no goal of anything more than their own profits much like the corporations, but if nothing else, it keeps the corporations in line and many serve the little people, helping them when there are injuries that are due to the negligence or malice of the corporations and wealthy and powerful. If there are lawyers to be eliminated, let it be the corporate lawyers and crooked government lawyers.

[NoSheep]

87. Nice post.

[ClassWarrior]

89. Lakoff suggests we use "Public Protection Attorneys" to describe...

...Edwards and other good professionals like him whom the Radical RW have demonized as "trial lawyers."

NGU.

[Divine Discontent]

92. makes sense to me! tks!

I hate the way fundies say "triallll lawyer". like they don't manipulate the system worse than anyone.

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable '08 designs in!

[ClassWarrior]

97. True.

B-):thumbsup:

NGU.

[teryang]

105. Well said, access to the courts is a Constitutional right and...

...ancient tradition of English speaking peoples. An attack on trial lawyers and most tort reform is an attack on the people's right to redress for injury in the courts.

Most civil court time and resources are wasted by corporations suing each other for their violations. When an ordinary person gets into court thanks to the plaintiff's bar, all the right wing pro-corporate anti lawyer bullshit spews forth.

It amazes me how many democrats and republicans don't understand this issue. Believe me you don't want to find out after one of your loved ones has been maimed or killed by someones negligence that a recent "tort reform" law caps your attorneys fee, or limits your damages to some arbitrary figure. You won't get justice. I've had so many people find this out the hard way. Republicans are quick to sue like any American when they've been wronged. When they find out their legislature limited or removed their access to the courts, they act incredulously. Well you vote Republican don't you? Well yeah, but what's that got to do with it? They represent the Corporations, not you!

HELLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[ChiciB1]

93. GREAT POST! Hit the Nail On The Head!

I'm behind Edwards for other reasons too! I think he has matured a LOT since 2004, and regardless of all the negative comments here, unless he completely falls in a hole he's the one I will support!

I've actually been a big supporter of his for a very long time. I won't get into a fight about it, but he has a lot to offer and is handling all the crap being thrown at him right now quite well.

I am liking what I see more and more each time he appears in an event. He seems to be very comfortable with himself and doesn't act like he's playing "defense" all the time. He answers the critics and moves on! This one fact will drive others crazy!

I do like Al Gore too! But for now... I'd go with Edwards/Obama!

[earthlover]

99. he's superman!!!

"For Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Barack Obama (D-IL), Joe Biden (D-DE), John Kerry (D-MA) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT), along with General Wesley Clark and Governor Bill Richardson, the sheer magnetism and established support that Edwards brings so early, forces them to either declare their intentions as well or risk losing support to the former North Carolina Senator with every passing week".....

Hey, why not add faster than a speeding bullet, able to.....zzzzzz

[JNelson6563]

101. I am on the fence

My great hope is that Gore jumps in...but I am so glad Edwards is out there speaking about things that need to be discussed and stirring up excitement.

I've been enjoying the articles and reports that are getting posted at DU.

:toast:

Julie

[Imagevision]

104. Would you prefer Gephardt over Edwards?? - OR Daushel over Obama??

Obama and Edwards are two great selections for candidates, hopefully Hillary passes!!

[talk hard]

106. didn't float in 2004

ain't gonna float in 2008 ... next!

[GreenTea]

107. He is the man..I respect with teeth.....