Can Edwards supporters check in here and help me out?

[Killarney]

I was a Clark supporter who now is looking to support someone else in the primary. I'm 99% sure that person--for me--is going to be Edwards. I believe that he could beat W. I believe that the rumors that the Republicans would fear him on the ticket are true and that he would have a fantastic chance in the GE. He is a progressive. He has experience in the Senate, but not too much experience. It wouldn't be so easy for the Republicans to pick certain votes from his record and make him appear this way and that in television ads. He doesn't appear to have any skeletons in his closet. He is charismatic and people just gravitate to him and love him. He is a fantastic public speaker and debater. He came from nothing, given no advantages and is a walking-talking example of the American dream. He is from the South. He is new to the game and not a Washington insider. He does not cater to special interests. I could go on and on. Basically, he's a likeable guy and seems to value what I value and vote they way I would want someone to vote.

My only concern is that foreign policy experience seems to be extremely crucial in this election. Edwards has no military experience and little foreign policy experience. Do you think that would hurt him against W? Does he have any relevant fp experience (committees, etc) that we could point to?

Thanks for any info as I make this decision. :)

Note: I'm ABB and will vote for whoever our candidate is in November. :)

[PurityOfEssence]

1. He's on the Intelligence Committee and has been very focused on this

Go to his website and look at his bio.

This will not be a problem. You're right, though, that this is his weaker suit, but he's played catch-up in a very serious way.

Nice to hear your post. He's all you say, and more.

[arewethereyet]

3. Neither did Bush, he got help, so will Edwards

worry about who can communucate, thats what wins

[theorist]

2. If the Dems play their cards right a toaster could beat Bush.

The real question then is who do you want representing you to the rest of the world. I have yet to make a confident decision myself, but I'm almost certain that regardless of what happens in the next 3-4 months, the Dem ticket will be Kerry/Clinton.

Any subsequent attacks on the Democratic candidates will make the Republicans look sour and weak. These are not good traits to project to a jobless American public. Good luck on making your decision. It's an important one. Stick with ABB no matter what, though!

[AP]

4. If it's any consolation, I can't think of an election where foreign policy

experience tipped the scales (off the top of my head).

A good example is Carter in '80. The Republicans made Iran a big issue and they made foreign policy a huge issue.

Voters believe that Republicans are better on frgn policy and nat'l security, regardless of who's running. So, once the convinced the voters it was the most important issue, they basically could have run anyone, becuase there was 30% difference between the number of people who felt any dem was better than any republican.

So, what happened? A Naval academy graduate (& valedictorian?) with a degree in nuclear engineering lost to a governor of California who was an actor -- a guy with no frgn policy experience.

The Republicans have put frgn policy front and center (via terrorism) because they know there is NO Democrat who can beat them if they can convince the world that this is the most important issue.

What Democrats need to do is run a candidate who is the best example of the STRENGTHS of the Dem party (middle class opportunity, rewarding work with wealth, rather than wealth with wealth, equality of opportunity on a level playing field, the importance of the public infrastructure, especially, eg, public schools -- think NC State, UNC). If we conceed that national security is the most important issue, will be playing on Republican home field advantage. We'll only ever be running a candidate who's is a patch for our weaknesses, and will simply highlight the fact that Democrats accept that the Republican world view is the right one. We can't win doing that.

Furthermore, more than experience, voters need to know is that you stand for something and you share their values. It is very clear what Edwards stands for. He is a living embodiement of what he stands for. You cant' think about him without thinking about what he stands for. His values are Democrat values. And they're homefield advantage for Democrats.

You've picked the right candidate.

[AP]

5. Kick + correction in 2d paragraph: I belive it's over 60% of Americans

who think that Republicans are better on national security. There's a 30% gap beteen the number of people who think Republicans are better compared to people who think Dems are better.

And for emphasis, the point of an election is to get people to think your strenghts are the most important thing in the worlds.

Dean orginally ran as a health care candidate. What he wanted to do was convince Americans that the health care situation was the biggest problem in America.

In 2000 both parties ran on the idea that the most important thing to do was not to change too radically from what Clinton had been doing.

In 1992, Clinton ran on the idea that the most important thing was an economy that delivered wealth to the middle class.

[spooky3]

6. Hi, Killarney, Edwards' website has more details

johnedwards2004.com. It's a bit "busy" but you can find the links you want to click on to get more info. There is also a cool interactive map by which you can plot the Democrats' strategy for taking back the White House.