Edwards has disappointing showing in South Carolina poll - distant 3rd

[Herman Munster]

Distant 3rd in the state he was born in - not good for his prospects.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17382643.htm

Obama led in the new poll with 34 percent of likely voters to 25 percent for Clinton. Edwards was third at 12 percent. Sen. Joe Biden was at 2 percent; so was former Vice President Al Gore, who has given no indication of running but whose name was volunteered by some voters. Twenty-four percent were undecided.

Edwards has been counting on a strong showing in South Carolina, but his outspoken opposition to the Iraq war and drift to the left on other issues may not be playing well with the state's pro-military, generally conservative voters.

[geomon666]

1. He's better off as Gore's VP anyway. n/t

[Pastiche423]

2. I truly believe that Al Gore is not that stupid

[venable]

4. classy

let me just say you don't know what you are talking about.

is it possible that Gore believes he blew 2000 by not choosing Edwards (his 2nd choice)? it's more than possible.

Gore is not stupid.

I don't think, though, that the same vp nominee twice in a row will ever happen.

[Pastiche423]

6. I do not know what I'm talking about

when I say I believe Gore is not that stupid?

That makes no sense. I know Al Gore is very intelligent. Have you read his recent book yet?

[geek tragedy]

11. Edwards was Joe Lieberman Jr in 2000, so no

Gore didn't err by leaving him off the ticket.

[venable]

13. I believe Gore thinks otherwise n/t

[NYCGirl]

15. How do you know this? Clairvoyance? NT

[venable]

19. things I've heard.

from people who would certainly know.

sorry to be coy.

you've no reason to trust me, so disregard if you'd like.

[NYCGirl]

20. Then why didn't Gore endorse Edwards in 2004 instead of Howard Dean? NT

[venable]

23. because Dean was a great candidate

my suggestion of his thoughts on Edwards as VP choice in 2000, and an endorsement of Dean in 2004 are in no way mutually exclusive, I don't think.

(to say nothing of the fact that at the time of Gore's endorsement, Dean's nomination seemed like a fait accompli - this wd not be the only reason he would endorse him, but it certainly helps the decision)

[geek tragedy]

16. I think Gore is smarter than wishing he had put

another opportunistic Iraq war co-sponsor on his ticket.

[venable]

24. maybe gore thinks otherwise than you do about who Edwards is. n/t

[jefferson_dem]

3. Nah. Veep nominee two elections in a row. That's not going to happen.

Personally, i had high hopes for him in 2004 but was utterly underwhelmed with his campaign "performance."

If Gore happens to get the nomination, Obama's the perfect choice.

[brentspeak]

5. This was a telephone poll. Wait for the actual primary.

[Skip Intro]

7. So much to say - that "anti military vs pro military" bs kills me. But Edwards does have a problem.

what does pro-military mean? bullshit! We have a military, we need a military, and we'll use it when we need to. I think most of the country agree we need a military. Unfortunately, under the bush regime, we use it when we don't need to, for lies and profit. "Pro-military" - what a rediculous term.

But the implication that Edwards isn't playing well in SC is because he's anti-military. Horrible, horrible tag to try to pin on him. Being against the war in Iraq , the war on Iraq, the occupation, the attack, the lies, the death and destruction, does not mean you are anti-military.

Edwards' problem? He's got a problem getting his message across. I've heard him speak (not in person) and his answers to questions seem rambling a bit. Some people hear him, but some don't, because they can't follow what he's saying. I watched a few minutes of him in a little SC town and he got coverage but his talk was just, not vague - definitely not vague, but not exciting. I appreciate all the honesty in the world from a politician, and I don't dobut for a second Edwards' sincerity or honesty, and I fully believe he'd be a great president, but he needs to get some soundbytes in there somewhere.

[JI7]

8. most PRIMARY voters are liberal , african americans in South Carolina

not just south carolina but the south in general.

this has nothing to do with being outspoken on the war or conservatives. in fact that can only help Edwards in the Primary not hurt him.

what he needs to do with convince the voters why they should vote for him instead of Hillary and Obama.

[w4rma]

22. Exactly. The leading paragraphs in that article are bullshit propaganda. (nt)

[elizm]

9. Holy Cow! MY state FINALLY getting something right!

GOBAMA! :bounce:

[surfermaw]

10. I live in the south and this is junk

I seriously doubt this poll, remember this is where most of the old bigot democrats left the party for Strom Thurmond...It aint going to happen.

[beaconess]

12. However, when that happened, most S.C. blacks could not vote

This is a whole 'nother day and age. A significant portion of the S.C. voters are black - and likely to be highly energized and motivated to vote - which means that they will have enormous impact on the race. I'm sure there are considerably more of them than there are old bigot democrats voting these days.

I think this applies throughout the South.

[jcrew2001]

14. When Edwards wins Iowa and Nevada

he will get a bump in SC.

[ripple]

17. Great news for Obama! Thanks! n/t

[illinoisprogressive]

18. I'm sure he will bounce back. He is a good guy

[venable]

21. Edwards has 2 tough competitors in SC, but he'll be fine there next winter.

lots of time for things to change. He won 45% last time. He'll be fine.

[andykef]

25. Good

Edwards is going no where. He is a lightweight and has as much chance of getting elected as Dan Quayle. Imagine the debate question about his wife. "Mr Edwards are their some things that are more important than being President? Being a husband or father for example?"

If anyone can give three good reasons why this failed VP candidate should be the Democratic nominee please do.

[JANdad]

26. OK...try this

1. He's not a repub...
2. He's not a neo-con...
3. He's not a troll...

Nice try trying to place Edwards on the same level as your VP (whom I would venture to guess that you supported)....your slip is showing...

[JANdad]

27. Yeah I guess I was right...

If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck...enjoy your stay...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=993885#994026

In the following two posts, I like how you write the SAME things about Gullianni and Thompson:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=993206#994076

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3305201#3305215

Pot...meet kettle:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3323372#3323747

Many more to choose from for those with search capabilites...alerting...

[brentspeak]

28. Thanks for those links.

You caught one. And I'd really like to know exactly who's behind the curtain making those posts.

[andykef]

29. WRONG AGAIN HOTSHOTS

You are BOTH wrong. You want the Democrats to lose the next Presidential election. Go ahead support Edwards but he is not going to win the nomination and that is GOOD. The very idea that he can get elected to the White House makes no sense.
By the way I am not too impressed by being accused of being a GOP troll. This is without any foundation. I hope that other readers will see that you are desperate. In fact your smearing of me makes YOU BOTH more like VP Cheney than me.

I am looking out for the future of the U.S and if you want my views on the candidates here they are:

Biden: Like him. But he will never live down the 1988 speech theft issue.
Clinton: Electable if the Democrats support her nomination and she picks a Southern male VP with strong defense experience.
Dodd: Boring and from the wrong place. Connecticut will not win the White House for the Democrats.
Edwards: Weak candidate. Wife issue will keep coming up. Loser in 2004.
Gravel: No chance.
Kucinich: Nice guy but not mainstream. Speaks sense on issues in my opinion.
Obama: Too soon. Best VP pick for Gore.
Richardson: Poor performance in debates and at 2004 convention.

Lets face it guys you just don't like that I don't like Edwards. So don't accuse me of being a Republican just because of that.

[JANdad]

31. Can you even dispute what you have

written in your posts???

[andykef]

30. Search

By the way I would do a search of your posts if I could be bothered. However, I suspect they will just be pie in the sky hero worship of a weak candidate so I will not waste my time.