Reply #44: Actually, your talking point is as old as a fossil. It's really about whether or not

[edwardsdefender]

you want to experiment 2008 away, like the corporate media and Republican Party are counting on you to do.

They knowwww, that you will over analyze and say, "we cannot fold to the racists," and refuse to do the sure thing in 2008 with the guy who polls better than both Clinton and Obama consistently against Republicans, including that Newsweek poll.

They are counting on you to chalk up any support for Edwards as veiled racism or sexism.

And no, I'm not being sarcastic, and you don't need to be either.

After Bush, Democrats would be wise to put of the "experimenting" until 2016. Yes, nominating either Clinton or Obama or Richardson would be an "experiment," because it's never happened before.

Whether you want to call that "insensitive" or whatever is completely irrelevant. It is a fact, an honest fact, and you know it, regardless of whether you want to be honest and admit it.

The media smear Edwards 24/7 and pump up Clinton and Obama 24/7. Gee, I wonder why? Might it be that they have internal polling that shows that in a General Election, both Clinton and Obama would get destroyed in Mondale-like fashion, and they want to bait you into giving them what they want.

The head of CBS-Viacom, a Democrat, said he will be voting Republican in 2008 because it's better for business. Think he's alone? The media are doing all they can to tear down Edwards now, because he's the only one the Republicans "rightly" have to worry about.

In the words of D.L. Hughley, "there is no way this country is going to elect a black man named Barak Hussein Obama. It's just not going to happen."

You can believe otherwise, as I'm sure you will.

"Coddle and appease the racist constituency"? LOL. Oh, the racists aren't going to vote for any Democrat. It's the Independents and the more conservative Democrats that you have to worry about. People who aren't "overtly" racist or sexist, but who may not take that step with you in 2008.

Coddle and appease. That line is tired. No one is coddling to anyone if they say what everyone already knows, but doesn't want to admit. 2008 is the best chance the Democrats have had to win in a long time. Nominating either Clinton or Obama, the other side believes, at least partially neutralizes that advantage. Nominating Bill Richardson all but obliterates it, because of countrywide feelings about "illegal immigration."

Am I speaking things that other people know are true, but just don't want to accept as the pitiful state of affairs in this country? Do I wish it was different? Yes, I do, but it's not, and I'm not about to just "be nice" and go down in flames in 2008, just because other people didn't want to face the facts and were determined to be manipulated by psychological games from the other side.

According to some of the stuff that I have read here, support for Edwards has started gravitating towards being racist or sexist. When people have the audacity to say things like "Oh yeah, just let me jump on board with the white man from the south," as if no other reason would justify supporting John Edwards.

So, I feel the need to set the record straight. Nominating Clinton or Obama would be an experiment. The question is, whether 2008 is a good time to experiment. If other people decide that it is, then the decide it, but I'd love it if they rationally decided it instead of just feeling like they are "obligated" to do so. I fear that many are just jumping on board with Clinton and Obama because they are always in the media, kind of like "groupies." That's what infotainment gets you.