I notice the M$M is talking to Edwards more and more - like he is the

[patricia92243]

current spokesman for our party. He is very articulate. I like it.

[yy4me]

1. Its a good sign, Edwards is smart, articulate, informed and

photogenic. Plus his lovely wife is also as well informed and respected. They would make a great "first couple". I do think Feingold/Edwards would be a great ticket-or the other way around. Gee, real intellect in the white house...a feature missing for the last 6 years.

[saracat]

3. Nope .If it is Feingold at all it will be Edwards/Feingold.

Edwrds has much more crossover appeal. I love Russ but he has way too much baggage and the Repuublicans won't vote for him. More people would vote for Edwards. But that being said we have many wonderful potential candidates, Russ among them.I loved our former candiates as well.Go Dems!

[ruggerson]

15. It won't be two Senators (or ex Senator in the case of JE)

If Edwards gets the top slot, he will be looking for a Governor.

Or an ex Governor.

[hijinx87]

50. exactly. senators don't win presidential elections

and I'm not sure I understand the infatuation with edwards. he couldn't
even deliver his home state. I don't think we even won his home county.

all john kerry needed to do is flip one state, and we would have deposed
*.

I always thought gephardt could have delivered missouri . . . .

[Raydawg1234]

17. hmmm......deciding our canditate based upon who Republicans would vote for

Thats the way to win an election!:sarcasm:

I'm guessing the Republicans are going to vote for.......a Republican!

It's the voters who don't have a strong party affiliation, and those who do not usually vote(lots and lots of fucking people) that we need to go after.

We need a candidate that stands for REAL CHANGE. And that candidate is Russ Feingold. He is the only Senator who voted against the war, thus the only candidate I could support. (well, among senators at least)


P.S. notice that people say that the guy with the Waspy sounding name will have more crossover appeal. hmmm. I'm not gonna say it, but you know what I'm thinking......

[1932]

27. Most Democrats will vote for the Democrat. I'm reading Jarding & Saunder's

book, Foxes in the Henhouse, and the point I'm picking up isn't so much that Democrats have to worry about picking someone a Republican will like. The point of their book is that Democrats better nominate a Democrat who can speak about Democratic values in a way that will make people who haven't been voting for Democrats realize that Democrats represent their interests and their values better than Republicans.

[saracat]

34. Oh, Puleeze! What a canard!

I was thinking about his divorces and the fact he is single.I don't give a rats ass but many do.What I meant was Edward's FAMILY gives him the crossover appeal.

[Raydawg1234]

38. Why do Americans care so much about this "Family" bulshit?

Europeans wouldn't give a shit. It should be about who is the best on the issues.

[saracat]

41. I agree but what is what is!

And whatever it takes to win! They want to vote for what appears to be a solid family.That isn't my overiding issue but it is what sells.Fortunately Edwards is a really bright guy too.And shallow as it may be, his looks aren't hurting him with the public either.

[benny05]

43. Because it's part of our culture in general

I agree with you in principle, but we aren't Europeans, and Edwards is a big family man. It matters to the swing voters. And it matters to me that we get an authentic man in the WH who speaks for all of us and to tip the balance away from corporate welfare. The current administration claims to be big on family which we know is NOT true.

Family takes on many flavors, which means gay sons and daughters (or siblings) and in my case, I have no children but have pets. They are better for me because they bring me joy..and I do make sacrifices in my income to get their teeth cleaned (expensive), obtain annual check-ups, and pay for food that I cannot obtain in the grocery store. Our pets are nature's gifts to me, and I love them as much as any family member. One of my kitties is 14 years old, and she is so spry that she still whips her step-brother's ass when he engages her too much. The care and feeding pays off, and I have little doubt she will live with us another 6 to 10 years. Her step-bro almost died 3 years ago, but we spent a lot to keep him going, and it has been worth every penny. He's so loveable that everyone who comes to our house or calls us asks about him. He's a good boy.

We also have 2 girls--Aussie Shepherds who love us dearly, and vice versa. They are nearly 10 and they will live another 5-7 years, according to our vet.

It's time we saw "family" in other ways.

[NCarolinawoman]

49. Nicely stated, benny05

:) :thumbsup:

[KaptBunnyPants]

47. What is Russ's baggage?

I've never heard anything negative about him. I guess his opposition to the Patriot act might be used against him, but if anything that would just show he is the kind of principled Democrat everyone says doesn't exist. Wouldn't that have some appeal to the "Democrats just say anything that's popular to get elected" crowd?

on edit: I see you meant his family situation. Reagan was divorced, but we haven't had a single President in a while. I'm sure there will be accusations of homosexuality will be made, probably someone will call him the Anti-Christ, (who according to John Hagee circa 1996 was most likely to be an unmarried secular Jew of European Descent), but we aren't gonna get the fundie nut crowd anyway. I think Americans are mature enough to vote for the substantial candidate over the image candidate, if we give them the chance. I think Russ qualities give him the best chance to "grow" the Democratic Party, a true believer who consistently makes the best choice for the nation regardless of the current political situation. At worst he could be a Goldwater, which wasn't a bad thing for the Republican Party.

[Raydawg1234]

20. "They would make a great first couple."

way to vote on the issues :sarcasm:

That will be the day when Americans stop voting based on looks. This isn't High School anymore.

[yy4me]

46. My comment was based primarily on brainpower, not

good looks. I did mention a few other attributes other than the fact that they are attractive.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

37. ...smart, articulate, informed and inexperienced.

millionaire

[yy4me]

45. And **** had more experience?

My comment was based on brainpower including the ability to reason.

[cleveramerican]

2. good looking ,smooth talking

and pretty high name recognition. He's probably up for getting his own show.I think he's all done as a presidential contender though. He's very well suited to being a political commentator.

[RamboLiberal]

4. I hope so too - I've like Edwards for quite awhile

and when I had a chance to see Elizabeth during the Kerry campaign I thought she'd make a great First Lady. She'd really connect with the average American.

I think Edwards has fire in the belly, and has been tempered by his experiences growing up, the tragedy of the death of his son Wade, and Elizabeth's cancer scare. I think he learned the mistakes made on the campaign trail by Kerry. I don't think the Kerry campaign used Edwards or Elizabeth very effectively. I think both of them know how to connect with people.

[zann725]

5. Well-spoken as he is,I've always felt Edwards as TRULY deep-down DLC

...through and through. If so...no doubt MSM is pushing him.

Faceit,Kerry's a 'wild card'...powers that be never know exactly where he stands or what he'll say. He holds his 'cards' close to his vest. Yet I feel he IS the TRUTHIEST Dem we have and NEED.

Edwards is "charming"...in a emotionally energizing way in his speeches...just like a Southern rural preacher. But on a gut-level, I simply do NOT trust him...never did. Sorry.

[Inspired]

6. Why do you say this?

It is funny that what you say about Kerry is so different from the public perception of him. Edwards is the one with broader appeal and the 'likability' factor.

[saracat]

7. I like them both. I would love to see another Kerry /Edwards ticket

But I am sure I will be flamed for stating so! Sigh.They are both wonderful Dems.

[cali]

9. I won't flame you

but I don't want to see that ticket again. I just could never work up much enthusiasm for Kerry. Of course, I'd support him if he got the nom again but I'd rather see someone else.

[Rowdyboy]

26. With you on that...Sure, I'll back John Kerry if he's the nominee....but

thats not gonna happen. Kerry had his shot a let it slip through his fingers by refusing to let Bush steal Ohio. Its done, but I think another Kerry run will resemble Lieberman's race in 2004-pathetic.

Hopefully, he'll get the message early.

[cali]

8. Trutiest dem?

Not in my book. The guy voted for that obscenity of war resolution. Glad he regrets it now, but give me Edwards anyday. Edwards not only has real passion, he is one of the very few politicians in recent years to focus on poverty.

[politicasista]

10. I think we need to stop pinning them against each other

They are both good dems, both focused on 06, just like we all should be doing. It's nice that they are getting some press, but pinning them against each other and rehashing the 04 election only plays right into the hands of Bush, Rove and the repukes, and does not help us right now as they and we are trying to take back Congress.

[saracat]

12. Amen policasta! We need to concentrate on 2006.@008 will be here soon

enough.And 2006 can be the bell weather for"08!" We must get back control of the house and Senate otherwise it won't matter that much about "08!

[1932]

29. If Edwards were elected President, he'd owe Kerry a big favor for picking

him as VP candidate in 2004. I wonder what it would be? Supreme Court? Ambassador to France?

[sandnsea]

31. Secy of State

Although it wouldn't bother me to see him on the Supreme Court either.

[1932]

35. That would be interesting.

Kerry would make an excellent Sec. of State

[Ninja Jordan]

36. ambassador to France wtf (nm)

[sandnsea]

30. No kidding

Have to wonder at the motives some days, even of people who claim to be supportive of the one I prefer.

[saracat]

11. But Edwards voted for the "obsenity of a war resolution " too!

[benny05]

14. And said again at Ned Rally he was sorry

for his vote..those of you who aren't at attention, JRE means what he says...

[saracat]

24. As does John Kerry.

[cali]

44. Yeah, but I didn't claim him

as the 'truthiest' pol.

[benny05]

13. Interesting

Not deep down DLC to me..:bounce: :bounce:

[nickshepDEM]

16. Fact - He was DLC and still

would be if he were still in the U.S. Senate.

"Responsibility of the kind we have seen in New York is at the heart of what the DLC has always stood for; it is written in the record and work of this organization." - John Edwards

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/edwards/edw073002sp.html

[ruggerson]

19. Rubbing their noses in it?

:)

This whole "He's DLC, no he isn't" thing is totally bogus.

It reeks of McCarthyism.

[nickshepDEM]

22. Of course. I am the voice of reason.

lol, :)

[1932]

33. David Sirota on which Dems are Free Traders and which are not:

Key to discerning how trade will play out in 2008 is an understanding of how the current crop of potential Democratic presidential candidates breaks into four distinct categories on the issue. The first category is the ardent free traders. These are people like Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), who shepherded NAFTA through the House when he was in Congress; and longtime and loudly outspoken free trader Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), a proud member of the Democratic Leadership Council, which has pushed every major free trade pact in the last decade.

Then there are the people who have tried to have it both ways but whose devotion to free trade orthodoxy has been well-documented. These are people like Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), who supported NAFTA, WTO and China PNTR; Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who did the same; and Gov. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who also supported NAFTA and WTO (though did not support the China deal), and reiterated to the New York Times in March that he is committed to free trade.

The third category is candidates with mixed voting records on trade, but who have displayed a genuine interest in rejecting the free-trade-at-all-cost dogma. The only candidate in this category is former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), who voted against some of the corporate-written trade deals that came down the pike during his Senate term, and who has made a class-based “Two Americas” message his signature theme.

And the final category is candidates who have opposed all of the trade deals, even when that opposition has been politically unpopular. This too is a one-candidate category, and that candidate is Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.)—a lawmaker who has lashed his public image to the issue by airing ads in his Wisconsin Senate races about his courageous stands against free trade pacts.

http://www.davidsirota.com/index.php/a-primary-concern/

[1932]

32. I wonder why DLC didn't invite him to either 2003 convention?

2002 seems to be the last time they were interested in him and he in them. Maybe it's because the speech you cite from the '02 convention includes this:

That means all of us in public life have an awesome responsibility to turn things around in this country. The American people don't want us to tear down America's corporations. They want us to lift corporate standards and punish those who break the law. If we send someone to jail for stealing a few thousand dollars then we should certainly apply the same standard to an executive who effectively steals millions from shareholders and pensioners.

I spent most of my adult life standing up for ordinary people who played by the rules and got hurt by people at the top who didn't. The overwhelming majority of people I met in the business world were good, decent, hard-working people just like the people I'd represent.

...

So what are we going to do about it? First, leaders in business and leaders in Washington need to take responsibility and set an example. After months of reluctance, the administration has agreed to go along with our bill to hold corporate leaders accountable for doing right by their employees and shareholders.

One of the essential measures in this bill is one I introduced. It says that we shouldn't just demand responsibility from accountants and executives. We also have to demand responsibility from lawyers. My amendment reminds lawyers that they work for the company and the company's shareholders -- not for a few senior executives. So it says to lawyers, if you learn of wrongdoing at your corporation, you have a duty to report it up the chain of command and to the board if necessary. The ABA doesn't like this amendment. But the truth is we're just saying that those who are sworn to uphold the law have no right to look away when the law is being broken.

[venable]

18. the thing is, the guy really means what he says

He is absolutely not DLC.

If you don't trust him, you don't...can't argue with your gut feeling, but I do think that those progressives who look closely at what he says, how passionately and unequivocally he says it, this gut feeling you have against him will fade, replaced by a kind of sudden insight that he is, in fact, as sharp and sincere as he comes across...ie it is not an act.

again, though, I respect that you have the gut feeling. I hope that his actual words these days can have a modifying effect on your impression.

[ruggerson]

21. Who cares if he is DLC?

Is DLC the new "communist"? Let's get fucking real here.

[venable]

25. easy now, it's just a shorthand for triangulation

and refusing to take a stand on principle, at least that's what it is for me. And I think triangulation is the alluring but false promise threatening the Dems.

my point about Edwards not being DLC is meant to say that he is stepping forward with solid progressive and traditional Democratic values, ie not trying to be all things to all people.

this may not be the way others understand the DLC, and I may be wrong, but that's the way I'm using the term.

[CrushTheDLC]

39. No, it's the new Fascist.

And that's not hyperbole. Go to www.newamericancentury.org, the PNAC website and see how many DLC names you'll find attached to their treasonous documents. Will Marshall, Bruce Jackson, Marshall Wittman, Richard Holbrooke, just to name a few. These are the treasonous fucks who have sold this country out to fascism, and they do not belong in the Democratic party.

I'd like to believe John Edwards is better than this, but as long as he continues to associate with these scum, it ain't looking good for him.

[saracat]

48. Prove he is associated with them.

[1932]

28. The National Association of Manufacturers hates Edwards (they took the

unprecedented step of telling Kerry not only would they not support him if he picked Edwards, they would actively campaign against him). The National Association of Manufacturers and the DLC have very similar interests. I don't think Edwards is at all DLC. Furthermore, Daniel Schorr said on NPR that the DLC doesn't like Edwards. I don't know why he'd make that up.

[w4rma]

40. The DLC try to take credit for him while sabotaging him behind his back.

He's moderate but he is no friend of the corporatists.

[wisteria]

23. I haven't noticed that much attention and I though Reid and Palosi

are the party spokespeople?

[benny05]

42. Are we disagreeing here?

JRE has more citizen journalists (along with Ned) pushing out issues. If the M$M listens occasionally, that's great, but in general, to quote a DU newbie, Nan, the media we have been waiting for...is US.

JRE Buzz...http://bennycat.blogspot.com/