EDWARDS MOST "Electable" in Primary, but NOT MOST "Electable" in General Election

[FrenchieCat]

Edwards has been pretty much ignored and left to his own devices throughout the primary season till now. He was always always mentioned as part of the top tier, and never totally forgotten by the media; but he was simply never highlighted for the attributes he brings to the table.....but that is all about to end.

It has always been glaringly obvious that a media story featuring Edwards as the great White Hope in the sense that he fits neatly the historical legacy of what constitutes a winner in Presidential politics; the good looking White guy from the South.....was not being suggested nor promoted by the media. This was purposefully done so that he would not peak too soon....because whatever "flaws" he has will not be discovered until "later". The Dem base have grown to love him, partially because the media ignored him and his attributes, and because Edwards has had nothing to lose in his campaign rethorics of promises......and has had everything to gain; including a solid base at the progressive end of the democratic spectrum...and these folks vote in primaries in the majority!

The well publicized media storyline of "Obama vs. Hil" rumbles have cleared the way for an Edwards rise just in the nick of time (funny how synchronized it all is). Edwards is now the underdog waiting to come on the scene who can provide Iowans another choice other than the over-reported candidates; Obama and Hillary.

Going forward on, for the next two weeks, Edwards is about to garnet much more press, most of it positive (as he did in 2003-04 in the last two weeks prior to Iowa), because Edwards' been weakened significantly by his acceptance of matching funds, which makes him a more acceptable candidate to the Corporate Media......as it could lead to an exciting and "against the current CW" GOP victory in the general election (which the Corporate media prefers at the end anyways....cause they are...corporate, after all).

The Powers-that-be don't "want" Edwards for President, but they do want Edwards as the Dem nominee. He will be the easiest to beat based on his acceptance of matching funds which will hamper his campaign, his effeminated demeanor (watch "Terror Scares" come back to prominence shortly after he is chosen), his lack of judgment on past National Security issues (co-sponsored the IWR), and because of all of his stance reversals and his "I made this mistake and that mistake" clips and soundbytes they have of him.

Certainly, Edwards has the advantage of being the only white southern male in the Dem primary race (and most find that to be his most "electable" traits above all), but these same qualities will become liabilities in the GE because he won't be able to use the fact that he is "status-quo" as an excuse as to why he is being unfairly portrayed by the Republican Noise Machine and its operative media (and that is what will happen).

On the other hand, Hillary and Obama as the nominees would have to be attacked very carefully and calculatively due to possible backlash on any attacks that could be related back to gender or race. The media has never been faced with having to be too "careful" based on such volatile and sensitive traits, and so they aren't quite sure exactly how to do what they will need to do without coming off looking obvious. With Edwards, there's nothing to be careful about, as he is no different from those who have been smeared at a predetermined time in a presidential election. One thing that the media/GOP smear machine wants is predictability and assurance that they will have control over reactions based on events that they create. If they cannot foretell public reaction to the "T", their attacks could totally backfire, which is not a position that they want to find themselves in if they don't have to.

All in all, Edwards only appears strong in a Dem race, but most of his perceived strengths will be turned into weaknesses very soon, but not before the primaries are over.

But till then, Edwards is now ready for his close up in the primary story line. I believe that he has been positioned just right to win, if nothing else, Iowa.

[bullimiami]

1. edwards, obama, hillary. all of them are way more electable than any of those stupid pugs.

[FrenchieCat]

5. I agree that this is the case, and I believe that in 2004 as well.......and 2000......

But the "electability" that I am discussing is the "electability" that it is being used at DU on this day.

Most Democrats who speak of "Electability" are using the Republicans' standard as to what "Electable" means. To them, a Status quo appearing politician is required; that is one who is not Black, not Woman, and southern is good. I disagree with that premise, in that I don't believe that the media will exactly know what to do with a candidate who's "different" in appearance from what they have always dealt with. John Kennedy won despite being different from any candidate ever before running. Even Bill Clinton was different; he was a known womanizer coming from a broken home where alcohol ruled the roost. Jimmy Carter, soft spoken and not well known was also "different" and came right after Nixon....in a time when this country was angry and hungry for a change.

And so that is why I believe that Edwards is actually not more electable than any of the other running once we get to the General Election....which is why he wasn't elected last time he ran.

[WCGreen]

2. I really think you are reading far too much into this....

idea of a cabal of media leaders getting to gether in some undisclosed secret superduper hiding place and controling everything...

But anyway, Edwards hasn't recieved the coverage he deserves for a few good reasons, he has been there before so he is not "new" and his polling numbers have never increased beyond the almost almost oh so close top tier...

It's really as simple as that...

News directors glom onto a story and send their people out to spew the conventional wisdom and point and shoot "journalism"...

Remember, above all, these people running and being sent out to cover the story from these news departments think they are very smart, elite, almost...

But they are also lazy and would rather swallow razor blades than deviate from the story line...

[FrenchieCat]

8. I will agree to disagree with what the media does and doesn't do.....

as I see it much differently.

But thank you for your input.

[Armstead]

34. That's the real issue

>>>>But they are also lazy and would rather swallow razor blades than deviate from the story line...<<<

That is the real problem with the MSM.

Shoe leather, thinking outside the box, saying something that might not go over well at a Georgetown cocktail party....Most of those media clowns have forgotten what any of that means.

[WCGreen]

79. Whish is why the Internet is so important...

[FogerRox]

3. An op-ed

yeah sure.

[EV_Ares]

4. Hillary & Obama would have to be attacked very carefully, Edwards not, that

is the most ridiculous case against Edwards I have seen to date. All you have to do is pay attention to the media attacks, republican attacks now and see that:

You said:

"On the other hand, Hillary and Obama as the nominees would have to be attacked very carefully and calculative ly due to possible backlash on any attacks that could be related back to gender or race. The media has never been faced with having to be too "careful" based on such volatile and sensitive traits, and so they aren't quite sure exactly how to do what they will need to do without coming off looking obvious. With Edwards, there's nothing to be careful about.................."

[FogerRox]

7. I thought that was funny as shit

I really laffed

[FrenchieCat]

9. Glad that I was able to bring out your humor.........

but funnier things have happened....and left folks crying.

[EV_Ares]

12. Actually I am crying now from laughing, n/t.

[FrenchieCat]

20. Well I'm sorry about that......

These days, I try not to personalize politics to the point of extreme emotions....because at the end of the day, it's not a personal thing for me anymore. When it was, my life sucked!

[EV_Ares]

11. I did too but I had to read it twice to see if that is what they were really

trying to say.

[cali]

19. actually, that's true. Every analyst agrees that the repukes will use

dog whistle attacks against Clinton and Obama. They don't need to do that with Edwards. That's not even debatable. It doesn't mean that those dog whistle attacks won't be effective.

And please, I don't mean to embarass you but it's "ridiculous" not rediculus. I've seen this over and over again today. Oddly enough, it's mostly been from Edwards supporters.

[EV_Ares]

29. Maybe you read the wrong thread, it is spelled correctly, but used

to getting those feeble attempts from Hilary supporters.

As far as being embarrassed, you are the one who should be.

[Inspired]

31. Yes, oddly. What is your point?

You are a piece of work. Did you notice how I put the 'i' before the 'e'? I tend to do that unless it follows 'c'.

Imagine that....I can spell and I support Edwards.

[EV_Ares]

35. Hey, sorry, meant to tell you the grammar police was here, n/t.

You know those Hillary supporters, dot the is and cross the ts.

[cali]

42. don't know about the Hillary supporters, but I hate to break this to

you, not only are you a spinner of tales- you know perfectly well I don't support Clinton- but you can't spell worth shit. and under these circumstances, cupcake, that's a riot.

It's grammar, not grammer. Thanks for the laugh.

[EV_Ares]

47. Guess getting a thread locked for attacking another poster brings

out the best in you.

[cali]

41. whatever. I wasn't trying to embarass you. I was trying to make

a point. One which you, evidently, are incapable of responding to.

[EV_Ares]

48. First if you look, you posted to the wrong person, wasn't me

asking you a question, pay attention.

Secondly, why don't you try being productive on the board instead of disruptive all the time.

If you notice, I am not the only one that notices your actions.

[Andy823]

6. I have heard a lot of BS

But this one by far has to be one of the biggest BS stories about Edwards I have seen!

The republicans don't want to run against him because they know he can win, not the other way around. Hillary and Obama can't win, and the republicans would love to have either one of them to run against. To think that the repbulicans wouldn't attack Clinton or Obama just as hard as a "white" man because of gender and race is stupid to say the least. They have so much on Hillary, they can't wait to dump on her. Sadly she is killing herself so they now are pushing for an "Obama" win. Obama is a good person, don't get me wrong, but the odds of him winning are way to high, and the republicans know that. You think they won't use his drug use against him? Get real.

No, if the dems have any hope it's with Edwards, if either of the other two get the nomination, you can look for at least 4 more years of republicans in charge, and that may very well sink this country!

[FrenchieCat]

14. Matching funds is no BS.....

and I believe that I have made a good case in my rationale.

You state that Hillary and Obama can't win, but you don't really make your case, other than to throw out "drugs" and say that the Pugs would love to run against them.

You don't mention all of the new voters that Obama would attract, and don't underestimate that this would happen. You don't mention all of the voters who would remember that under Bill Clinton, their life was relatively good. You don't mention that Edwards will not calvanize voter registration for Democrats, nor do voters have a reference point as to why they should vote for him (Bill Clinton was not his husband). The only thing that will be related to Edwards is that he is not only untested, but he lost while on the ticket last time round.

Just watch and see if he gets positive press till Iowa...and if he does, why would that happen if the Corporate powers don't want to run against him?


At the end, time will tell all.

[Andy823]

68. My case is simple

Sure life was good when "Bill" was president, but I dont' want to go back to the 90's, this is a new century, and things have changed. I am tired of Bush, Clinton, Bush and possibly another Clinton. It's crap. NAFTA is crap, and Bill gave it to us. The clintons have so much baggage that Rove and company would have a field day going after her. Heck she can't even get ahead of Obama without resorting back to his "kindergaten" days, and that isn't working either!

Obama has a "rock star" quality, but that won't make him a good president. He has Bill's former advisors with him, and the influence they have on him will carry over to the whitehouse should he win the nomination, which I believe he won't. Will there be much difference between Hillary and Obama if he uses their old advisors? Now as for his drug use. It doesn't bother me, been there, done that, and have been clean and sober for 22 years now. However it's not me, or most dems that this will be an issue with. Independants, and cross over republicans will hold this against him, and that's not good. The republicans will come after him, just like Hillary, with both barrels. They will "NOT" hold back on either one of them.

Edwards has the ability to get independants, and republicans to vote for him. I have heard many republicans say that they would vote for Edwards just because they do believe he would go after the corruption in D.C. and work for the middle class. Do you think any republicans would vote for Hillary? Obama will have the dems behind him, but republicans? I don't think so. I know a few who "say" they might vote for him, but I think it's a small few that will actually do so. Obama also is good at avoiding things, not as good as Hillary, but pretty good. His no vote on things like the Peru trade agreement, make him look just like Hillary. He may have been against the war, but he sure voted to fund it, didn't he? Where are Hillary and Obama now when Reid is putting up a bill to give the telecom industry immunity for helping Bush spy on us? Dodd is the only one so far that is mad as hell, and standing up and saying so. Will Hillary and Obama stand beside Dodd, or do they get to much money from the communications industry?

Well there you have it. It's just one man's opinion, but you asked, and I answered.

[EV_Ares]

17. You got it Andy. My reasons for Edwards are first he is sincere in his

wish to help the average person, secondly, his experience of going up against corporate villains is very extensive and he won. He knows how to campaign, been through a presidential race already, mistakes were made, not necessarily by him. Once, he gets past Hillary and Obama, his message will be more clear and more prominent out there for people to receive and digest and I think at that point, his popularity will surge even more.

He has a wonderful family and wife to campaign with him as well. In other words, so many more positives than negatives.

[Andy823]

67. Amen

I feel the same way. I have no problem with the Clinton or Obama, but deep down I feel that Edwards is sincere about helping get this country back, and that's what counts in my book! I just get the feeling that if we don't elect Edwards this country will lose!

We need a "real" change, not just words. We need action, not just talk. We need someone who can, and will stand up to corporate America and tell them "this is not YOUR country, it belongs to the people!" It's time we the people take back this country and show the world we care, and that we are sick of what Bush has done. I don't want more of the same, just with dems in charge instead of republicans!

[harmonicon]

10. who cares?

Here's an idea: we decide who to vote for based on the platform they run on as well as their passed experience in government. Wild ideas, I know.

[FrenchieCat]

15. Some peope care.....just like some people care about all of the endless

"Edwards is most electable, period" threads running on DU night and day.

[EV_Ares]

22. So did the truth hurt. Can't help what the polls showed which was

him beating all the republicans candidates so much more than either of the other dem candidates.

Your problem if you can't accept that.

[harmonicon]

27. hahaha - you rule - I don't mind being out-witted

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. Hmmm

I think the press would be more weary about going after an African American man than they would going after a caucasian woman...For some reason sexism is more tolerated in polite circles than racism... I think that's why some African American women empathize with Hillary because they suffer the burden of sexism (and) racism...

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

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

[FrenchieCat]

23. If I were you, I'd leave folks' name out of your post that aren't in this thread.....

makes you look petty and childish.

[zalinda]

63. And you don't look petty and childish

for bringing the same argument in the last 10 or so threads. There are 3 of you who can't seem to resist bashing Edwards for some reason or another. I don't go to any threads to bash any of the other candidates that I have a problem with. It would be one thing if you guys would take a day off now or then, but it seems it's not only every day, but at least 5 threads a day saying the exact same thing. You each seem to have your own little screed, that you love to post.

zalinda

[FrenchieCat]

64. No, I don't look childish nor petty. I'm all for political discourse, which is

what these boards are all about.

I believe that we all have a right to an opinion and a right to express such here at DU, as often as we choose (and "We" includes Me)...... in particular if one articulates that opinion in a sensical and appropriate manner.

I'm not for personally attacking responders just cause I don't like what they have to say about some political candidate.

That's why bashing other DUers is not allowed here, but discussing the stance or having rational opinions about political office seekers is.

You keep posting, but you never truly answer any questions posed. You just keep pointing your finger at posters, calling them bashers as though they have no rights to disagree with what you have to say about the candidate you support. Why do you think that there should be no opposition to John Edwards the politician on Democratic boards? Why do you believe yourself rational for even thinking that?

[zalinda]

74. And why do you believe you are rational?

I have read many articles on Edwards. He doesn't go into anything without a plan. Do I know what his plan is, no. But, neither do you. Kucinich was certainly more than a long shot, but I never saw you once ask, where was he going to get the money. You can say the same about Biden or Dodd, too. But, you have been quiet about all three, why? Did you think that they were going to magically get money? That every dem in the nation would rise up and donate to them? No, it has just been Edwards that you have been harping on about this subject.

Obama and Clinton have taken corporate money, Edwards has not. Did he shoot himself in the foot? I don't think so. Like I said, he doesn't like to lose. He would not have gone into this race without a plan. Why do you not get this? He and his wife could be sunning themselves in Tahiti right now, if he wasn't serious. I don't think he is in this race except for one reason, to change the way Washington is run. I think he is too caring of a person to just be running as a lark. He has life long friends and neighbors that speak highly of him, that he has been on the road to help people his whole life, and that he doesn't know how to give less than 100%.

Someone (and I don't remember who) said why doesn't he use his own money. When you have been poor and you're smart when you get money, you are very careful on how you spend it. He will not risk and should not have to risk his own money to run for an office where he is serving the people. Only those whose egos are tied up into having to be President (or mayor or governor, etc) imho, would buy the office.

zalinda

[EV_Ares]

24. LOL, I was just wondering about that. I am shocked that race and gender

has been brought into this, aren't you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. I Will Admit Edwards Is More Charismatic Than Gore

But with the exception of Florida it wasn't even close in the rest of the south...My point being is that a southerner does not necessarily equal electoral success...

That being said, the GOP field is so weak it's hard to see any Pug winning...

[EV_Ares]

25. Different time, different candidates, different circumstances, a past to

look at with the republicans.

[Occam Bandage]

26. He's run a very bad primary campaign so far. Analysis:

He was at a humongous disadvantage going into it. The persona that served him well in '04--a fresh, charismatic face pushing a get-back-to-basics, optimistic-but-safe center-left populism--got a double whammy before the season even started. Hillary charged in from the center, with the kind of name recognition, fundraising ability, and all-star staff that get you the "presumptive nominee" label. If he ran as an affable center-leftist, he'd be Clinton Lite.

He could have been the anti-Clinton, but Obama rolled right over him. Obama was newer, fresher, more inspiring, and more charismatic. If he ran as the inspirational outsider, he'd be Obama Lite.

So he had to re-position himself from the left, and run as a firebrand populist. Such runs are difficult, to say the least. He stayed competitive (especially in Iowa) but kind of shot himself in the foot when he went negative against Obama and Clinton; he looked petty and desperate. He tried shifting to "I'm the only candidate clean of lobbyist money," but that didn't ring true (and required some crafty definitions) and he started to look even more petty. He hit a rough stretch at the exact moment he couldn't afford to--when the media was beginning to frame the final leg of the race. With Edwards looking unserious (the most dreaded of labels for the primary candidate), the race became Clinton v. Obama.

I think if Clinton or Obama had decided not to run, this would have been his year. Now, it still might be--Obama swung out in front pretty damn quick, and there's plenty of time for Edwards to recapture the Iowa lead. All in all, though, I think Edwards is fading.

[EV_Ares]

28. Some good points on that. Could still be his year but who knows

at this stage in the game. Right now according to MSNBC, he is tied with Hillary dead even in Iowa.

[Occam Bandage]

30. If he wins Iowa, he's got a chance--sort of.

He doesn't have the funding or infrastructure to fight Super Tuesday, so he'll have to make a hell of an impression on people with his victory speech in Iowa.

[EV_Ares]

33. Yeah, thats right too but if he was to win, the funding would not be a problem,

also, more would be coming in because of the win. Even though, he is my choice certainly, I don't see him getting past Obama who I am ok with as well. Either of them over Hillary. Your candidate over Hillary. You know, we do have good candidates because Biden and Kucinich both have the right messages and Biden is certainly the Statesman over everyone with his wealth of knowledge, experience and foreign relations. Certainly no problem there.

[FrenchieCat]

51. You state....."the funding would not be a problem"....so I would ask that

you at least qualify this statement, and provide some back up to make it something other than your optimitic opinion. Thanks.

[EV_Ares]

52. first off frenchie that has been qualified before. How many times have

you brought it up. You qualify your absolutes he has a funding problem. You evidently know more than MSNBC, CNN, Tweety who has talked about funding.

Also, I am curious how you can reverse yourself on the race and gender issue from yesterday. Now here you are trying to use it as an issue.

[FrenchieCat]

54. I am asking YOU to qualify........

not NSNBC and others.

Can't you do that?

In reference to the race/gender issue "from yesterday", can you post a link on what I said? Thanks!

[EV_Ares]

55. and I told you with all the times you have brought this up, it has and

its your issue so you go back and look it up.

As for the post, don't know where the link is and it got locked anyway for attacking another poster. Maybe it was the one who started it not you.

[FrenchieCat]

58. Your credibility doesn't stand...based on this response.

If you accuse me of something specific, you need to back your shit up, otherwise you are simply talking out of your ass. I want to see this "yesterday using gender/race" line you are attributing to me; I greatly encourage you to put up or shut up.

As for "the money will flow" to Edwards......that is not the truth, and unfortunately, you aren't even willing to back it up. I hope some other Edwards supporters come in the save your ass with some meaningful information, because you haven't provided one iota.

Here's my data on how the Funds WILL NOT flow to John Edwards:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Now show me yours.

[EV_Ares]

59. You are the one who has no credibility on the future of the election

You have posted this several times and it doesn't sell. Edwards will be very competitive in the general election his campaign has already raised more money than any other Democrat in primary history (with the exception, of course, of Clinton and Obama) and has announced that it will earmark funds to keep him competitive. The DNC can pick up the rest.

You can bet that any Democrat that wins the nomination will receive an unprecedented amount of support from people who are fed up with the current administration.

Besides, keep in mind that accepting public financing was common practice for candidates before the system became so rigged with big money--Edwards is all about changing a system that's rigged against regular Americans, and you can bet a lot of people will tune into that message.

You can continue to say he will not have any money. If he was to be the nomine, he has the money and will have what is needed as it has always been.

Thee is no funding issue but I guess you can still bank on the race and gender issue.

[FrenchieCat]

61. You didn't answer the questions at all.........because there is a funding issue.....

and you pointing your finger at me doesn't help, cause I'm not the issue.

In addition, I didn't state that Edwards was the most unelectable in the GE....I'm just saying that I don't believe him to be the most electable over all of the others.

In terms of my political opinions on the primary candidates; I have every right to post them as many times as I wish. That's something that you do not control. I'm still looking for you to post that "Gender/race" piece you associated with me and have mentioned again and again. Until you do, I will flatly say that you are telling a lie on me. If you find it, I will apologize, but not till then.

If I were you, I'd respond to questions by providing some facts instead of getting overly wrought. It is not helping your case.

[EV_Ares]

62. If you go back and read, I already said you posted on the op site

but maybe it was her that said that. So, I have said again, it might not have been you and as I told you that thread got locked, is not there, don't know where it is. So no apology necessary from you. You know who posted it as you and the poster constantly post the funding issue.

Did not say you could not post as much as you want, have at it, thats your right, oversensitive. Like I said isn't selling to anyone except yourself anyway, oh the other poster. How many people are concerned about this other than you. None of the campaigns are, the dem party isn't, the media isn't, DU isn't.

I appreciate the advice but my facts are as credible as the ones you are trying to make.

Have to go, sure we will run into each other again.

[FrenchieCat]

65. I'm not working in concert with anyone, and I don't necessarily

participate in all threads about John Edwards. I don't know what you are talking in reference to a "locked thread" and I'm not sure that it matters.

oversensitive? Whatever.

Please know that you don't know what folks are thinking. You don't know who's reading what, what selling, what's not, etc...

Just because Edwards supporters and the media are reportely (based on what you say) not "concerned" about the funding issue...doesn't make it a non-issue. I am part of the Democratic party, and this issue concerns me, and I will keep bringing it up because it is a relevant issue to electability, and more so to who will eventually win the general election, which I care a great deal about.

Do not trivialize what I believe to be important, and unless you are going to provide me with some hard facts, don't bother to respond, because up to now, you are not providing any information that anyone can utilize that helps John Edwards.

[EV_Ares]

66. You have made it an issue and I will respond because what you

have been posting over and over about Edwards not having any funds if he gets into the general election is only speculation on your part. I have that right, you are not the decider of who responds to what posts. When you post on a public board, we have the right to respond which on this really is a waste of time as I guess I am the only one wasting my time on it so I am pretty much done with it as it is rather laughable anyway.

Also, believe me if Hillary is going to make drugs and kindergarten an issue, you can be sure something like this if it was legitimate or had any traction, she would make it an issue. However, I guess that is not necessarily true because of her making the kindergarten a campaign issue and the drugs an issue which was trivial like this. But because it is not credible or an issue, nobody other than you has made it one.

Also, we can trivialize anything we deem trivial of which this is such deemed.

When you come up with hard facts that Edwards will not be able to fund a presidential campaign, then maybe you will actually have something to talk about.

[FrenchieCat]

69. You just talk, never provide any links, and never give any real answers

germaine to the issues raised. Carry on, and so shall I.

Public Funding has clear its implications, which is why most agree that if your opponent has no limits, to be more competive, neither should you. that is a fact.
-----------------
For opting for public financing, Mr. Edwards will receive federal money to match the first $250 of each contribution — probably bringing him more than $10 million at the beginning of next year. In exchange, he must agree to cap campaign spending during the primary season — the period before the nominating conventions — at about $50 million.

The rules also limit the amount a campaign can spend on advertising, direct mail and certain other expenses in each state. For example, the cap in Iowa is about $1.5 million; in New Hampshire it is about $800,000. Exemptions allow limited room to exceed the state caps, but the amount above the exemptions for certain states cannot exceed a total of about $10 million of that $50 million.

The Edwards camp plans to spend about $40 million on the early primaries, which would severely limit its spending until the nominating convention
<>
Mr. Edwards’s decision is a sharp reversal. In an interview on CNN in January he said he supported “mandatory public financing of all of our campaigns.” But “until that happens,” he said, “I intend to compete.” He added, “I will do the same thing Senator Clinton’s doing.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/us/politics/28campaig...
------------

The state-by-state primary spending limits put publicly funded candidates at a distinct disadvantage. Candidates who opt out of matching funds are not limited in the amount of money they can spend in New Hampshire, Iowa and other states where it is crucial to build early momentum. Unfortunately for those candidates who use the public financing system, there is no “escape hatch” if their primary opponent opts out of the system and is able to spend limitless amounts of money. Even if publicly funded candidates have money to spend, under the current state-by-state limits they cannot use it to compete with the unrestricted spending by rivals who have opted out of the system.
http://www.clcblog.org/blog_item-57.html
------------------
The Edwards campaign has decided to accept public matching funds in the primary — and also accept federal spending limits. This gives the campaign a cash infusion of up to $21 million that it must believe it needs to stay competitive for the nomination.

But should Edwards be fortunate enough to topple Hillary and Barrack, the decision also limits his total spending — through to the convention — to a mere $50 million. And there’s the rub. Edwards is going to need every cent of that $50 million to defeat Clinton Inc. and Obama & Co. Meaning that he would then be a sitting duck for the GOP attack machine from the first days of Spring through August.

That’s not just my argument. Listen to Edwards’ own adviser, former Dean finance guru Joe Trippi. He told me earlier this year (prior to signing onto the Edwards campaign) that opting for the limits of public financing would leave any nominee “flat broke like Mike Dukakis — getting the living shit kicked out of him all summer long.”
http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2... /
-----------------

[EV_Ares]

81. Not talk, which is why you are the only one harping on this possible

future event. Just not the answers you would like to see.

[Joe Chi Minh]

32. Heck, Frenchiecat, you favoured Wes Clark! How does he stack up

against Edwards? Against even Hillary, for that matter.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. Better Than Both Of Them, IMHO

~

[depakid]

37. Seems to me that you're fooling yourself

as to the state of gender and race and the importance of matching funds.

Edwards OWNs all of the other candidates on both sides of the aisle on the issues that people (on both sides of the aisle) vare about, and doesn't come with Obama's naivity or Hillary's baggage and negatives.

Frankly, either one of those choices would be a distaster- not only on fro the presidency, but also down ticket on state and local issues.

[EV_Ares]

39. Yesterday was attacking the post because of gender and race and

today trying to use it to their advanatage.

[depakid]

45. It's just a bit of realism

While we'd all like to hope that there would be a backlash against racism and gender based attacks, past experience shows us that there'll be overtones (like Willy Horton) and that those will effective in certain parts of the country.

While I don't necessarily think those will be the defining issues, one would be foolhardy to ignore what happens in the privacy of the voting booth vis a vis what might be reflected in polling data.

[GreenArrow]

38. "The Powers-that-be don't "want" Edwards for President,"

I think your surmise is pretty reasonable, but I disagree with the idea of the powers that be not wanting Edwards; I think they'll be perfectly happy with him. He's a ringer.

But, if we accept as accurate that the new and improved Edwards is legitimately sincere, (which I don't believe for an instant) then, your theory may indeed play out as you've described.

[EV_Ares]

40. Wednesday on Morning Joe, they were discussing with Wall Street who

their most favored candidates were and their least favored.

Rudy, Hillary & Obama who they like the most.

Edwards is the one they absolutely do not want and I forgot who the republican was, believe it was Paul or Huckabee.

[GreenArrow]

53. well, we may or may not find out

I believe if Edwards gets in he will prove to be a lot more amenable to Wall Street than his supporters may believe him to be. As someone posted above, Edwards likes to win, he r-e-a-l-l-y wants to win the Presidency, and he will do what is necessary to get there, which will include giving assurances to Wall Street. On the other hand, if Edwards is indeed who he's claiming to be these days, then Wall Street probably doesn't want him...and he won't win. He won't even have a chance of it.

[FrenchieCat]

43. You are right in that I should have stated....."the Powers-that-be may or may not "want"

Edwards for President".

And yes, I'm giving goodwill in assuming that Edwards is now sincere about what he really believes. Plus, as far as the media is concerned, if he says it, then he must believe it. I'm sure they will make a difference case on what Edwards has and does believe when the time comes; the time is just not now.

[GreenArrow]

56. If we assume he's sincere

then he's not going to win. He may win a few primaries, probably Iowa, but assuming he wins the nomination, the Republican candidate, whomever that will be, will suddenly find his coffers overflowing. That surmise would tend to go along with your OP. Unlike a lot of others on here, I'm not so blase in thinking that the Democrats have election 2008 wrapped up.

I think we're looking at a good cop/bad cop scenario, with Hillary, and to a lesser degree Obama, being the bad cops, and Edwards being the "white knight", but with all of them working for the same goal/s, namely, a return of the Democrats to the White House, and more largely, a perpetuation of the status quo, and each of them is acceptable to the status quo powers that be. After 8 years of Bush, people are looking for a "good cop", and Edwards' role is to play the crusading "change" angle, but any such change that comes out of an Edwards administration will be superficial in nature. Edwards doesn't like to lose, and he isn't going to bite the hand that feeds him, but coming full circle, if he has bitten the hand that feeds him, he'll be punished for it.

[mtnsnake]

44. I've said it before. I think Edwards is the least electable candidate we have

He's a good speaker, he's got the look, he's personable, but in the general election, I don't think too many swing voters and independents are going to buy his schtick. The other side will mop up with him, portraying Edwards as phony and as a bigger flip-flopper than Kerry was.

Good post, Frenchie

[EV_Ares]

57. I think he will do better in the general election and it won't be as

hard of a choice as the ones he is running against in the primary.

Look at the candidates over there.

Rudy is about to fall.
Talk about flip flopping, look at Romney.
The Arkansas Traveler has a lot of wierd baggage and Edwards can run circles around him.

Actually Mt, I think Ron Paul might be their toughest contender.

Who do you think would be the republicans toughest contender?

[mtnsnake]

60. If Edwards continues doing what he's been doing lately, you might be right

I have to admit that he's playing the game better than any of them right now. The way things are going between Hillary and Obama, it's almost af Edwards wrote the script. This morning I watched his interview on Morning Joe and he was excellent, making no mistakes and not falling into any traps that could get him into trouble. Right now he seems to be doing everything right, so maybe he's gonna get some momentum. Who knows.

Still, I wonder if he'll come off as genuine enough, come time for the general election, when most candidates revert back towards a centrist theme. The biggest thing that worries me is that the other side will be able to pick and choose certain moments from the 2004 campaign that won't be in his best interests. You and I both know that he'd probabley make a fine president if he got elected, but getting there is the hardest part.

Anyway, when you asked me who I'd think would be the toughest republican contender, I can't come up with an answer. You're right...when you really think about, any of our people should be able to handle any repuke.

[Elidor]

46. A recent poll says the opposite

Clinton (D) 51%, Giuliani (R) 45%
Clinton (D) 54%, Romney (R) 43%
McCain (R) 50%, Clinton (D) 48%
Clinton (D) 54%, Huckabee (R) 44%
Obama (D) 52%, Giuliani (R) 45%
Obama (D) 54%, Romney (R) 41%
McCain (R) 48%, Obama (D) 48%
Obama (D) 55%, Huckabee (R) 40%
Edwards (D) 53%, Giuliani (R) 44%
Edwards (D) 59%, Romney (R) 37%
Edwards (D) 52%, McCain (R) 44%
Edwards (D) 60%, Huckabee (R) 35%

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/12/11/tue6ampoll.pdf

Edwards does better against the GOP nominees than Clinton and Obama. It's a shame Edwards' supporters aren't in here pointing this out. I think Edwards would be better in the office than either Clinton or Obama, but I'm still a Kucinich person.

[EV_Ares]

49. We have and did yesterday. n/t.

http://agonist.org/ian_welsh/20071211/edwards_is_more_e...

[FrenchieCat]

50. Wow! I don't cite polls, cause I've learned the lesson that one should

learn in reference to them; they don't mean a damn thing! Too many things change to hang any credibility on polls. Ask Hillary Clinton about that. Plus, most of those changes attributed to polls are usually based on current events and the way the media chooses to slant the information. I can show you more polls that were wrong a year ahead of any elections than were right....and that poll you show is based on an election that we will be voting on in November of 2008. These polls are pure horseshit and constructed exactly to do what you are doing; swallowing it whole, line and sinker.
----------------------------
When the 562 likely voters were asked for their choice from a Bush v. Kerry race, 53 percent of those picked Kerry, and 46 percent favored Bush.
<>
Kerry was the overwhelming choice of registered Democrats for the presidential nomination. Support for Kerry as the Democratic nominee stood at 49 percent, compared to 14 percent for Dean and 13 percent for Edwards. The other Democratic candidates were in the single digits.

The poll showed Bush's job approval rating at 49 percent among all the adults surveyed, the first time since he became president that his job approval has dipped below 50 percent. A month ago his rating was at 60 percent, as he enjoyed a spike in approval after the capture of Saddam Hussein.

on the question of Iraq, more Americans trusted Bush than Kerry, 50 percent to 44 percent.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/02/elec04.poll.p...

[Elidor]

75. While polls can and do change, and are not wisdom written in stone

They are a fair bit more reliable than saying, without anything to back it up, that Edwards will lose to a generic matchup with the GOP candidate. You said he was not "most electable" in the general election, but you have provided nothing to back that up. I find that disingenuous.

[surfermaw]

70. Funny thing the media just yesterday saying he was the only dem.that could defeat all republicans

OH YES THEY DID

[FrenchieCat]

71. I'm sure.......

that's my point.

The media ignored him till it was the right time.

Watch some more. All news will be good for Edwards from this point on.

It will become more and more obvious.

But I don't believe that he will be reported on positively by the Corporate media because they are afraid of him. Do you?

[surfermaw]

72. Edwards is a winner

If Wes Clark hadn't jumped in the race a week after Edwards, probably Edwards would have won the C.. in Iowa and may have gone on to win the General Election with someone like Gore as his running mate. I remember on this board some people saying Bill and Hillary was behind Wes Clark getting in to stop Edwards keeping the office open for Hillary in 2008.

[FrenchieCat]

73. So is this what is supposed to make John Edwards most electable

during the General Election?

I don't think so.

[readmoreoften]

76. And this is based on...oh, right, your opinion. The fact that all the data says otherwise, oh well..

[FrenchieCat]

77. Apart from a lousy poll based on a year away election, show me what you've got......

That America will elect a White male from the South everytime?

I'm not impressed. Even his national security experience stinks.

"The War on terror is nothing but a bumper sticker!" You'll see how well that plays in Florida, Ohio, Missouri and New Mexico.

[Jersey Devil]

78. In the general, you must deduct the lawyer factor

Hey, I know, I am one. $400 haircuts aside, people generally think of us as slime. I like Edwards and think he'd make a good President, but I don't think he survive the GOP Slime Machine.

[cascadiance]

80. Hillary Clinton was a lawyer too. How come she's immune and Edwards isn't?...

And the Clintons have FAR MORE baggage besides being lawyers that the right will go after in the general election. The "lawyer criticism" isn't the real issue. Just more BS to rationalize not putting a real progressive to represent real Democratic Party values on the ticket.

[populistdriven]

82. Biden, Clinton, Dodd, & Obama all sold out on Impeachment

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[rodeodance]

83. i think tooo many fear he will be a robin hood (loose their money)

[mnhtnbb]

84. Still trashing Edwards, huh, Frenchie Cat? Some things never do change.

[bvar22]

85. Electability?

Quick refresher:

*When was the last time a current Senator was elected President?

*When was the last time a "Yankee" was elected President?

*When was the last time a Black "Yankee" Senator was elected President?

*When was the last time a New York "Yankee" woman Senator was elected president?

The US is a BIG country, and it is filled with ignorant, bigoted voters.


No one can discuss "electability" without acknowleging the above.
It isn't pretty, but it IS true.
This election is too important to overlook the lessons of History.



The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[mzmolly]

86. Absurd. The data/polling indicates otherwise.