Edwards said IT before! "I have the strongest chance of changing the electoral map"

[draft_mario_cuomo]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18132558/

4/16/07

==EASLEY, S.C. - Presidential candidate John Edwards said Monday that he is the strongest general election candidate in the Democratic field because he's won in the South and his chief rivals have not been tested there.

Edwards said that's true of Democratic primary opponents Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, but it also applies to the leading Republican candidates - former New York city Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

"I think I have the strongest chance of changing the electoral map," Edwards said in an interview with The Associated Press. "If Senator McCain or Mayor Giuliani or Governor Romney, if one of them is the nominee, I think we have a great chance to win, not just Ohio, but to win some Southern states.==

=="The voters of the South have to think that you understand their lives," he said in his North Carolina drawl during a flight between South Carolina and Tennessee. "Some of it is the way you talk about issues, obviously it helps if you have a Southern accent. If you're like me and you grew up going to and playing Friday night football, going to church on Sunday morning and Sunday night and Wednesday night, then they feel a connection to that. They understand it.==


Damn. This was from 2 months ago. This makes crystal clear what the former star lawyer's argument today was. So much for the spin that he was suddenly alluding to race and gender out of desperation. You know, like claiming that his gender would lead to astronomical male turnout for him or that his skin color would result in sky-high turnout among white Democrats in the South...

[JI7]

1. i know people in non southern areas that play friday night football and go to church often

[BluegrassDem]

2. He couldn't even carry North Carolina in 2004

Moreover, he didn't run for re-election cause he probably wouldn't have won a second term. So I don't buy all this 'southern love' for Edwards. He would lose just as many southern states as Hillary or Obama.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

3. He carried NC in the primaries. He was not the prez candidate in 04'

As has been well-documented, people vote for presidential candidates, not the VP. Look at Lloyd Bensten. After his famous win against Quayle in the VP debate the Dukakis-Bensten ticket gained a grand total of 2 points in the polls!

Did anyone vote for Gore because of HoJoe? Did anyone vote for Bush based on Cheney? Bush because of Quayle? Carter because of Mondale? Reagan because of Bush? Etc.

[JI7]

4. North Carolina was his own state, but he lost most other southern states

[draft_mario_cuomo]

7. Edwards is 1-0 in general elections in the South

The others? 0-0. Edwards has proven he can win a general election in the South.

The argument relates to the general election. Primaries have no relevance. The argument is he can appeal to swing voters and some repubs to win in the South. What can we glean from a Democratic primary to assess that? The only GE he was in in the South he won in a red state. That required winning a majority of swing voters and even some republican votes.

As far as the primary, the election was over after Iowa. Yes, Edwards won "only" 2 southern primaries but that was more than Clark, Dean, Sharpton, and Kucinich combined.

[question everything]

24. Didn't Gore lose his own state? (nt)

[ElizabethDC]

29. Yes, n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

5. Hey, 2 points is pretty damn impressive for a VP debate

[mnhtnbb]

6. Edwards had a 56% favorable rating in July 04 in NC

Unfortunately, he was not top of the ticket. I've never met anyone who votes
for a ticket because of the VP candidate.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/mnhtnbb/73

Speculate all you want--you don't have a crystal ball and can't say with
any accuracy whether he'd win or lose southern states. You can look at past
elections and see that southern candidates--Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter--
won southern states. It's been a very long time since a northern candidate
has won southern states.

On edit: Hillary doesn't qualify as a 'southern'
candidate just because she lived in Arkansas with Bill.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

8. This thread looks at past elections

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3325153

Overall record since 1964 (the year the South switched to the Republicans initially over civil rights)

Southern winners: Carter 76', Clinton 92', Clinton 96', Gore 2000
Southern loser: Carter 80'

Northern winners: Zero
Northern losers: Humphrey 68', McGovern 72', Mondale 84', Dukakis 88', Kerry 04'

Record in the South (defined as states of the old Confederacy)

Southerners

Carter in 76': Won 10 of 11 southern states (barely lost VA) for 118 electoral votes
Carter in 80': Won 1 southern state (Georgia) for 12 electoral votes
Clinton in 92': Won 4 southern states (LA, AR, TN, GA) for 39 electoral votes
Clinton in 96': Won 4 southern states (FL, AR, TN, LA) for 51 electoral votes
Gore in 2000: Won 1 southern state (Florida) for 25 electoral votes*


Non-Southerners

Humphrey in 68': Won 1 southern state (Texas) for 25 electoral votes
McGovern in 72': Won 0 southern states for 0 electoral votes
Mondale in 84': Won 0 southern states for 0 electoral votes
Dukakis in 88': Won 0 southern states for 0 electoral votes
Kerry in 04': Won 0 southern states for 0 electoral votes

Totals

Southerners: 20 southern states won for 245 electoral votes
Non-Southerners: 1 southern state won for 25 electoral votes (and the lone win came four decades ago!)

[Supersedeas]

9. that sticks with me too

[draft_mario_cuomo]

11. That myth was debunked in post 6 nt

[FrenchieCat]

10. John Edwards lacks gravitas on national Defense issues

and in the General Election that will make a difference as to who the winner is....no matter how "southern" Edwards claims to be.

John Edwards is not as electable as he portrays based on what the election issues will be....and him being a White Male from the South will simply not be enough! He may the Dem nomination "by default"....because it is obvious that many will buy into the fact that he can somehow win over a woman, a Black man and an Hispanic man, but unfortunately, that will not be enough to win the GE, which will be what counts.

I'm not sure why folks are forgetting the state of our current affairs, but John Edwards will easily be painted as weak on defense, and the fact that he has had to apologize for his judgement on the war over and over again will be used against him when all is said and done.

The Media only has to coordinate one well time election "terror" scare of sorts, or things ramp us with Iran, and Edwards goes down hard, and we won't even know what hit us.

Those following the obvious Conventional Wisdom as to what a Presidential candidate should look like will be proven wrong.

Run Edwards (and whomever he would pick for VP) and watch him lose against Thompson/McCain everywhere in the South AND the Southwest!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

12. Edwards has more national security experience than Clinton and Carter had when they won in the South

Next meme?

[FrenchieCat]

13. Being wrong and saying sorry ain't the kind of experience that will win a General Election

During a time of war and tensions....which your examples show. Carter LOST while the incumbent precisely because of his "Mistakes" and Reagan's manipulation. Clinton won running on the economy at a time of relative peace.

Nominate Edwards, and we will end up with a Republican President.

That's not a meme, that's a prediction!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

15. Carter won 10 of 11 southern states with no national security experience

Edwards has over 6 years of foreign policy experience and has visited world leaders. He made a mistake. He admitted it. That is refreshing in light of "the decider" never admitting a mistake. His one alleged weakness would turn into a strength.

==Carter LOST while the incumbent precisely because of his "Mistakes" and Reagan's manipulation.==

Incumbents run on their records. The fact is Carter won 10 of 11 southern states in 1976 when he had no national security experience.

Why did Carter's record cost him victory? Carter lost because his lack of experience made him ineffective in Washington. Carter is a case study of what happens when even a brilliant man is thrust into the highest office in the land without experience. Edwards has 6 years of experience in how the senate works; some have 2 years and others who are touted as electable have 0 experience in Washington.

==Clinton won running on the economy at a time of relative peace.==

True, but Clinton also had 12 years of experience as governor. That assuages people in a way that someone with 0 political experience or 2 years in Washington cannot do.

You may be right but it is ironic to see a Clark and Obama supporter make these arguments (especially since the argument for Clark was all about electability and part of that was his southern origins)...

[FrenchieCat]

19. No national experience during peace time is how Carter won.....

he lost when Foreign policy became an issue during his bid for a second term.

Clinton won also during peacetime.

Why you have a blind spot on the important point as to where our nation is at this point compared to the 1976 and the 1992 elections is telling.

Edwards' six years of legislative experience as Senator Gone running for President since 2002 is inadequate as is comparing him to both Carter and Clinton who were each governors which gave them what is required as experience for the presidency; Executive experience.

Edwards besides being wrong and sorry on Foreign policy also lacks executive experience....which is why he is not as electable as you and he propose. He may look the part based on the historical "Ol' Boy" Model.....but that is about it.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

20. You support Clark and Obama, right?

How can you argue experience if you support those two? One has zero political experience and the other has 2 years of national security experience.

==Edwards' six years of legislative experience as Senator Gone running for President since 2002==

That is a Republican talking point straight from Dick Cheney.

==He may look the part based on the historical "Ol' Boy" Model.....but that is about it.==

Only you are obsessed with him being a white male. Why?

[FrenchieCat]

28. Lemme break it down, so that even you can understand this......

I don't support anyone in 2008. Clark is not running, and I have yet to decide on Obama.

However, I will tell you this........Obama showed precious SOUND JUDGMENT on an important issue at a time when it wasn't a popular stance. That's leadership.

Clark did as well via executive "Been there, Done That" practical experience at leadership for the position of Commander in Chief.

Edwards has neither exhibited sound judgment when it counted, nor has executive experience, nor does he have "been there, Done That" practical experience. Edwards only has the suitable superficial "image" for President and knows how to say what folks want to hear. Plus his plans to raise taxes, the fact that his experience is only legislative, and the fact that he didn't do his job while on the Intelligence committee makes him unelectable to me.

The only thing that John Edwards has going for him in a general election over the other candidates is the fact that he is a white male from the South; and that only provides him with a default edge out of those in the primary pool.....which has nothing to do with the General Election.

I'll add that the man who would be "leader of the free world" shouldn't have to go around apologizing for his mistakes on war and peace over and over again. That's the thing about John Edwards; he caught up only 4 years later. That's not a winning resume as leader during wartime.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

33. Response

==However, I will tell you this........Obama showed precious SOUND JUDGMENT on an important issue at a time when it wasn't a popular stance. That's leadership.==

It is naive to vote based on one position taken half a decade ago, especially when that candidate is no longer the same on the issue (he favors continuing military operations in Iraq. He has the same position HRC has on Iraq.). His recent judgment has been shaky, such as aligning himself with war criminal Colin Powell, endorsing Holy Joe over Lamont, his race-baiting attack on HRC, etc..

==Clark did as well via executive "Been there, Done That" practical experience at leadership for the position of Commander in Chief.==

Clark has zero political experience--and it showed when he went from 1st place when he entered the race to dropping out about 2 weeks after the primaries began...

==Edwards has neither exhibited sound judgment when it counted==

How about being a Democrat and opposing the Bush agenda while some others had the "sound judgment" to be raising money for the Republican Party? Edwards also had the judgment to not endorse Holy Joe. The same cannot be said about some others running for president...

==nor has executive experience==

Edwards ran a major law firm he founded. He also founded a poverty center. These are executive experiences in the business sense.

==nor does he have "been there, Done That" practical experience.==

That is based on what facts? He has experience in fighting the repukes in the senate while others had the "practical experience" of promoting the repukes at the same time.

==Plus his plans to raise taxes==

Obama will also raise taxes. Clark also ran on a tax increase in 2004.

==the fact that his experience is only legislative==

He has the experience of running a VP candidate, which is unique and a bonus on top of his legislative experience. His experience is thrice the experience of Obama and matches HRC's senate experience.

==The only thing that John Edwards has going for him in a general election over the other candidates is the fact that he is a white male from the South;==

There you go again with your obsession with Edwards being a white male. Why the obsession with white males?

==.I'll add that the man who would be "leader of the free world" shouldn't have to go around apologizing for his mistakes on war and peace over and over again.==

Is it better to admit mistakes or to act as if your are infallible?

==That's the thing about John Edwards; he caught up only 4 years later.==

He caught up in 2005--around the time some others shifting to the DLC direction on the war when it coincided with their ambitions.

==That's not a winning resume as leader during wartime.==

Perhaps. We will see. It is amusing that your criticism is restricted to Edwards, as if you have some special reason to dislike him or tunnel vision. The arguments you make about him can easily apply to Clark and others.

[Blackhatjack]

42. Your response was right on the money,

However, the self-appointed Edwards naysayers here will not admit even factual information so it does no good to try and debate them.

[FrenchieCat]

49. Ha!

But why are you being rude and condenscending....since you bothered to wag your finger at me in that post straight below? Is that self-appointed hypocracy from an Edwards supporter? More of that "do as I say and not as I do" campaign camp?

[Blackhatjack]

50. So you admit you were condescending? I would be shocked...

I have found from past experience trying to debate issues with you that you just ignore real facts and refuse to debate facts(other than those you create in your own mind).

I am not sure that qualifies as 'hypocracy'(sic) in the real world, but I am sure anything that contradicts your firmly held belief qualifies in your mind.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[Blackhatjack]

58. of course you meant 'talking like a fool' right? n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

59. Isn't it funny to see someone who dodges the points made by others call others a "fool"?

:rofl:

[FrenchieCat]

61. Get some links to back all the shit up that you spout and then we'll talk.

[Blackhatjack]

62. Yep, but does not change anything about your excellent response...

It is so disingenuous to say you have not made a choice of candidate for 2008 and be so outspoken in your criticism of John Edwards consistently. But that is the path many Edwards naysayers try to negotiate here.

[FrenchieCat]

65. I haven't made a choice as to whom I will support........but it is no

secret that John Edwards won't be the one.

My BS meter is set real high, and FOR ME, John Edwards doesn't ring true in many ways.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I will continue to post what I politically feel right here on DU as I have over the years, and I won't be the only one. I hope you can get over it. Running for President ain't no fucking bowl of cherries last I checked. The Office of the Presidency ain't gonna be a prize handed over for best smile, the best apology, or for the best "out of Iraq now, but don't look back to see how we got there" high fallutin' rethoric!

[Blackhatjack]

69. The problem you spotted was your own, "hope you can get over it"

Just because others here do not agree with you does not give you a special license to call them a fool.

Maybe you are just uninformed and more research might help you make up your mind as to who you will support.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

80. "My BS meter is set real high, and FOR ME, John Edwards doesn't ring true in many ways."

This coming from someone who supported someone who was not even a Democrat in 2001, was flirting with running as a Republican in Arkansas, and then suddenly transformed into, not only a Democrat, but a progressive Democrat 2 years later. That clears the "high BS meter" but a Democrat--who fought the Bush agenda while Clark was raising money for Republicans--changing his view on one issue is clearly a fraud! Why? He will say anything to get elected president. You know, like someone who would change parties and ideologies to become president...

[FrenchieCat]

60. Is that what you are doing?

[Blackhatjack]

63. Master of the well chosen retort? Hmmm... I find no content in your accusation...

Name calling does not raise your standing in the eyes of those you are trying to persuade to adopt your positions.

[FrenchieCat]

66. You and Cuomo a banging tag team....hey?

Good to note.

[Blackhatjack]

41. Now , Now.... Is it necessary for you to be condescending and rude in your response?

You posted: "...so that even you can understand..."

[draft_mario_cuomo]

16. Kerry's national security experience led him to go 0-for-11 in the South

So I suppose the best bet is to nominate a political rookie? :crazy:

[FrenchieCat]

25. I never professed that sitting in the senate provided one with Foreign policy experience.......

nor did I believe that serving in the military 35 years ago equaled National security experience....and so, John Kerry was not the best candidate for that election, IMO....which is why I backed Clark during the primaries and not John Kerry.

What made Clark electable to me in 2004 (and this is still the case in 2008) was combination of bases that he covered. Clark had done peace treaty (still holding a decade later), won wars, was director of strategic planning, worked in the Emergency preparedness arena. Clark served his country for 34 years and had done Executive as well as being a non-partisan uniter and an outsider.

Unlike John Edwards, Wes Clark being from the south was only the icing on the cake; not the cake itself....hence the great difference when discussing "electability".

[draft_mario_cuomo]

34. So Obama has no foreign policy experience according to you?

==What made Clark electable to me in 2004 (and this is still the case in 2008) was combination of bases that he covered. Clark had done peace treaty (still holding a decade later), won wars, was director of strategic planning, worked in the Emergency preparedness arena.==

He has unique strengths but he also has weaknesses. Namely, his lack of political experience--which showed in 2003-2004. How did he go from the hailed as "the savior" by the media, which vaulted him to 1st place in the national polls overnight, to dropping out after about 2 weeks of primaries?

==as well as being a non-partisan uniter and an outsider.==

In his case, being a non-partisan was a disadvantage. Even Holy Joe (as did Dean, I believe) was attacking him for not being a Democrat until 2003. Holy Joe. If someone like that could take jabs at him for his sudden conversion to the Democratic Party after lacking the sound judgment to be a Dem before, imagine what Rove could have done to him!

==Unlike John Edwards, Wes Clark being from the south was only the icing on the cake; not the cake itself....hence the great difference when discussing "electability".==

The argument had two components: 1) He was a general 2) He is from the South. That is what made him compelling. That is why he would make a great VP pick. However, he also has great weaknesses that could kill him in the GE. Just the fact that he was not even a Democrat until 2003 alone would dramatically diminish his credibility.

I believe a Bush campaign memo was leaked at the time and it was either Edwards or Kerry they feared the most. Clark was in the middle of the pack, with Dean being their dream candidate.

[FrenchieCat]

51. So you just pull stuff out this nonsense out of a hat or what?

If you've got some information to cite about some Bush "Memo", please provide a link.

Here are my cites as to who was Bush's worse nightmare....and it wasn't Edwards....but yes, Clark was called that many times......And Clark had many other attributes that made him "electable" beyond simply being born being a White Male, growing up in the South in being self made.

http://www.baywindows.com/news/2004/01/15/Opinion/Guest.Opinionthis.Loser.Has.Had.Enough-581377.shtml
The candidate who has the best chance of beating George Bush and of mitigating a potential electoral disaster is General Wesley Clark. A Rhodes scholar, first in his class at West Point, an economist and successful military administrator - not one American or NATO soldier was killed during the Kosovo campaign - Clark appeals to the broadest base of support drawing votes from Independents and Republicans and from men equally well as from women, from Southerners as well as Northerners and Westerners. In every head-to-head poll, Clark fares best against Bush. In the most recent CNN poll, Bush beats Dean by 20 points! The same poll shows only a six point spread between Bush and Clark.

Clark neutralizes critical issues where Democrats have often been vulnerable - but not culpable - such as defense and national security. Since Vietnam the Democratic party has often been deeply ambivalent about the military. We must restore credibility on this issue to be competitive. The Republicans have been very successful impugning the patriotism of Democratic candidates. Think McGovern, Dukakis and the bearded Bill Clinton. But even the machiavellian Mr. Rove will have a very hard time turning a four-times wounded winner of the Silver Star into a weenie. As one who has seen real combat, unlike George Bush, General Clark believes that force should only be used as a last resort. A real-life hero and intellect, Wesley Clark is Karl Rove's worst nightmare.

Clark touts NATO experience, status as 'Washington outsider'
Clark touted his 30 years of military experience and leadership, his commitment to equality under the law for every American and his status as a "Washington outsider" as reasons to elect him in Tennessee's Democratic Primary Tuesday.
http://www.easttennessean.com/news/2004/02/09/News/Clark.Touts.Nato.Experience.Status.As.washington.Outsider-600837.shtml

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/12/10_clark.html
Why Wesley Clark?
December 10, 2003
By Mickey Isikoff

http://www.dailygusto.com/news/july/wesley-clark-072803.html
Wesley Clark is
Karl Rove's
worst nightmare

http://www.comedyzine.com/tirade341.html
George W. Bush's worst nightmare is General Wesley Clark as the Democratic presidential nominee. He knows it, the Republican Party knows it, the Democratic Party knows it and Bob Dole knows it.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/003782.html
Hope is a powerful force.
Clark is Karl Rove's worst nightmare.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8904
But most Democrats will, no doubt, quickly realize that he has one thing going for him that none of the other candidates have -- he's George Bush's worst nightmare.

----------
Please know that in a General Election, folks want the best candidate......party affiliation doesn't mean what you obviously think it means. Ever heard of Reagan Democrats? :shrug:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

68. Reply

I'll try to Google the 3 year old memo later.

==Here are my cites as to who was Bush's worse nightmare....and it wasn't Edwards....but yes, Clark was called that many times==

A political rookie who blew a media-created overnight lead when he entered the race to wind up quitting after 2 weeks was Rove's biggest nightmare? :rofl: Clark's great political skills saw him fall to 4th place (Dean, Kerry, and Edwards) from the lofty perch the media created for him.

The first link doesn't even work....

==Clark appeals to the broadest base of support drawing votes from Independents and Republicans and from men equally well as from women, from Southerners as well as Northerners and Westerners. In every head-to-head poll, Clark fares best against Bush. In the most recent CNN poll, Bush beats Dean by 20 points! The same poll shows only a six point spread between Bush and Clark.==

6 point deficit in Jan. of 2004. Do you know where Clark stood vis-a-vis Bush when he entered the race? ;)

==Mr. Rove will have a very hard time turning a four-times wounded winner of the Silver Star into a weenie.==

That is his great and special strength that he brings to the party. He also has great weaknesses, though, that more than offset his strengths in 2003-2004.

==Clark touted his 30 years of military experience and leadership, his commitment to equality under the law for every American and his status as a "Washington outsider" as reasons to elect him in Tennessee's Democratic Primary Tuesday.==

Every Democrat touts equality under the law. Washington outsider? That is a small plus for him, but there are other self-styled outsiders as well. What we are left with again are his 4 stars.

From the DU link:

==They also will try to portray him as arrogant, intellectually dishonest, hot-headed, ambitious==

The writer easily dismisses these things. These are among his susbstantial weaknesses. He can easily be painted as someone who simply says what people want to hear to achieve his great ambition. The guy was not even sure which party he would join and then 2 years later he morphs into a progressive Democrat. That would be dream fodder for Rove. Look at what they did with "I voted for it before I voted against it." That was on one issue. Clark could easily be portrayed as someone who morphed completely in order to become president.

You don't become a 4 star general without intense ambition--nor do you if you don't generally say what yours superior want to hear. Do you think he was a maverick as he made his way to the top of the military food chain?


I also read the Talkleft link (they all seem to be saying the same thing). It was written in September of 2003 when Clark joined the race. Clark was at his peak then. He was an idea. Once the campaign progressed he faded, as this shows from that link:


==Clark won support from 14 percent registered Democrats and democratic leaners, outpacing former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (12 percent), Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman (12 percent), Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (10 percent) and Missouri Congressman Dick Gephardt (8 percent).

Others in the race look especially weak. The Rev. Al Sharpton polls at 7 percent among registered Democrats and leaners, while North Carolina Sen. John Edwards received 6 percent, Florida Sen. Bob Graham 4 percent, and former Illinois Sen. Carol Mosely Braun and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich received only 2 percent each.==

We all know how much he faded during the campaign.

==Please know that in a General Election, folks want the best candidate......party affiliation doesn't mean what you obviously think it means. Ever heard of Reagan Democrats?==

"I voted for it before I voted against it." That sentence killed Kerry. Clark's affiliation isn't the issue. The damage it would do to his credibility is. If Kerry was killed because of that sentence, imagine what Rove would have done to Clark's convenient conversion from an independent flirting with both parties when they were courting him to run in Arkansas to a progressive Democrat just two years later when there was a clear path to the Dem nomination for prez.

[FrenchieCat]

76. Not one link.........

to go along with your high fallutin' rethoric! Why am I not suprised?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

82. What in my post requires links?

I write my own opinions. I don't need to link to others who author "my" opinions.

[FrenchieCat]

94. You mentioned a Memo specifically that backed up your assertion that John Edwards was who

Republicans were most afraid of. Guess that must have been simply your opinion. Of course, everyone has those, its how one justifies opinions that provides credibility...something opinions need to be respected. Anyone can talk out of their ass. That's the easy part.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

97. Where in post #66 was that mentioned?

I said they saw Kerry OR Edwards as the strongest candidate. I don't memorize articles from 2004.

[FrenchieCat]

98. See your post #34.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3325193&mesg_id=3327299

last paragraph....

I believe a Bush campaign memo was leaked at the time and it was either Edwards or Kerry they feared the most. Clark was in the middle of the pack, with Dean being their dream candidate.

You seem to have certain details down.....like who was positioned where. Maybe Edwards wasn't even mentioned or was last on the list :shrug:

......the point is if you are gonna cite an article, at least have it handy...otherwise, you're simply talking out of your ass. That's all.

[BamaLefty]

14. Damn right he does

I've had Republicans in Alabama, of all places, tell me how much they like John Edwards.

They even pledged to for him.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

17. Edwards flips red states

Some other candidates would, at best, go 2-for-11 in the South if the stars align while others would go 0-for-11.

[BamaLefty]

18. Obama would win Florida

But that's it. HRC would come close in AR and FL, but fall just short.

Edwards would win Arkansas, North Carolina, and Florida.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. I agree. I think Edwards would also win VA nt

[BamaLefty]

32. Wow!

How did I forget Virginny?

Yes, he'd definitely win VA.

[ElizabethDC]

31. I think HRC can win Ark and FL.

I doubt any Dem - even John Edwards - can win NC (though obviously he'd have the best shot out of any of them.)

[FrenchieCat]

26. There is no evidence that Edwards flips Red States.....and when he had the chance

to show this, he didn't.

Edwards is boxing himself in as a liberal populist in order to gain support in the Dem primaries. He will leave a large trail that the GOP will use against him when the time comes. Hillary denotes Strength and her hubby provides her with experience; Obama denotes presciense and change; Edwards denotes class warfare and a "I'm sorry" foreign policy track record.

Edwards is the weakest link....and you will see this magnified if he becomes our nominee.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. Edwards is 1-0 in general election in red states

That is the reality-based fact.

==There is no evidence that Edwards flips Red States.....and when he had the chance
Posted by FrenchieCat


to show this, he didn't.==

I don't know what planet this came from. The facts speak for themselves. He ran in a red state and unseated an incumbent Republican. None of our other candidates have won in a red state.

==Edwards is boxing himself in as a liberal populist in order to gain support in the Dem primaries. He will leave a large trail that the GOP will use against him when the time comes.==

This coming from a Clark supporter. Clark was running to the left of Dean after not even being a Democrat two years prior. Yet, you think that didn't "box him in" and "leave a large trail" that the GOP would use against h

==Obama denotes presciense and change==

Until people see his record and platform. He is identical to HRC on the issues. If he gets the nod, the Republicans will simply point to his record and shatter his Madison Avenue illusion of change.

[Blackhatjack]

44. Edwards would be the strongest candidate in the General Election...

and in case you did not realize that the 'class warfare' meme was dreamed up by Republicans, the truth is that Republicans have waged 'class warfare' against working and middle class AMericans.

Edwards is the candidate that can bring change as President, and honesty is more important than refusing to face up to your mistakes.

Neither Clinton nor Obama would be as successful in the General Election as Edwards would be, and opposition research will be withering for both Hillary and Obama. Edwards has already been through a national campaign, and there is simply no smoking gun evidence as is amply demonstrated by attacks on his appearance and character. They got nothing else.

[calteacherguy]

21. Then why is he only pulling 12% in South Carolina? nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

23. What does the primary have to do general election appeal?

Kerry won the South during the primaries and got clobbered in the South in the GE. The question is who can best appeal to swing voters in the South, not who can appeal to Democrats who will vote for whoever the nominee is anyway.

[FrenchieCat]

27. So what is the evidence for the statement, "Edwards flips red states"?

Because he has done no such thing except for winning one election in 1998.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

38. Polls

One survey of states had him flipping 7 Bush states--including Kentucky and Virginia--while HRC flipped 3 or 4 (all purple states that Bush won) and Obama did even worse than HRC.

There is also the fact that he has won a general election in a red state. HRC and Obama have never done it; Edwards has proven he could do that when he unseated a Republican incumbent.

Clarkies love to argue that Clark flips red states (you have said he was the most electable). What evidence is there for that? No polls. No results. Clark has never won an election, let alone in a red state.

[FrenchieCat]

54. Do you ever provide actual links, or do you just say things without

evidence? :shrug:

Show me.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

71. Here

Here is a tally. States that Bush won are in bold.

Edwards wins in: Massachusetts, Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kentucky, Virginia, California
Obamas wins in: Iowa, California
HRC wins in: Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Minnesota, California

Number of states leading in

Edwards: 9 out of 11
HRC: 5 out of 11
Obama: 2 out of 11

Bush states flipped

Edwards: 5
HRC: 1
Obama: 1 (next door Iowa)

Red states flipped

Edwards: 2
HRC: 0
Obama: 0

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_surveyusa_10_state_ge_res.php

[Blackhatjack]

81. I think this qualifies as a link --good job! Wonder if someone will acknowledge it ?

Or are these just more inconvenient facts that must be overlooked.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

89. Good question. My bet is these inconvenient facts will be overlooked

;)

[FrenchieCat]

93. You said "Polls"......then you provide a link to ONE poll!

Ah well, better than nothing which is your usual MO!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

99. Care to respond to that 11 state survey with a huge disparity between the candidates?

As usual, you dodge the issues and ignore the evidence.

That 11 state survey showed Edwards winning 9 states, HRC 4, and Obama (2 wins) losing even in Kerry states. That survey is a big deal. If it is correct, we are heading for trouble, particularly if we nominate someone who lost Kerry states in that poll.

You are being cute. Numerous threads have been posted here this year showing polls in which Edwards fared best in GE trial heats. Surely someone who follows Edwards like you would have read them. ;)

I am not your research assistant. Do a DU or Google search. Still, since you seem to be ill-informed about an issue you love to comment on (electability), I'll give you some more evidence (you have yet to provide a shred of evidence showing that Edwards is the least electable of the "big 3" or that Clark could flip red states...).

Giuliani 47% Clinton 44%
McCain 48% Clinton 42%
Clinton 47% Romney 44%
Clinton 47% Thompson 44%

Edwards 47% Giuliani 45%
Edwards 48% McCain 41%
Edwards 55% Romney 29%
Edwards 53% Thompson 32%

Giuliani 51% Obama 39%
Obama 46% McCain 42%
Obama 49% Romney 37%
Obama 47% Thompson 44%

Not only is Edwards the only one to defeat all repukes, he does so by much larger margins.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/edwards_giuliani_do_best_in_general_election_match_ups

[Blackhatjack]

112. They ask for links and facts, you provide them, and they go silent...

just more inconvenient facts to be ignored.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

119. Funny, isn't it? nt

[Kingstree]

30. Edwards could not even win his own state in 2004

[draft_mario_cuomo]

36. Edwards won NC when he ran on his own in 2004 and in 1998 nt

[Blackhatjack]

45. Simply untrue. n/t

[Clark2008]

37. I'm sorry - the swing vote Bubbas will NOT vote for Edwards.

But, if it makes you feel better, they won't vote for HRC or Obama, either.

[Blackhatjack]

57. Aside from 'swing vote Bubbas' being offensive to southerners, you fail to understand...

and so-called 'bubbas' make up a small portion of the population, and they have little to do with who wins elections in the South. You are perpetuating an inaccurate stereotype of southerners by making such a comment.

[FrenchieCat]

39. That's what Edwards says about himself.......and so

this is what was said here.....

WES CLARK: A MAP CHANGER

Markos says: "We don't have a "map changer" in this race, someone who could dramatically upset the current red/blue divide."

And he is 100% correct. We don't have a map changer. Do we have a couple candidates who can eke out the victory? Maybe. And I sure hope so. But we don't have a true map changer.

We don't have someone who will re-define what it means to be a Democrat to millions of Americans who don't already vote for us- the way Reagan re-defined what it meant to be a Republican for so many millions of people. There were Reagan Democrats. There will be no Hillary Republicans. Or Edwards Republicans. Or Obama Republicans. Not enough to constitute a meaningful, substantial demographic at least. There is only one viable "map changer" among the Democrats. But he hasn't decided whether he's gonna run yet. And that is Wes Clark.

WES CLARK- WERE HE TO RUN- WOULD HAVE MORE RED STATE CROSSOVER THAN ANY DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE IN MODERN AMERICAN HISTORY.

None of the GOP attacks work on him. You can't question his patriotism. You can't say he doesn't care about our troops. You can't call him a commie. You can't call him a coward. You can't call him a cut-and-runner. You can't say he's soft on defense. You can't say he's weak on terrorism. And, seeing as he's been right on Iraq from Day 1, you can't call him a flip-flopper either.

He is a bedrock, populist Progressive. But he can reach into the Red States and grab flag-waving, troop-fawning, NASCAR-loving Republicans by the millions.

The guy is a true American hero from good old boy working class Arkansas who personifies the American dream. He's Rambo with the soaring intellect of a progressive humanist academic. THAT is a map changer. THAT is someone who can take the GOP myth that has haunted Democrats since Vietnam- "Democrats can't keep you safe."- and obliterate it. THAT is a map changer.

If we want "map changing," if we want to be ambitious about re-defining what it means to be a Democrat, if we want greater reach as a party, then we need to stop- every four years- simply re-winning the battles that we've already won. People who vote on health care already vote for us; we can't be content just re-winning them. People who vote on the environment already vote for us; we can't be content just re-winning them. People who vote on education already vote for us; we can't be content just re-winning them. Etc. Etc. But that is exactly what each of our current three frontrunners is doing. What we need is to take the GOP head-on and win battles that every four years we lose. We need to isolate the battles we lose every four years and start winning them. THAT is how you change the map.

We need Democrats to win the battle on national security- a battle we usually lose. We need Democrats to win the battle on foreign policy- a battle we usually lose. We need Democrats to win the battle on terrorism- a battle we usually lose. THAT is how you change the map. And we need Democrats to win the battle of pure patriotism- the battle of American iconography. This is where we lose and lose big. And to change the map, this is where we must start.

And Wes Clark, more than any electable Democrat in any of our lifetimes, is preeminently qualified to do just that. He is a map changer.

And we need a map changer. And to get that, we need to be more rigorous and more ambitious about defining what it means to be a Democrat.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12417

[draft_mario_cuomo]

40. How many elections has Clark won?

Clark had one the greatest openings to a campaign ever. He went from nowhere to 1st place overnight after being hailed as "the savior" by the media. What happened? He lasted about 2 weeks in the primaries. Clark has a lot of tools; he just needs some experience. His lack of experience killed him last time. Perhaps he should have taken those offers--from both parties--to run in Arkansas. ;)

We would be better off running him as VP. We could take advantage of his strengths and minimize his weaknesses since VP candidates get little coverage. We could have him be our point man in responding to repuke attacks on the Dem's anti-terror and Iraq strategy.

Edwards-Clark? ;)

[Blackhatjack]

46. I agree with you. Clark would be a good VP choice by Edwards...n/t

[FrenchieCat]

55. Edwards' not that smart.

He could go with General Hugh Shelton though.......cause that's the type of military dudes he likes to be around.

[Blackhatjack]

64. I guess you have links and facts to back this statement up? You deal in facts? Ha....

[FrenchieCat]

72. What? About Edwards and Shelton?

Here....

Shelton also served as an advisor to Senator John Edwards' presidential campaign from 2003-2004. <1>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Shelton

This week Edwards hauled out former Joint Chief of Staff chair Hugh Shelton to attack Clark.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0347,mondo5,48665,6.html


Hey, Edwards "honored" Shelton right after Edwards' op-Ed supporting giving Bush authority to go to war with Iraq appeared on the Bush White House website.

EDWARDS, ETHERIDGE HONOR GENERAL HUGH SHELTON
AT GOLD MEDAL CEREMONY
September 19, 2002
WASHINGTON Retired U.S. Army General and former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Henry H. "Hugh" Shelton Thursday received the Congressional Gold Medal during a ceremony in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda featuring Congressman Bob Etheridge and Senator John Edwards.
http://www.congressionalgoldmedal.com/HughShelton.htm
---------------

Former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Hugh Shelton, who has publicly smeared General Wesley Clark as a man of questionable character, without ever saying why, is one of Edwards's advisers. Still, it was surprising that in November of last year Jennifer Palmieri, Edwards's press secretary, said of Clark, without citing a name or any evidence, "military leaders he has worked with, and who know him best, seem to have a lot of concern about his ability to lead."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16965

[draft_mario_cuomo]

84. Shelton expressed his opinion of a former colleague

And? Is it a crime to express opinions about those who you work with or work in your organization?

Was it a crime for Obama to express his opinion of his colleague and mentor Holy Joe when he endorsed him?

For the record, Tommy Franks shared Shelton's opinion. When asked if Clark would make a good president he emphatically said "Absolutely not."

[Blackhatjack]

90. Gen Shelton was born in Tarboro NC, and graduated from NCSU w/Textiles Degree Like Edwards...

Edwards was our Senator from North Carolina when Gen Shelton was honored for his 38 year career in the Army.

The fact that Shelton made a critical comment about Clark may rub you the wrong way, but it has no reflection on Edwards.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

73. So your Edwards hatred is about Shelton expressing his opinion of a former colleague?

;)

[FrenchieCat]

79. I don't hate Edwards.......you just choose to say I do.......

And I was just meeting your personal challenge to me by backing up my shit in reference to the fact that Edwards and Sheltons are buds, as you asked. That is all.

[Blackhatjack]

83. So tell us, if you do not hate Edwards, why all the venom towards him?

[FrenchieCat]

96. I don't spew venom........

maybe you're the one with the venom..... :shrug:

It is normal for folks to hold opinions about public figures and to post such on a political board.

Why you act like somehow I'm not allowed to do this is really weird!

John Edwards is a big boy! He doesn't need you denegrating DU members as your way of coming to his rescue. Makes him look weak, and you even weaker.

[Blackhatjack]

101. Touched a nerve there, did we? Sometimes truth hurts....

Your response of accusing others of trying to keep you from posting here was expected:

YOU POSTED: "It is normal for folks to hold opinions about public figures and to post such on a political board. Why you act like somehow I'm not allowed to do this is really weird!"

No one is trying to keep you from posting anything your heart desires.

However, the rest of us get to post as well, and argue facts to rebut your accusations against John Edwards if we see fit. That is out right too.

[FrenchieCat]

107. Why do you think I wear a fucking Gagged Avatar?

I've been called so many names as the way for Edwardians to defend their little guy, it ain't even funny!

What is sad is that John Edwards really is the candidate running and he should be scrutinized....but instead, Disabled profile DUers who came out of nowhere point fingers and make negative accusations about DU members. How so, so sorry.

[Blackhatjack]

111. It must be pitiful to feel so helpless and so paranoid ...

that you choose to adopt a 'gagged avatar' as a symbol best representing you.

Why not shake off the paranoid feelings, face the world rather than shrink from it by adopting a 'gagged avatar', and debate the facts.

BTW I did not come 'out of nowhere' and the fact I disabled my profile has nothing to do with the validity of my arguments or the accuracy of the facts I present.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

88. And? So what if Shelton was advising Edwards. It isn't as if a war criminal like Powell was nt

[FrenchieCat]

47. Wes Clark won one less election contest than John Edwards.......

But then, how many Peace Treaties has Edwards brokered, and how many wars has Edwards led and won as opposed to the one he co-sponsored and authorized? :shrug:

[Cameron27]

52. Ouch!

Love it:)

[Blackhatjack]

67. Where do you live? Don't they deliver newspapers there? Edwards opposes the war...

... or do you just have a problem wrapping your mind around that fact?

And once again Clark is NOT a candidate for President, so it is not necessary to compare Clark and Edwards as rivals.

And in case you did not know it, this is BUSH's WAR, and no one on the Democratic side "co-sponsored and authorized" the war.

Of course, if you have a link to such a document we would all really like to see it.

[FrenchieCat]

92. Edwards "says" he opposes the war now......there are no actions

to back up this fact that I can see other than talk.

I didn't bring up Clark, your Tag Team friend did. I just responded to his call outs, is all.

It is Bush's war because congress gave him the credibility to wage it.

Edwards co-sponsored the bill called "AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION" --Then Edwards voted aye to give Bush such authorization.

I mean......

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

October 7, 2002
This week, the U.S. Senate will have an historic debate on the most difficult decision a country ever makes: whether to send American soldiers into harm's way to defend our nation. The President will address these issues in his speech tonight.

My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I am a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution we're currently considering.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/edwards/edw100702sp.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2934244

[draft_mario_cuomo]

100. Yeah. We all know that. And Clark said he would have voted for the IWR

:boring:

[FrenchieCat]

104. You sound like the fucking corporate media.......

and that's scary.

Don't worry, they'll be doing their thing on Edwards soon enough....

[draft_mario_cuomo]

106. You can't have it both ways on the IWR nt

[FrenchieCat]

109. No......I can't, and I don't......

http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/iraq_20022003/

The Levin Amendment- The Resolution that Wes Clark was "For"!
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/03/the_levin_amendment_the_resolu.html

Edwards went both ways to the extreme......!
He strongly promoted and supported the War, now he hates the war and dogs out everyone else running! :eyes:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

110. Clark was all over the map on the IWR

He said he would have voted for the IWR, then the next day said he wouldn't have, etc.

If the IWR is a litmus test Clark, like Kerry, Biden, Dodd, HRC, Richardson, Edwards, Gephardt, et al. fails that test.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

74. Clark has never been elected to anything, let alone in a red state

He should have taken the Republicans offer that he was apparently considering and ran as a repuke for governor or senator in Arkansas. That would have given him the experience to run a good campaign for president--in either party.

[ripple]

43. In Iraq, you mean?

Cool trick. :eyes:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

48. Edwards would end the war in Iraq

He will end military operations in Iraq. He will not leave an unspecified number of troops for an unspecified length of time (which sounds suspiciously like Nixon's "secret plan" to end the Vietnam war) in Iraq to conduct military operations. The only troops he will leave are the few needed to defend the embassy (as is the case with all American embassies) and some to protect humanitarian workers.

After Richardson and Kucinich, Edwards has the best position on Iraq.

[ripple]

53. He also co-sponsored the resolution that got us there

Pardon me if I have difficulty trusting him at his word.

[w4rma]

77. Obama and Hillary tacitly supported the IWR-2007. I have difficulty trusting Obama and Hillary.

Obama and Hillary waited until it was safely passed to vote.
Obama and Hillary did not say one word against IWR-2007 until it had been passed and they voted.

Obama said, before Bush began his veto threats, that he would support a bill with no restrictions.

And today that's exactly what we have.

If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/1/135422/4038

And this is all while Bush's and Republican approval is in the toilet and Edwards is strongly speaking out against it and the majority of the nation (rather than 10% of the nation) is opposed to this war.

That is way things stand in the present day.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

85. This is why they have to keep up bringing 2002., He has not lead on Iraq...

...since he became a national figure with ambitions to become the most powerful person in the world. He was different when he was an obscure local politician half a decade ago.

[w4rma]

105. Agreed. I couldn't have said that better or more accurately than you have, DMC. (nt)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

78. Fair enough

So the best response to skepticism of Edwards' sincerity regarding ending the war is to vote for someone who will continue military operations in Iraq? :shrug:

[illinoisprogressive]

70. I beleive his own state refused to re elect him and in 08, the south is not too hot for him.

[Blackhatjack]

75. I live in NC and you are wrong on both counts... (these are myths first dreamed up by Repubs)

Edwards did not run for reelection to his Senate seat in 2004 as he was running for President. The (voters of) North Carolina did not have an opportunity to reelect him.

When Edwards won his Senate seat he beat an incumbent Republican that other Demcrats did not want to go up against.

Polls have been done here in North Carolina, and Edwards is popular here. Likewise, he has high favorability numbers in other southern states as well.

I will just assume you did not know the truth.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

87. Why didn't other Dems want to go up against the incumbent repuke?

We are told what Edwards did is no big deal. If so, why didn't any other ambitious Democrat decide to run against Faircloth?

Edwards won as an underdog. He didn't have the senate seat handed to him on a silver platter due to luck or his name.

[Blackhatjack]

91. When Edwards beat Faircloth for the Senate seat, it was like a thunderbolt to Repubs...

Repubs underestimated Edwards as others have done to their detriment.

Faircloth was thought to have a lock on the race, and many Democrats stayed out of the race.
Edwards was a quick study, neutralized many of the Repub advantages, and basically outworked the Faircloth campaign. I remember it well.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

102. Thanks for sharing that

I wasn't aware that he faced such long odds. That is even more evidence that shows Edwards is the most electable. The other two major candidates had senate seats handed to them on a silver platter by luck (Jeri Ryan and then Alan Keyes :rofl: ) or last name (HRC, although HRC backed it up by winning re-election on her own).

[draft_mario_cuomo]

86. Edwards did not run for re-election. He ran for VP

Edwards is 1-0 in general elections in red states. No other candidate can match that. It is easy to win in New York City or Chicago for a Democrat. Especially if your opponent is Alan Keyes!

[TeamJordan23]

95. DMC, do you believe Mr. Edward's experience with a Hedge Fund "taught" him about poverty?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

103. No. That was as dumb as Obama saying his wife was on the board of a Wal-Mart vendor...

...because the Obamas (who make a million a year) had bills to pay.

[TeamJordan23]

116. So I guess he is not all that different than the Obamas, than? nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

120. I retract that statement in light of my ignorance of the facts in posts 108 and 117 nt

[Blackhatjack]

108. One of the findings of the anti-poverty center is that financial systems have to play a role...

Poor people helping poor people will not effectively remedy the problem of poverty.

Those with the means to make substantial inroads toward solving the poverty problem must find that using those means in this manner is in their best interests. Those with the most 'means' can do the most the quickest to counter the effects of poverty.

Edwards knew about poverty long before he worked with the financial services group you refer to as a Hedge Fund, and to summarize his experience in this manner is very similar to the allegation that Edwards gets $400 haircuts all the time.

Of course I guess none of the other candidates running for President ever benefitted from working with and investing in financial services corporations, right?

[TeamJordan23]

113. Call it what it is, its a hedge fund. I don't disagree that financial systems play an important role

But a hedge fund takes money from other wealthy investors and tries to return them with the highest return possible. So I doubt a Hedge Fund is willing to invest in poverty-related projects and investments because I am guessing the return won't be that high.

[Blackhatjack]

117. The financial services corporation Edwards worked with did more than 'hedge funds' and...

in fact many projects designed to alleviate poverty can be made to turn profits higher than other projects. It is a matter of government policy and incentives, and the bottom line.

Just as we can change the incidence of alternative energy by providing incentives, we address some issues inherent in poverty in the same ways.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

121. Thanks for setting the record straight in this post and post 108

I was not aware of these things. :toast:

[Blackhatjack]

114. Edwards can reach the independent/undecided and unaffiliated voters critical in the General Election

Which means he would be a better choice in the General Election than the other Demcrats running.

Not to say that other Democratic Candidates could not win and would not be good Presidents.

But we really need to nail down the Presidency this time after all the damage Bush and his cronies have done.

[TeamJordan23]

115. Why didn't Edwards have any effect on his home state of NC in the 2004 race? nt

[Blackhatjack]

118. Your question contains a false presumption. However, I'll answer the question I think you intended

The Kerry campaign decided to allocate resources elsewhere rather than in NC. IMHO this was not a wise move, and if they had run ads and appeared in NC they could have won NC. Edwards was the VP and had no say over this decision.

However, Edwards on his own did have a positive effect on NC in the 2004 race. Kerry running in NC without Edwards would not have done nearly as well.

[Awsi Dooger]

124. Kerry had no shot in North Carolina

That state tilts 10-12 points red even in a balanced cycle. And 2004 was hardly balanced, since it featured an incumbent with his party in power only one term. DUers thrill to pretend Bush was more vulnerable than he was. At that point he was basically 50/50 in approval rating and a high percentage of the other historical factors favored a Bush victory.

Even if Kerry had spent every day of the fall cycle in North Carolina, he still loses that state by at least 5 or 6 points.

Edwards would have an outside chance at North Carolina in '08, as long as the nation has a generic Democratic tilt of at least 3-5 points.

Kerry did not make any strategic mistakes in '04. Gore, on the other hand, gave up prematurely in Ohio and did not emphasize Nevada or New Hampshire nearly enough. That doesn't even include the faulty early assumptions he made about Tennessee and West Virginia.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

122. People vote for the prez, not the VP. If people voted for VP it would have been Kerry-Graham

Kerry would have won Florida and the nightmare would have ended. Of course, the truth is people don't vote for the VP.

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

123. Where is your I slimed Obama confession? All Obama and Edwards supporters should see DMC's smears!

Look, as I've said before, I think they all three have an excellent shot at winning in the South. I don't think Edwards was being racist when he said what he said. But you're not here dmc, to talk about that. You are here to wave a flag and it ain't got any stars, stripes, or donkey on it. You have made a http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3325153&mesg_id=3325153">call to unity, "We are all Democrats, We are all Americans," while simultaneously bashing Obama in the same post today. And you have put out not http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3326371&mesg_id=3326371">one, but http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3326881&mesg_id=3326881">two hit pieces on Obama that I have seen today. So forgive me for being fed up with anything you post. I am an Obama supporter, but I like Edwards and I think Obama supporters should give him the benefit of the doubt on this one and make him their really good second choice. To the same degree I hope Edwards supporters will make Obama their really good second choice. I am, however, sick and tired of the political hacks of any candidate who would rather tear other Democrats down than argue the merits of their candidate's progressive positions and progressive values. I apologize to the moderators if this comes off as a personal attack, but I have argued the ideas in this post and given everybody links so they can read for themselves. I don't know how else to say enough is enough.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

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