Bill Maher states that John Edwards is the candidate who would win the General Election on the O'Rei

[saracat]

Bill also defends John's position on heathcare and corporations!

Run time: 07:07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qsMs1pdFPI

[Hieronymus]

1. Thom Hartmann said the same on Tuesday. I agree, Edwards is our best

chance.:applause:

[saracat]

2. I am so pleased to have someone standing up for John and giving him some good press!

I'll bet Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert covertly support Edwards as well!

[rodeodance]

6. He does need support that is if sure.

[IntravenousDemilo]

72. ?

"that is if sure"? :shrug:

[Mythsaje]

5. Thom too? Right on!

That's good news as well. Thom's got his head screwed on straight. I'm glad he's backing Edwards. It's a good sign.

[mrgorth]

14. Well,

Thom Hartmann is pretty far to the left economically so that makes sense. I'm hoping that either Edwards or Obama come out of this. I like them both. P/VP combo would be good.

[Sapphire Blue]

38. Yes, Hartmann supports Edwards! He's also an Edwards campaign contributor;

... he disclosed that info to his audience in mid-June, when Edwards was a guest on his show.

[bjobotts]

57. Hartman also said he supports Kucinich and that Kucinich seems to have all the answers

Was really surprised that when he ran online polls that Kucinich won every single time. Then he claimed to have started listening to Dennis and then said he supported Kucinich because he seemed to have the right answers on everything.

[Sapphire Blue]

64. Is he contributing to Kucinich's campaign now? In June, he said that Edwards was the only...

... candidate whose campaign he was contributing to.

[mzmolly]

49. I agree as well.

I think he's the biggest threat to Republican victory.

[bjobotts]

56. I like John but Mahr's a snob but funny. Kucinich/Edwards '08...that's the ticket

Kucinich has a better healthcare plan, better ideas on NAFTA, WTO, More dedicated, votes right on everything, and introduced Impeachment on Cheney, and introduced single payer not for profit healthcare ins. in the House already. There is nothing negative to say about him and look at the way he handled Rumsfeld at the Tillman hearings, or Cheney calling him out for threatening Iran, or the way he put down George Stephanopoulos when he tried to smear him on his Sunday show. Stop ignoring him and listen to what he says and look at what he's already done and he just outshines all the other candidates and a Kucinich/Edwards ticket is the dream ticket not just because they will win but because that administration would function so well. But Mahr like so many other Dems is overly concerned with the GENERAL when after Bush and with the present GOP hopefuls we could run a dead guy and he'd when. So forget worrying about the general because whoever wins the democratic nomination will be the next president...if Bush allows it and the Dems don't self destruct by catering to Bush and discarding accountability and oversight. So just pick which candidte you want as president and vote for them in the primary to be the next president.

In MO the democratic candidate died several months before the election and still defeated John Ashcroft in the election...so see, when the choices are that bad even a dead guy would win over the GOP hopefuls.

Forget about the GOP talk. It doesn't matter. The only worthwhile candidates are all democrats.
And about Mahr...love him...but remember, he wants nukes on the table, believes in assassination as a foreign policy option, and was divorced by Adrianna Huffington.

[IntravenousDemilo]

75. I wasn't aware that Bill Maher and Arianna Huffington had ever married. So now they're divorced? n/m

[saracat]

76. They were NEVER married.They are close friends though!

[Nutmegger]

3. R&K

This is great. I heard a little promo of Thom Hartman on AAR today standing up for Edwards.

Glad someone is saying it.

[Mythsaje]

4. Too cool!

Glad to hear it.

Kicked and Recommended.

[Smarmie Doofus]

7. Right, as usual. Also...

I counted five answers in a row where he was interrrupted by Mr. Stupid.

Still , Maher walked away with it. Great communicator.

[saracat]

9. Maher was superb.Bill O is just such an arrogant imbecile!

"Loony left" to him is anyone who disagrees.Odd he didn't call Maher loony left.Maybe he is scared he won't do his show any more if he attacks him. Maher looked like he was having a bit of trouble keeping his temper.He rolled his eyes a lot too! Snark! I could not have handled Bill so well.I would have reached through the TV and strangled him! LOL!:bounce: :bounce: :rofl: :rofl:

[Lucinda]

8. What did Billo say in response?

I'm on dial-up with rainy weather - no videos for me

Good to hear a boost for JE. I'm still shopping...but I like Edwards a lot.

[saracat]

10. Edwards didn't have a prayer .He was loony left , used to be a moderate now was a loon.

Maher said Edwards wa positions weren't left.Said he wasn't a loon. Said he represented what most people want .Maher defended healthacare and attacking corporations.Also said , when Bill O said Edwards couldn't win, "No ones voted yet"!

[Inspired]

11. Bill Maher is right, as usual. n/t

[Perry Logan]

12. Do you really think voters will completely forget the last eight years when they vote in 2008?

Most of the prognostications about the 2008 Presidential election seem to posit 100% amnesia by the American voters.

Apparently, the election will take place in a vacuum. Voters will utterly forget all the Republican crimes and screw-ups of the last seven years. This is a most unlikely assumption, ignoring all sorts of signs that Americans are thoroughly sick of the whole Republican thing.

[Totally Committed]

13. With all due respect... what I think is "sick" is

relying on how fed up with the Republicans most Americans are as the main reason the Democrat will win. Whatever happened to "because we have the better candidate"? Or, "because we're right on the issues, and they aren't"?

I'll tell you what happened. Out of sheer cynicism the Democrats adopted much the same policies and support for the same issues as the Republicans. We aided and abetted them. They told us to jump, and we asked how high. Maybe you're satisfied to say we'll win because they have been worse than we've been, but I think that's PITIFUL. I think it's WRONG. And, I won't vote for ANYONE who belongs to a group that feels like emulating the Republicans is the way to win. And I certainly won't agree with anyone who says we WILL win, because we're not REAL Republicans, so we aren't THAT bad.

Ugh.


TC

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. Wrong.

Research bears this out:
People don't vote on the basis of the issues, they vote on the basis of how the candidate makes them feel. As a trial lawyer, Edwards is successfully enabling people to feel that he is empathetic to their situations.

Also, people aren't really abandoning Republicans for Democrats, per se. They are abandoning Republicans for change. Anyone who is associated too closely with the status quo, and can't articulate a desire for change is doomed. We Democrats need to create a brand identity to retake dominance, and now is the last and best opportunity.

We're not like the general voting public. We care about issues, but they don't.

I recommend the book "Being right isn't enough" by Paul Waldman.

[1932]

21. In 2000, voters forgot the previous 8 years (actually, 12 years) and voted Bush.

[Seabiscuit]

41. In 2000 the Bush voters forgot the previous 225 years!

They forgot everything that's happened since 1775.

[mzmolly]

51. Unfortunately, they may consider Bush a fluke and Clinton

"more of the same."

[Triana]

15. COOL! He's still my choice...good to see him getting good press for a change. (n/t)

[usregimechange]

16. kick!

[polichick]

17. Thanks for posting...

Bill Maher didn't let that bonehead Bill-O get away with anything!

[tinrobot]

18. I'm becoming a big Edwards fan...

He's my choice (if Gore doesn't run)

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

19. In Primary 2004 I was in Edwards boat, but kept looking at Kucinich.

Now, I'm mostly in Kucinich's boat, and keep looking at Edwards. Either is a Win Win for me.
edit, spelling.

[jtrockville]

22. Edwards is Rachel Maddow's choice too (she was on C-Span)

[ChiciB1]

23. I Completely Agree... We Are Being Spoon Fed Clinton/Obama By MSM

and I'm sick of it! Once again, we will let THEM choose our candidate and this is so very UN-Democratic!

But who cares? Most American citizens just don't take enough time out of their lives to get involved and I myself have become less involved too! Meetings where only 3 or 4 people turn up at are a waste of time! And I don't mean meetings for a candidate, I mean Democratic Party meetings! So I do wonder why I keep hitting my head against the wall!

Rachel Maddow said yesterday on C-Span that if the Primaries were held today that SHE would vote for Edwards. I don't know anyone close to me who supports Clinton, a few are for Obama, but most are for Edwards... but every time I see the polls or hear MSM it's CLINTON/OBAMA!

For some reason John Edwards must seem like a big threat to the BIG GUYS! What a country... it's AMERIKKKA!

[Greylyn58]

69. I totally agree

We are letting the MSM pick our candidate and I'm tired of it.

From the beginning and even before anyone had announced their intentions, the MSM has pushed Clinton and Obama as the two Democratic front-runners. No matter what other polls may have said(truth be told, I don't really trust polls), no matter what some experts may have said. It's become Clinton/Obama 24/7, either with her as our Presidential pick and Obama as the VP or visa versa.

I supported Edwards in 2004 and even though I wanted him as President, I was pleased that Kerry chose him as his running-mate. So now I'm glad to see him running for President again. I don't think he should settle for running-mate status again...on anybody's ticket.

[Totally Committed]

24. I love Bill Maher, but given that he was for Nader in 2000, and said Kerry was unbeatable in 2004,

I think he's not really someone I'd depend on to tell me the winner in 2008.

He could be right, of course, but his track record doesn't suggest it.

TC

[ChiciB1]

27. BTW, I Think I Recall That Robert Kennedy Signed On With Edwards Too! n/t

[Totally Committed]

39. Really? When did this happen?

That would be an interesting development!

TC

[NCarolinawoman]

73. RFK JR. would never sign on with someone who voted for Mountaintop Removal, as Edwards did.

RFK Jr. would not support someone who continuously dissed the NC environmental community.

When Edwards was in the Senate, we essentially had no statewide elective official advocating for us (environmentalists) in Washington. The Governor and Attorney General are doing a little of that now. but wouldn't it have been great to have a Democratic Senator doing this from 1999 through 2004? I only wish.

[Totally Committed]

74. That's what I was thinking, too!

Also, before Edwards transformed into the populist man-of-the-people he is these days, he was a member of the DLC, and as such, attended/addressed the Bilderberg Conference, voted for the IWR, the Patriot Act, and ran as a DLC VP candidate. RFKJr criticized his and Kerry's campaign after the election, so that's another reason I couldn't see that happening.

Thanks for affirming that for me!


TC

[saracat]

28. Very big difference.Maher never thought Nader would win and Kerry DID win!

and more amd more evidence out of Ohio proves that!

[laureloak]

25. A big turn-off to voters is going to be

Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.

[Forkboy]

26. I would agree with Bill on this.

I think he's our most electable candidate.Not my top choice mind you,but the most electable anyways.I think he can bring together a large enough chunk of both the left and center to win fairly easily.I don't see Hillary drawing enough on the left,and I don't see Kucinich drawing enough from the center.Edwards is an interesting mix of both,and while there will obviously be people on the left and in the center that don't like him,I don't think it'll be in the numbers that would derail a victory.

[underpants]

30. I second what the boy de Fork says

Although Edwards is my first choice.

[Forkboy]

31. LOL...I like that.

:)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. Maher is correct. K & R nt

[zulchzulu]

32. So what's Maher's view on the war and the IWR?

Does he know what the IWR is and who was a co-sponsor? Jus' askin'.

In my view, Edwards doesn't have a leg to stand on when he's suddenly trying to paint himself as someone against the Iraq War when he is very complicit in getting the whole thing going.

Of course, that won't be an issue in 2008. :crazy:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

34. Everyone knows who voted for the IWR, like we knew Kerry did and Dean didn't last time

Few people worship at the altar of the IWR. Ask President Dean and Vice President Clark...

P.S. roughly 40% of the population supported the war and now opposes it. Calling 40% of people "naive and irresponsible" is not exactly good politics...

[zulchzulu]

37. Many will not vote for Pro-IWR voters in the primaries

At least the people I talk to, who of course, are nothin' but a bunch a' tofu-eatin', tongue-pierced, Guru Maharaji lovin', Fair Trade hairless nudists...so whudda I know...

[karynnj]

48. Dean did not have to vote

In fall 2002, his statements were not all that anti-war. He did say he was for the Biden/Lugar alternative - but so were Kerry, Dodd, and many other Democrats including obviously ..Biden. But, once Gephardt and Leiberman met with Bush in the Rose Garden and publicly stated they were for the IWR - the only bill that was going to pass was the IWR. Had Biden Lugar passed, Bush likely would have written the same signing statement he did write - essentially say he gave up none of his rights as President to order the military to attack.

At that point, many Senators negotiated and got changes in the IWR itself - restricting it to Iraq and taking out many reasons explicitly listed. They also tried to get many amendments - all the important ones failed. Then all the Senators had to vote on the bill in front of them. During that time frame, to my knowledge there was NO public comment from Dean. Many of the people who prefered Biden/Lugar voted for it. (Gore spoke against the IWR - and they made some - but not all the changes he said needed to be made.)

Dean and Gore were among the few people who made a very strong effort to dissuade Bush from invading. Kerry also spoke out and spoke of speaking to people in the UN and hearing that they were told by Bush that there was no more time for negotiations. Hillary and Bill did not speak out publicly - though they were the 2 strongest Democratic voices. Edwards was FOR the invasion and sad so. After the invasion when the war had lifted Bush's approval ratings - Kerry said they should have done more diplomacy and called for regime change.

In addition to the personalities and resumes of the 2004 candidates, there are 3 big differences this time:
1) The war is less popular
2) In 2004, though Kerry voted for the IWR, he was very much on record against the war and had a unigue history that made it very hard for Dean to paint him as a hawk - because he wasn't.
3) There have been additional votes

There are very likely more differences that others would had. What is not clear is how they will come together. Will a vote 5 1/2 years earlier matter less than what they have done since? Will most real world people percieve differences in the current positions? There are many reasons to use, but using the fact that Kerry voted for it and won means nothing - neither Edwards or Hillary had the exact position of Kerry. Nor were any of the 2004 candidates in exactly Obama's place.

[Totally Committed]

40. IIRC, Maher was pro-war, and very complimentary to Bush at the beginning....

He came around by the 2004 election, and was completely pro-Kerry. But, he was really pissing off a lot of Liberals early on with his support of Bush and the war.

TC

[PurityOfEssence]

33. Thanks; that was a scream

When "complimented" for not being a knee-jerk kind of guy, Maher laughed; when O'Reilly played hurt that Maher wouldn't take a compliment, Maher said that he jerks a bit higher...

Maher is certainly the enfant terrible of the punditocracy and he's got those snotty libertarian bents, but he's always fun and often LOTS of fun.

Do we remember his interview of Edwards where he asked Edwards what he thought of being dismissed as "the Breck Girl"? Edwards smiled and shot back "oh, I'm much prettier than the Breck Girl". It was one of the best moments of the whole campaign, and Maher loved it; he genuinely enjoys humor, and unlike other comedians, he laughs heartily at what's funny or well-delivered whether he likes the person saying it or not. There's no maneuvering for power and need to be the funniest person in the room like there is with so many other comedians, he's just having a good time.

There's a true streak of honesty there.

He also truly likes and respects Edwards, and it shows.

[progressoid]

35. Yea - a new season for Maher.

He's kinda full of himself but doesn't split hairs.

I don't get HBO, but thank god for the internet.

[GreenTea]

36. Maher is absoluely correct - The republicans are dying to have old Hillay as the Dem nominee!

[Milo_Bloom]

44. They'd like ANY of the capitulators

Edwards, Clinton, Dodd, Biden.

Having one of these takes the biggest issue completely off the table, because none of them have the ability to really speak against the Iraq war w/o being painted as a flip-flop politician who just says things to be popular, instead of what is right.

[saracat]

45. So you don't like ANYONE?

Perhaps Obama ? Kucinich?

[Milo_Bloom]

54. I would vote for Obama and/or Kucinich

But wouldn't even consider voting for one of the capitulators.

If we are going to have a "centrist" in the White House, we might as well have a real one, instead of a dem who is just trying to appeal to people by either repackaging themselves and shedding crocodile tears over their previous voting record or taking positions for the sake of being in the middle.

What are the substanative differences between Michael Bloomberg and Hilary Clinton, besides the letter next to their name?

The dems have allowed the GOP to move to the wacky right because they have moved so far to the center that the right looks "normal" by comparrison. The dems NEED to move to the REAL LEFT, not the phony left like Edwards, but the REAL LEFT.

[bjobotts]

59. Kucinich has never capitulated on any of the issues from day one

Only one who says no NAFTA not we need to re-evaluate...No to ins. cos. coming to the table on health care...he said they've been feasting there for decades and introduced single payer not for profit health care ins for everyone into the house...already...while others just talk about it or still want to include big pharma and big ins. Ck his record...voted right every single time and only one who introduced articles of impeachment on Dick Cheney in the House while the other candidates just look away. He's the one. Now he's blasting Cheney and Bush for talking about attacking Iran...none of the other candidates are saying a thing.(John Nichols at "the Nation.com") We need a Kucinich administration because he's the real deal not just talk.

[Milo_Bloom]

65. If he gets nominated, I will vote for him! (nt)

[Milo_Bloom]

42. What a shame Bill Maher can be so easily fooled. (nt)

[saracat]

46. Maher is the essense of "not being able to be fooled.He "knows about wherof he speaks."

Edwards can win the general.That is what he is saying. He is right!

[Milo_Bloom]

53. Edwards has no chance.

If Edwards, or one of the capitulators wins the nomination, it would bring Bloomberg into the race, which would be the end of the democratic candidate. If we are going to have a centrist or worse, someone like Edwards who has no real positions, in the white house, we might as well have an actual independent, so the democratic party can go back to being on the LEFT, instead of trying to be in the "middle".

[saracat]

70. Your sources are misinformed.

[David Zephyr]

43. And Bill Maher is not idiot, either.

Actually, Bill Maher holds high esteem with me on these matters. As funny as he can be, he is one of the most level-headed and best informed people on television in any format.

Maher'statement about John Edwards is not a light thing to sneeze at.

I don't know why he says this, but I have filed it in my "consider" folder.

[bjobotts]

61. No, he's a comedian not a political forecaster. It's humerous political commentary

But like all comedians...sometimes he's on and sometimes he's not. I like him most of the time. I love him like a brother...just not one of mine.

[MrSlayer]

47. Well yeah. It's kind of obvious.

Unless Wes Clark or Al Gore get in Edwards is the obvious choice of the "frontrunners" among Democrats. Edwards would win the general. The other two I don't believe could.

[mzmolly]

50. Very interesting Saracat.

Recommended. The SurveyUSA polls the other day were quite convincing. I want a winner, I've had enough.

:hi:

[Kurovski]

52. K&R. (nt)

[anitar1]

55. For whatever it is worth, all the people I know are for Edwards.

It is a surprise to me,as I thought some would choose Obama or Hil.I am speaking of age groups from 50 to 80's. Even a couple of repugs. As for me, I am not sure yet.It is still a long time before election, imo. edit for spelling.

[Lindsey]

62. Edwards is who the Repugs are most afraid of because he IS the most

electable. He's my #1 choice without question. We ARE being spoon fed (as another poster mentioned) Hillary/Obama and it's bullshit. I'm glad to see more and more folks like Maher, Hartman, and Rachel Maddow starting to get behind him.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

71. I wouldn't say "all the people" I know are, but MANY are

which surprises me.

People I thought were for Obama have contacted me and said they have been paying close attention and are now for Edwards. Interesting.

[calteacherguy]

58. Well, if the fortune-teller Maher said it then it must be true!

:eyes:

[snowbear]

60. He said it on Jay Leno too.

So.. Who are you supporting at this point Cal?

Edwards?

Obama?

Biden?

HRC?

Who else?

[calteacherguy]

63. Well, then I guess it must be written in stone.

And I dunno.

Probably Obama (I hope) or Clinton (if I conclude I just have to hold my nose and do it)

It basically depends on what Obama shows me the next few months. At least, that's where I'm at right now.

[deacon]

66. And he's 100% correct. Edwards is the one dems need to jump behind.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

67. If we pick Edwards - We have a shot at Iowa, MO, VA, Kentucky, WI

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1634140

[JCMach1]

68. I love Edwards and would support him in the primary if it were not for the IWR vote

I am leaning towards Kucinich at the moment, but would support Gore should he enter the race.

I think John will win the nomination...