Why would we nominate Edwards?

[MIMStigator]

He almost has no experience and no cred on national security.

Yeah he gives a good speech but they would tear him apart.

[mlawson]

1. Same old, same old.....

There is another post just like this, going on now.

[Trajan]

3. I can only wish these ugly, mean-spirited threads ...

Disappear into the cool night air soon ....

[knight_of_the_star]

9. You reap what you sow

That and this is a legitimate question, not a personal smear.

[mlawson]

12. I have never attacked Clark. Moreover I have

tried to get my fellow Edwards supporters to cool it as well. I am not their handlers, after all, and neither is Senator Edwards.

[Tweed]

40. So no defense?

Just wondering why everyone is waking up to the fact?

[ShaneGR]

2. Which part of he's been on the Foreign Intel Committee for 5 years....

Don't you understand? Maybe we would nominate him because he's a fantastic speaker, he sticks up for the little guy, and he's clearly a charming and likeable human being.

[knight_of_the_star]

5. That isn't enough

He barely has any leadership experience to speak of. Being a nice guy isn't good enough to be president.

[ShaneGR]

10. I disagree, and the majority of the voters in TN and VA

Will also disagree. One more week for Clark.

[GreenArrow]

13. I don't think he's a "nice guy"

Bush is supposed to be a "nice guy" and I don't buy that crap either.

[arewethereyet]

14. not enough ?

Clark is known as a micromanager and there were reasons that he was told to leave his Kosovo assignment early.

Experience is not necessarily positive.

I prefer principle and honor. Clark seems to be lacking there.

[kixot]

18. Hold off on that Clark bashing there, sparky.

He was asked to retire early because he went over the head of his superior by going straight to Clinton over a decision that turned out to be right after all. Don't give in to the Limbaugh propaganda about Clark, he's one of us.

[arewethereyet]

32. OK

But if that was all there was to it I wouldn't bother with it.

[mlawson]

7. Might as well let it go, sgr2.

This is part of a pattern tonight: the accusation is made over and over, and no notice is taken to the responses.

[Khephra]

4. Personally

He annoys me to no end. I don't "get" him at all. He's now my least favorite candidate since Lieberman dropped out. If it can't be Dean (or Kucinich or Clark), I hope that it's Kerry. And I hope to goodness that Kerry doesn't pick him as a VP. I've yet to be able to listen to a full speech of Edwards' without wanting to punch my tv.

I can't explain it and I'm not going to try. There's just something about Edwards that says "smug bastard" to me. Yeah, it's not a political reason, but sometimes you have to go with your gut.

[GreenArrow]

16. my gut's sayin' almost the same thing

except it's throwin' out heavy vibes of phoney to boot.

I don't trust the dude one b-i-t. And I prefered Lieberman over him, which is saying a lot from a Kucinich supporter. At least you knew Lieberman was a snake; he didn't really hide it, and you could step around him. Edwards is more of a snake in the grass; he's well hidden, and by the time you've figured out where and what he is, it's too late.

[MIMStigator]

24. my gut says PHONEY too

.

[jmaier]

6. MIM,

Speaking as an ardent Clark supporter, please don't do this: it doesn't aid our candidate and it works to everyone's detriment here at DU.

[Dookus]

8. first - these threads should stop

they're pointless.

Second... we will nominate him if he gets enough delegates by winning enough primaries. That's how it's done. If he wins, he gets nominated. It's called Democracy.

[MurikanDemocrat]

11. Back at you

Why would anyone nomimate Clark? He has no political experience, no experience on domestic issues - which are most important with voters.

[kixot]

19. Slow down on that Clark bashing there, Murkin.

He's the most qualified to bear the title "commander in cheif of the armed forces". I can't think of a candidate better suited to that title.

[kixot]

15. I'm not technically an Edwards supporter but...

Reasons:

1. He's a Dem.
2. Anybody but Bush
3. He has great ideas

Though, I must say that he's continued support for the Iraq/Haliburton/Bechtel extravaganza does put me off a bit. He WAS my prime candidate before he came out with that stance but I'll still vote for him if he's our candidate, though not in my primary. I'm voting Kucinich in my primary. Don't flame me abount that, please.

[spooky3]

17. ??? "continued support?" He voted against the $87B and routinely

criticizes the sweetheart deals with Halliburton etc. in his stump speech (and on his website).

[kixot]

21. I accept that he's supporting the war "Dem-style"

In that he seems to believe that if it's going to be done it needs to be done right. All I'm saying is that he's not coming out as strong against the invasion as I'd like to see a candidate doing.

[maxr4clark]

46. His position on the war is

that he doesn't have an opinion, and will side with the majority. Same with Kerry.

Clark and Dean and Kucinich are the Dems that were right on the war, not Kerry or Edwards or Lieberman. And despite Dean's attempt to claim all the glory for himself, both Clark and Kucinich were against invading Iraq unilaterally, and vocally so, when the resolution was being considered.

Voting to invade Iraq is one of two major issues I have with Kerry and Edwards; voting for the Patriot Act is another. There was no reason to EVER vote for the Patriot Act, other than being afraid that you would lose your next election for not voting for it. It was quite obviously a very bad, very anti-liberty piece of legislation, and just as obviously was not allowed to be given due consideration in the legislature. No Democrat should ever be voting for a piece of legislation like that.

The Energy bill was another such piece of legislation, that was against the principles of the Democratic party and was rushed to a judgement. I am glad Clark spoke out against it, and I am glad it did not pass. If I am right in what I remember, that neither Edwards nor Kerry voted on it at all, I hold that against them, too.

[maxr4clark]

42. Clark is better on both foreign AND domestic policy than Edwards!

Someone will get nominated, so ABB isn't a reason to nominate anybody.

As for Edwards' great ideas...I'm sorry, but I haven't heard them. I've heard his speech, several times. I don't believe that his time as a lawyer or his rustic upbringing give him any special insight into how to get the American economy in gear. They do, however, give him good verbal skills and the gall to say "I'm just like you", even though he is standing there in a $2000 suit. He talks about closing tax loopholes; so does every candidate. He talks about curbing special interests: so has every candidate that has ever run for President, and not one has made any serious progress at it. If Edwards continues to run on curbing special interests, he will end up spending all of his first year on a dead-end issue, not addressing the things the country badly needs done right away.

There are three issues, however, that I believe will make a significant difference in our economy; and Clark has all three right. The first is taxes. The trickle-down tax structure that the Republicans are trying to pass off as good for creating jobs simply isn't, I think we all agree on that. Clark has by far the best tax plan, which aims to collect the same amount of tax as Bush's plan, but more from those earning over $200K a year and less from those earning less than $100K a year. Not only will it put money in the hands of consumers, who will spend it and create jobs; it is an UNASSAILABLE tax plan for an election year. Bush can't claim it is tax and spend, because it doesn't raise the amount gained; and the vast majority of the voters will pay less taxes than under Bush's plan, because the vast majority of the voters earn less than $100K.

The second issue is that Bush has been raising the defense budget to pay for a pork barrel missile defense system. The 2004 budget includes over $20B for this useless program; Clark is the ONLY CANDIDATE who is talking about cutting the defense budget. Imagine how much education one can support with that $20B back, every year.

The third issue is of course the occupation of Middle Eastern countries. The cost of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are intentionally left out of the annual budget--they have been both of the last two years, and the new budget doesn't include any money for Iraq or Afghanistan, despite the adiminstration's claims that we will have 100,000 troops there at least until 2006--and a separate request for $50B is expected to come out after November. Oh, I forgot--then there is the $20B in the Department of Energy budget for the War on Terror, which should be under the Department of Defense, but are under DOE instead. There is no doubt in my mind that Clark is the candidate who will do the best job of getting the UN and NATO involved in Iraq as soon as he is elected, which means we get to start sharing the cost of the end of our time in Iraq as fast as possible. This, too, will take a large and undue burden off of our budget, and free up more of our tax money to pay for social security, job creation programs, and health care.

So you may only see a uniform with four stars on it, but I see the man who can lead us out of our domestic problems the fastest.

Edwards speaks well and has a background in law. That makes him an excellent candidate for the Senate. What he does not have, however, is the experience needed to be President. He doesn't have any demonstrated experience leading a large organization like the Executive Branch. He doesn't have a detailed knowledge of the world's economic and political situation--which granted is not a necessity for a President, but it would be an enormous advantage. He doesn't understand the history of the Islamic fundamentalist movement, or how that has led to terrorism. He doesn't have any background in energy policy that I am aware of.

Edwards cannot compete with Kerry on experience, and Kerry experience for the job of President pales in comparison to Clark's. Dean has more relevant experience than either Edwards or Kerry, but he has neither any real experience in foreign policy, nor does he present any evidence that he has thought very deeply about foreign policy. Edwards, Kerry, and Dean may have more experience campaigning than Clark does, but with regard to the responsibilities of a President, Clark is head and shoulders above both of them.

In order to beat an incumbent President, a candidate must make the argument that he would be better at the job than the incumbent. Clark's experience bears directly on that question; Dean's, Kerry's, and Edwards' do not. And don't make the argument that anyone would do better than Bush; although I agree with you about that, the swing voter does NOT: that is what makes him a swing voter!

All the public opinion polls show roughly the same thing: there are about 45% of us that think Bush is horrible, 45% that won't vote for anyone but Bush, and 10% that need to be convinced one way or another. I frankly don't see Kerry, Edwards, or Dean appealing to that crucial 10%. Clark is the guy with the credentials to step into the office and start making a difference on day one.

[anti-NAFTA]

20. How about this reason...

because unlike Clark, he has at least been attacking Bush's trade policy. While Clark is still promoting the same BushSr./Clinton/Gore/Lieberman outsourcing.

[NV1962]

22. This is a dead avenue, MIMS (Pt II)

Do you really think Edwards (and Clark!) deserve this? Stop it, please.

:eyes:

[MIMStigator]

25. I don't think Edwards deserves attacks no BUT

I think we better talk about if he can win or not and why not.

[NV1962]

29. You bring up

"experience and credibility on national security" and that Senator Edwards gives a "good speech"

Well... One word:

Reagan.

If you think John Edwards is weak (let alone "bad") on national security, on his own, then I'd like to see why; meanwhile, I think he's "neutral" on that point. Comparison with a strong candidate on that issue (I'm not saying who that would be, but it's a guy with a Masters Degree in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics) doesn't make him "weak"

[Bombtrack]

23. He'd be a stronger candidate than Kerry

you didn't express your argument in a very diplomatic way at all.

[MIMStigator]

26. not if the election is about 9/11

they're going to make it about 9/11

[MoonRiver]

27. Cause "we" might be less than the sharpest pencil in the box?

:shrug:

[genius]

28. Next to Kucinich, Edwards is best on the economy

I'm debating whether voters will be more concerned about the economy or about war hero status. I'm voting for Kucinich anyway so I'm just thinking about the general election possibilities. I don't know where Clark stands on NAFTA.

[texas is the reason]

30. i will do it simply to spite YOU personally.

you have now converted -1 votes to the clark camp with your incessant, whiny posting. with friends like you, clark doesn't need enemies.

[last_texas_dem]

34. Amen

I'm about to go mail off a donation to the Edwards campaign as a tribute to the original poster.

[tkmorris]

31. This is ugly MIM

Really, seriously, ugly. You have been creating thread after thread of topics doing nothing but trashing this man. This sort of behavior is beneath a true Democrat I would think.

Besides, aren't you getting the idea yet? No one likes ths stuff, not even people who support your candidate (Clark isn't it?). You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

[ChiefJoseph]

33. Imagine Edwards debating Bush

That's all I have to say.

[DemDogs]

35. Here is your answer:

John Edwards is not simply the best speaker, which he is by light years, he has the best and more coherent and cohesive message. He connects all the little pieces into a message that has heads nodding as he speaks.
He has really high favorables with Democrats, because he has the true populist message. He has really high favorables with independents, because he has a combination of being an outsider with some Washington experience (and almost as much to his credit as Kerry in four times the length of time). And he has high favorables with Republicans who see a man of integrity and values.
John Edwards can win this race, and he can win it everywhere and bring House seats and Senate seats with him as he campaigns for the ticket everywhere.
He can unite our party, because he has taken the high road, and he has done it alone.
He is a true leader, of vision and courage. He has a compelling personal story and the scars that come with it.
There is not a single state that any other candidate can win that he cannot win. Not one. And there are many he could win where others would struggle at best.
No one has bested him yet in debates, so there is not much risk that GWB will be able to. In fact, I don't think he would even try to compete with Edwards.
It has to be Edwards in November. Think about it.

[funky_bug]

36. Ya know I love ya...

... but I think Edwards could hold his own against the bushinator. He WAS a trial lawyer, so I think he's learned a thing or two about debate and rhetoric.

Damn fine better than Kerry will hold up.

[Trajan]

37. Im SO pleased to see ...

Overwhelming condemnation from all quarters ...

There are ways of disagreeing with fellow Democrats without resorting to such crass baiting ...

I support Clark AND Kerry AND Edwards AND Dean as they race to the finish line: .. its a great race, and we have great opportunity to unseat the asshole and his asshole cronies who have stolen our great nation ...

I KNOW one of those four Democrats will get my vote ...

Nuff Said ...

[DjTj]

38. Never in the past...

...has "foreign policy experience" proven essential to the ability of a President to lead this country.

How much foreign policy experience did John F. Kennedy have before he had to handle the Cuban Missile Crisis?

How much foreign policy experience did Franklin Delano Roosevelt have before he led the country in World War 2?

How much foreign policy experience did Woodrow Wilson have before he led the country in World War 1?

A great majority of American Presidents have had their primary experience in domestic affairs. A great majority of them have been successful, as we are still the most powerful nation on earth.

The truth is, there is no prerequisite to being President, and that is the beauty of America. We do not have a ruling class; anyone can be President. Who decides what experience is necessary? We the people.

I believe John Edwards is the right man to lead our foreign policy. One day after the fall of Baghdad in 2003, John Edwards stood on the Senate floor and urged President Bush to share this vision: "A free Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world. And if done right - with humility, patience and cooperation - this effort to rebuild Iraq will bring the world together and return America to a place where it is respected and admired."

On the stump, John Edwards speaks of returning the United States to a place where we are respected and looked up to. He wants to work more closely with other countries and bring the world community together. I believe he can do this because he has done far better than any other candidate at bringing the American people together. He does not only appeal to angry Democrats who hate President Bush; he reaches centrist voters in every part of the country, and he reaches the disenfranchised voters who are more worried about jobs than ideology.

The first step towards bringing the world together is bringing this country together, and I believe John Edwards can do that.

I'm not electing a resume, I'm electing a man I believe in. That's what America did with Bill Clinton and with John Kennedy. That's the kind of President I want, and that's the kind of President America will choose.

[JohnKleeb]

39. pssst your guy does have foreign policy experience

BTW I am not an Edwards supporter but good words, and I do believe in Edwards vision, I love how he addresses poverty. He is a good man, I can see why him and Congressman Kucinich are friends.

[DjTj]

41. Thanks.

All of our candidates are good men and would make fine Presidents. Hopefully everyone on DU will agree on this point by November.

[JohnKleeb]

44. Hell man I hope we agree by the name we got the nom

I admit I have my issues with a couple of the candiates but ya know, there is a big prize and thats what I will be celebrating next January 20, the good bying of Bush of course and the hello of nominee name here. Edwards does have foreign policy experience due to his role as a senator, now they will say he has little but I realize something that he has more foreign policy and sentarol experience than RFK did. Hes a good man, easily my second fave in the race after DK and JK, and Ive been impressed with him, this time last month Edwards was in my middle of the rung, I believe behind Dick Gephardt, and his performance and seeing him a couple of times on TV has really risen my opinion of the man. No problem, I like John, great guy, nice wife, and would make either a great president, vice president, or Attorney General in my opinion.

[SangamonTaylor]

43. I couldn't agree more.

Well spoken. You've inspired me to send out another letter tommorrow to Virginia.

Together we are going to bring America together!

[JohnKleeb]

45. I havent seen any virginians with signs yet guys

but I live in suburban VA which isnt Edwards stronghold, he does well in the rural areas, and I may be seeing things. I am a virginian, Kerry is winning in the polls here but Edwards and Clark are doing good too, my dad is liking Edwards. He is a good guy, and I think hes showing an ablity to win and do well in a large variety of states.