If you need a good John Edwards analysis, listen to this:

[AP]

http://onpointradio.org/shows/2003/12/20031222_a_main.asp

At about 22 minutes they talk about how people respond to him (very positively).

Why don't more people respond to him? September 11.

Hmm, perhaps that's why we had September 11th? Maybe it was so that people with the exact right messag on Bush's economic assault on the middle and working class have a harder time winning.

[AP]

1. Larry Sabto says Edwards is just about everyone's second choice.

"If we had preferrential voting, he'd be the nominee. But we don't."

[chimpymustgo]

2. Thanks for posting that, AP. And your great Edwards pics!

9/11 is all that stands between Edwards and the Presidency. But maybe he'll be on a Clark/Edwards, or Kerry/Edwards ticket.

But I still don't give up hope. This has been a wild primary, and not a vote has been cast yet. Miles to go...

[OrAnarch]

3. IMHO, Edwards just doesn't have "it"

You ask why more people do not listen...well he seems like tofu, without a cohesive progressive message of change against the status quo crap that has gone on for year. People like that. They want a message. I see hime as a buffer against the right wing agenda, but not as an active player who will realign the political spectrum and fight for real change.


I believe his personality conforms so much to the politician norm, that people percieve him as nothing beyond normal. But that in no way detracts from him, as his favorability is still high. Just my opinion why he doesn't have more support.

[chimpymustgo]

4. IMHO, Edwards has "it" in spades.

He's the whole package. Smart, warm, funny, handsome - maybe too good to be true.

He has a wonderful message about work vs. wealth, the little guy vs the big guy.

Maybe he's too nice. But that's why I like him.

[elsiesummers]

5. He absolutely has "it"

and I couldn't agree more that the WOT atmosphere is his one major obstacle.

His campaign has a cohesive domestic message, but the missing foreign policy credentials on his resume are a big problem (and yes he has been a part of the Intelligence Comittee but it's not emphasized enough as a resume bullet.) Since the Bushies are framing the debate - it's a problem.

Edwards - what he has is an understanding, a true understanding, of what it is to be working class in America. I think it is unfortunate that the Bush team has so carefully framed the issues in a way that prevents us from even having the opportunity to choose the best president. That the Bushies are running the show this way is scary.

Dean is missing the same foreign policy credentials - and though he has spoken out against the Iraq war - it's still a missing link - and I can't see why the missing credentials aren't considered equally as problematic for Dean. In my eyes they are - why this hasn't been a focus of the press is a mystery to me - and it will likely come back to haunt Dean if he is the nominee. Dean discusses foreign policy more than Edwards - but he really does not offer any more detail, in fact often less - and I don't get why Dean's getting a pass on this while Edwards isn't. Edwards is often asked of inexperience - and we know this is a code for foreign policy experience.


I am tired of seeing news about Iraq and not seeing news about the effects of domestic policy. The acusation of the international community is that our news is always about the U.S. - but I hold that the opposite is true (though our POV on international news is U.S.-centric). There is hardly any national news about the effect of domestic policy in our daily lives - very frustrating. Our news consists of international news and court tv with slim to nothing in between. The talk of health care policy in Iraq makes no sense to me. It is insanity that I see these reports without any discussion of health care at home.