Edwards might be a strong contender in '08

[WI_DEM]

This is hardly an endorsement on my part--but of all the candidates being discussed for '08 he is the one I think is really talking about true core Democratic issues affecting working people and people who live in poverty. I also feel that his rags to riches (while still being true to his working class roots) story would go a long way--he has a strong biography. He has a good family and is a effective speaker and debator.

Now as I said on another thread every potential candidate has weak points and these are Edwards:
1) he is part of a ticket which lost
2) he didn't help carry his homestate
3) he has a lack of experience especially on defense issues.

ok, how do we overcome these?
1) he was part of a ticket which got more votes (59 million plus) than any other Democrat--well above what even Bill Clinton got in '92 and '96 or Al Gore in '00.

2) he didn't carry his homestate. Part of that may be he was the VP candidate rather than the presidential nominee. His populist message, I think would make the south much more competitive in '08.

3) He has a lack of experience in national defense. Well so did Reagan, Carter and Bush in their first elections and they won. Kerry had great experience. I feel it is who you surround yourself with--and obviously Edwards will probably attempt to pick a running mate who might help him in this regard. Finally I'm beginning to feel that after 8 years of Bush that the electorate may want someone who is stressing domestic issues rather than than more foreign adventurism. These things run in cycles.

Another advantage which Edwards will have which other candidates likely to run will (Clinton, Kerry and Bayh come to mind) is that he will be able to run full-time since he is out of office. This was a huge advantage to Jimmy Carter after he left the governorship in January 1975. He also cannot be labeled as part of Washington as those other candidates can. Bayh and Kerry have had long careers in the Senate. Hillary will be in her second term in the senate and 8 years as First lady prior to that.

A long time yet to go. It will be interesting to see what the field will look like in the end.

[atommom]

1. One of the appealing things about Edwards is his positive attitude.

He also does a good job of framing poverty as a moral issue, and I think that may be the key to waking up the country. He makes the Republicans look doubly slimy, IMHO.

[Dr Ron]

2. Biggest question will be what he does the next few years

He is out of the limelight in a University position. My bet he will spend a lot of time campaigning for Democratic candidates in 2006, which will have considerable bearing upon his support withing the party. He'll also need to come up with ways to stay in the news. Kerry, Clinton, and Bayh all have an advantage over Edwards there.

As you said, there's a long time to go, and it is way too early to predict anything.

[Radical Activist]

3. Of course he is

Not being in office also helped Dean and Bradley when they ran for President. Even though they lost, it does make it much easier to run.

I also don't think you can rightly blame Edwards for losing NC. He wasn't at the top of the ticket, so I assume he didn't control decisions by the DNC and all the 523 groups to not compete in NC. I blame the Kerry campaign for not competing in the South. If Edwards had been the nominee it would have been another story. Edwards was also forced to change from his basic message after he was nominated for VP, which dampened his effectiveness.

You make another good point about Presidents elected without much foreign policy experience. We just finished running a real war hero with years of foreign policy experience in the Senate and it didn't work. We don't need to keep doing the same thing in '08 and we don't need a general to win.

[karynnj]

14. Bradley and Dean were in office much longer

Dean was a Gowernor for I think 12 years. Bradley was a Senator for 18 years.

[AP]

Nonetheless, I bet Edwards will have a Q rating that matches Dean &

Bradley the years they ran.

He'll be as popular as those two were when they ran (which he wasn't until he became the VP selection).

[AP]

45. Being out of office helped Lincoln too. He lost in 58 to Douglass,

spent the next two years travelling the country lecturing about the issue of the day (slavery, rather than opportunity, class and poverty) and won in '60 because (1) he was a friend of the RR industry (which was the outsider industry fighting the oligopoly for a crack at big money and which ensured he had cash to run) and (2) because he had been talking about an issue people thought was important.

on edit: thanks R.A.

[Radical Activist]

52. Good point

Not to be picky, but it was Stephen Douglass that beat Lincoln for the Senate in '58.

[autorank]

4. No way. Time is passing "the Johns" & "the Clinton's".

We're in such a mess, particularly due to the Iraq insanity, that the bottom line requirements in 2008 will be: (a) opposition to the Iraq War from the start; (b) opposition to the * tax cuts; and (c) a record as a fighter (not Hillary), and no signs of capitulation before * ("the Johns"). These are virus complex attacking our body politic.

When Buffet refers to America giving it's wealth away and becoming a "sharecropper" society in his ANNUAL REPORT things are over the top.

People like Dean, a fire brand, and Clark, a military man that stood tall and told the truth, will be our new candidates. Or maybe someone will emerge over the next year or two.

NEW LEADERSHIP FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

[karynnj]

16. Clark has never been elected to ofice

and I thought Dean's being DNC head precludes him from running.

[Clark2008]

23. And I still don't see how it matters that Clark has never been elected

to an office.
There are vast numbers of voters who like the fact that he's not a politician - particularly grassrooters who are devoted to change.

[autorank]

34. No kidding, but he ran NATO, had major diplomatic exper., and fought

a successfl war. And, BTW, he is an unappologetic "liberal"...said so on the TV. He's also untainted for not having done so. But wait, he ran for the Democratic presidential nomination. He'll do better next time and he deserves a look.

Dean can resign from DNC after he shapes it up and run.

Keep an open mind on new folks, k, ok.

[ArtVandaley]

18. I agree. New blood is needed

Feingold is my personal pick, but I'm also open to the idea of Warner, Richardson, Clark (if he's improved his campaign style) and a few others. No one who has been on a losing ticket already.

[autorank]

35. I'm open to all those folks except Richardson.

Feingold is of interest and, as a Democrat, I'll check him out. Warner is my gov and he rocks. He's had to be a bit more conservative than he really is but VA was just named "the best run state" in the US. That's what Warner promised.

My problem with Richardson is that he thwarded the recount in NM by placing a $1.5 million recount fee on it. That was soooooo pathetic. I also have problems with him as an "in crowd" Democrat, FOB.

It will be great having new leadership. Actualy, it IS great. I love Dean and Reid and Pelosi will have her moment soon.

[ArtVandaley]

42. Yeah, I think the new leadership is looking good too

I thought all along that Dean would make a great party chairman, and I think he is. I've also really come around on Reid, he's a tough guy and will get the job done.

[autorank]

107. Agreed!!!! Unity!!!!!

[gordianot]

5. Whoever the candidate is needs to be a good janitor.

They will need to clean up the mess. Edwards should qualify, if I remember correctly he pushed a broom in his youth.

[goodhue]

6. good points

I certainly think he would be stronger than either Kerry or Clark.
Positivity and economic populism are essential ingredients.

[high density]

7. Yeah, because a guy with no foreign policy experience

is just what we need in today's climate of fear.

[WI_DEM]

8. again it didn't save Kerry

from being torn apart.

[ZootSuitGringo]

13. So why would anyone with even less national security experience

be an advantage when that issue is basically why Dems lost in '04?

The problem is that Kerry's national security experience wasn't enough to beat an incumbent President during wartime. Apart from his 30+ year ago Vietnam experience, little was said about Kerry's actual relevant current or not so distant work on the front of national security or foreign relations.

At least Kerry could have highlighted this experience...although he chose not to. Edwards doesn't even have any experience to bring up at all. How is that an advantage to the Dems in 2008?

[WI_DEM]

19. this is really a overblown issue

military experience in "war time"--a manufactured war. What will count is what the candidate says about the issues and if he projects strength. Kerry, a war hero, was ineffectual in responding until it was too late on attacks. I think Democrats have learned from that. The idea that we have to only nominate a war hero or someone with tons of military experience and then win is overblown. Besides, in 2008 we will not have an incumbent president or vice president (Cheney) seeking the GOP nomination. There will be more parity on the issue of national defense.

[ZootSuitGringo]

57. "If he projects strength"?

You mean Edwards? I don't believe that there is the perception of Edwards, in where strength in keeping our nation safe is used as an adjective when describing Edwards.

Also Military experience is not National Security experience. I don't know how fighting in Vietnam for several months 30+ years ago becomes relevant National Security experience. Are we confusing our terms?

Stating that national security is "an overblown" issue is more a wish than reality. It may be overblown, but that doesn't change the reality that it was and is a priority issue in the mind of voters.

[XemaSab]

63. To defend Kerry

(for once), he has been on the senate foreign relations committee for many years.

Not that he actually brought this up during his campaign. Or many other relevant experiences that may have actually made him appear competent to govern the nation, God forbid. No, it was all about "I have a plan," and "I voted for it before I voted against it." Heaven forfend he should say anything substantive.

[ZootSuitGringo]

79. That was precicely my point.

Kerry didn't tout his national security experience nor his foreign policy experience during the election. It was all Vietnam, Vietnam, Vietnam. He acted as though we already knew that he was more than fit for the job. He underestimated that he needed to sell himself on this very important issue to the American people. So he lost, not because he didn't have the experience, but because many voters didn't know what experience he had in that arena.

Problem with Edwards is that he couldn't tout the experience if given the choice, because he doesn't really have much of any. Therefore, the error that Kerry made, Edwards could not "correct" because he simply doesn't have the credentials. He would have to almost avoid the issue altogether. If we are forced to avoid the very issue that is the GOP's greatest strength and which voters gave great weight to when deciding who to vote for last election, how can we compete? By changing the subject? That's is a very risky strategy that most likely will not work.

Why set ourselves up to be handicapped in this way? My preference for any one candidate cannot make me forsake the real goal, which is winning a general election. If the candidate lacks the credentials that we need in order to compete, what's the use of considering him?

I refuse to be backed up in a corner without a plan B.

[XemaSab]

91. Candidates and experience

>If we are forced to avoid the very issue that is the GOP's greatest
>strength and which voters gave great weight to when deciding who to
>vote for last election, how can we compete? By changing the subject?

That's what the republicans do, and it works every time.

Witness the shrub in the last debate... when asked a tough question, he would just change the subject and answer a different question.

Hard to compete on THAT playing field.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

97. You make a very persuasive arguement to renominate Kerry

and I am not displeased.

I cannot deny that national security has been having an increasingly lopsided affect on the political climate since Carter (Iran) and Reagan.

[karynnj]

22. He did blow Bush away in the first debate

on this topic. Kerry's encyclopedic knowledge on the topics asked was impressive and actually moved the polls. In his NYU and Philadelphia speeches, which were major policy speeches, he did talk about Iraq and Terror respectively. He did mention his BCCI work (without the name) at the terror speech.

The TV networks did not give him as much coverage as candidates in the past. This may not have been political bias just a read that Americans wanted to hear more about Scott Peterson that the man challenging Bush. The TV network broadcast channels are given the airways for free and should be compelled to provide the candidates more access for the public good. In addition,the fairness doctrine should never have been dumped.

[goodhue]

24. I honestly don't think foreign policy experience is terribly relevant

to getting elected president. See, e.g., Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush II. IMHO "climate of fear" is overblown concept that plays into Republican framing. In any event, the best way to counter fear is with hope, which takes us back to positivity and economic populism.

[janx]

29. Very Good Point.

Watching Dems walk into the climate of fear and react to it (watching them being spoon fed by the media and the far right) was horrifying. The result was inevitable.

I hope it never happens again.

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. It should be noted

That Carter was elected in the wake of the Watergate Scandal and Nixon's and Agnew's resignations. 1976 was a very bad year to be a Republican. Then Carter lost. Clinton won after the fall of our only then perceived National Security threat, Communism, and before the rise of the currently perceived National Security threat, Terrorism.

Republicans have always benefited from the issue of Security on the National level even when people were electing Democrats at the State and Local levels. I think foreign policy experience is relevant, it isn't the whole enchilada, but it is definitely relevant.

[AP]

47. Demanding "foreign policy experience" while sacrificing core democratic

principles plays into that climate of fear.

I'd rather see Democrats say that believing in core progressive values is the most important thing and that we believe that good foreign policy flows down from elevating progressive values.

In other words, Democrats should show a little courage: we believe that we're right about our values, no? Then why don't we act like the most important thing for our nominee is that he or she embodies those core progressive values better than anyone else?

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. I would never support a candidate who sacrificed core Democratic

principles. Although Joe Lieberman has a few good points, he will never get my vote for President. Core Democratic principles are an acid test. Other than Joe, who at best was brushing that bar, the rest of the 2004 field cleared that hurdle. I am very comfortable with my choice in that regard as should you be.

[AP]

59. I have a hard time seeing how someone who doesn't elevate them to the

central element of his or her campaign can win.

And don't forget the coattail effect too -- how are candidates like Stabenow and Minner and Granholm and the rest supposed to win when the person at the top of the ticket is saying that they don't have the background necessary to keep America safe (when nothing can be farther from the truth).

I'm not saying that national security is not important, but when you frame national security as having to make sure we have a big, happy, financially secure, middle class and an economy which delivers wealth to them, you create a bandwagon all kinds of Democrats can jump on. When you end up winning and getting a majority in Congress, you can then spend 90% of your time on foreign relations and national security, but I'm worried that Democrats won't reach those positions of power if they don't make sure voters understand what their primary, core values are and what their priorities are.

So, I'm not talking about simply jettisoning those principles as being a problem. I'm talking about the problem of saying the core progressive values are secondary in importance to things like fear and danger and what happens on the other side of the globe.

[XemaSab]

65. Dean's frame on

national security was that our current reliance on foreign oil is making us less secure, and that we need an energy policy and an environmental policy that harmonize with our national security policy.

That's probably the number one thing that got me on the Dean wagon.

[AP]

71. What I'm talkiing about is more like FDR who convinced Americans even

during WW2 that the most important thing was a good job and wealth accumulating in the hands of people who worked for a living. FDR also made it clear that the people America was fighting were people who didn't believe in those things.

For his first 2 elections, FDR said that he was fighting for the working man against economic royalists. For his next two elections he said he was fighting for the working man against fascist imperialists. It's basically the same message. It's the same progressive framework and values system that he operates within.

I don't think people "feel" something like "we need a sane energy policy in order to be secure." However, they do feel "if you are not healthy and if you don't have opportunity, and if the American economy no longer delivers wealth to the people who work to create it, then America is not going to be safer in the world." FDR, Truman, Kennedy and even Clinton made people feel that message.

[XemaSab]

92. The tricky part is

that in the great depression, people knew they weren't doing well. There's definitely a segment of people who aren't well off and know it, but I'm not sure that a lot of people are aware of the shifts that have taken place in wealth distribution in the last 20 years. I'm not sure Joe Sixpack always understands that he is the working poor. Also, if you read "what't the matter with Kansas?", the thesis is that social issues such as abortion have been used very successfully by the republicans to distract from economic issues.

[AP]

93. I think Dems will have way more success talking to voters about what

they see is going on in their lives when they open their bills at the kitchen table than talking to them about what's going on on the other side of the globe.

The trick for Democrats is, I believe, having someone like Edwards rather than the NE patrician trying to talk to them about these things.

[XemaSab]

94. I agree with that

One of the real problems is that we failed to tag Bush as a northeast patrician, because Kerry was also a northeast patrician.

[ZootSuitGringo]

62. I disagree in this post 9/11 world

Naming candidates who ran and won prior to 9/11 is missing the point totally.

We lost on this issue of National Security according to the majority of analysis in the 2004 election. That is a fact.

9/11 happened. That is also a fact.

Calling this issue "overblown" makes it convenient when touting Edwards' experience, but denies the facts on the ground.

Economic issues were the Kerry/Edwards central platform until right before the debates, when National Security belately became the focus. The ticket's numbers were sinking with the economic message as the centerpiece. The poll numbers started to increase when the centerpiece message was changed to put war and peace at the forefront.

Republicans and their media will continue to be the ones to "frame" the public debate. Why? Because they have the power of the WH (including homeland security, and foreign events), the congress and the media. They shape current events, and they decide what will be discussed. Democrats don't have the juice to call the plays, and instead can only hope to reframe a message put out by the Repugs. To think that Democrats can actually determine what the election issues will be is naive. The Repugs will continue to use their signature strength, whether Democrats like it or not. Why should Repugs move away from National Security as an issue when they are perceived as strong on that issue more than any others? They would be fools to allow this to happen.

So we can ignore the fact that post 9/11 national security is a BIG issue, but voters may not be "game" to interpret the facts in the way just because that's what Democrats would prefer.

[AP]

68. Post-WWI, post-WWII, post-Vietnam, post-Gulf War I, post-9/11...

...I just don't see how Democrats can win unless they tell people that good foreign policy flows down from the progressive values we consider our first priority.

I really disagree with your analysis in the first paragraph.

I think that Hope vs Fear was the best message for Demcorats, yet, Kerry never was a great vehicle for delivering that message. He wanted to straddle the twin issues: a good soldier (embodied by Vietnam service) and liberal values -- and his liberal values weren't framed in terms of economic opportunity (because of his own biography and the wealth of his wife) but in terms of traditional indentity politics liberalism (pro-environment/anti-ANWAR drilling, pro-feminism, anti-vietnam war, etc.).

The campaign never fully embraced the sort of jobs/opportunity/poverty/populism that was found in Edwards in its most distilled form, and it never fully abandoned it either. There wasn't a moment pre- or post-debate when they made a shift.

Their problem was, as I said, not being a great embodiment of the message that would have won, which made it easier for the Republicans to win on fear in the last 10 days (whith the missing explosives/OBL stories).

Had Kerry been able to build up a different set of prioriies (ie, one that left people asking, "should it be the middle class that sacrifices everything for terror and fear?"), he would have provided a better innoculation against the fear virus in the last 10 days.

This is what Clinton knew either intuitively or explicitly when his campaign said that no matter what question they ask you (foreign policy, national security, crime) the answer is that it's the economy. (And, by the way, that's the damn truth too!!!)

As for the media framing everything: it didn't work in 2000 and it barely worked in 2004 despite near total information control. I'm totally not ready to ceded the playing field to Republicans on whose values we run on just because the Democrats ran a couple of mediocre campaigns.

We run a candidate like Edwards on a message of hope, work, opportunity, jobs, and class, the media could do whatever it wanted and demcorats are going to win.

[ZootSuitGringo]

78. Since you haven't heard the media say over and over again

that "things have changed" since 9/11, I consider you clueless.

First one must access the climate of things. Since the premise that 9/11 did change the political landscape is an inescapable reality and was the climate in which voters voted in, we must face the challenges that 9/11 present to our party. We must meet this challenge head on and work from there.

Since you don't even agree that 9/11 changed the priority of voters, we can't really go any further.

Your reality is not the general concensus, it is merely a wish that helps out Edwards, who lacks the credentials to meet the challenges of 9/11 head on.

Since 9/11, we have had a real restructuring of many of our governmental departments, Defense spending has increase astronomically, and since the Iraq War, our credibility in the world has been underminded. These issues are major, and yet you want to think that it's business as usual. How can that be? Voters didn't think so, so how can you?

[AP]

83. I think you're wrong.

The tug of war between fear and hope, and between trying to get voters to see the world through a lens that benefits one party over the other has been going on since 1898. (And the media didn't suddenly start doing the bidding of Wall St on Sep 12, 2001.)

Sep 11, 2001 might have pulled voters towards fear, but that doesn't mean that Democrats will never again win using the strategies and the focus that has always worked for them. There is a way to beat fascism and it's not by conceding that fear is the operating principle and the lens for addressing US politics.

And, to be clear, I'm not saying that the things you note in your last paragraph are unimportant. I'm just saying that talking about those things as if they were the only important issues is a way to guarantee that the Republicans win. You can talk about those same things by placing them underneat an umbrella issue that is much more compelling, and you have 62 years of history telling you what that umbrella issue is.

One must not accept the climate of fear. To win, the first thing you have to do is change that climate of fear.

[BrainRants]

9. The "Two Americas" will be even more evident by then...

The Repubes will have (already have?) a STRONG track record of dividing the country into the financial haves and have-nots.

I think he has a good shot, as would anyone willing to engage the class warfare rhetoric head-on. It's a winning strategy.

[DemocracyInaction]

10. Instinct tells me it can't be anyone from "the past"--meaning

..no one from the last primary campaign, no one from the last presidential campaign and no one who used to sleep in the White House. We need someone new but of a somewhat familiar face (like if they put you or me up the whole country would be saying "WHO"
??) AND the important thing is that the person has to come forth, literally, in the next half year and take this party and the national spotlight by the balls. The whores are preaching the Clinton is everything but confirmed for the nomination which, of course, means a thunderous defeat in the election. So, this notion has to be scrubbed out of minds RIGHT NOW or no one will have a chance. Unfortunately, our people will march in lockstep with the press and nominate her and then the country will march in lockstep and hand the Dems the biggest loss ever. We need someone new and we need them NOW!!!

[AP]

48. Which works for Edwards. He's not the past.

Certainly, Kerry picking the best new face as his VP can't be somethign that turns that new face into an old face.

And why reinvent the wheel?

It would cost 50 million dollars to build up a new face to the level of awareness Edwards has, and there's nothing wrong with Edwards.

[ChiciB1]

11. Another Advantage He Has Is His Wife...

Elizabeth!! She's intelligent, nurturing, truthful and has great FAMILY VALUES!!

As do BOTH of them. I would vote for him in a heartbeat!!

And just so I make myself "perfectly clear", I'm one of those people who still happen to think there was REAL Election Fraud. From what I observed on Election Night down here in Florida, I will go to my dying day thinking this is a TRUE FACT!! They DID NOT lose the election, it was STOLEN.

All anyone has to do is check out Jeb's Cuban connections.

A very good book to read was written by Kevin Phillips, once a Repuke strategist, called "American Dynasty", Aristocracy. Fortune. And The Politics of Deceit In The House Of Bush! It's a real eye-opener!! Check out their connections with their Sugar Companies during the Cuban Missile Crisis. More & more, I've begun to believe that GHW Bushwacked is really "Deep Throat!" This book is chock full of all their shenanigans from way way back, with the Walker's up to the recent shenanigans and their connections to the Saudis!! A very insightful book. And Jeb is no newcomer to the Cuban way of life!!!!

[WI_DEM]

12. I agree 100% on this

Elizabeth is wonderful and a great asset. The "Family values" issues would not be effective against Edwards, imo.

[ArtVandaley]

15. Style over substance

He can craft a simple message that is easy for all to relate to (like Clinton), but he doesn't have the grasp of the issues that Clinton had. Edwards performed much worse in his debate against Cheney than Kerry did in any of his debates.
I saw Edwards speak, on a college campus where 90% of the audience were college students, and he acted like he was talking to senior citizens and middle aged parents the entire time, as if he wasn't even looking at his audience. He kept talking about how "all you senior citizens are having trouble with prescription drugs" or how it's tough for "you parents to send kids to school" and other such things. All true, yes. But he didn't seem to even notice who he was talking to. That turned me off quite a bit.

[JI7]

21. in the Primary Edwards did well among older people

interestingly Kerry did very well among younger voters and not so well among older voters in the Primary and General Election.

i remember reading about one older voter who said Edwards reminded them of their son who makes them proud. i read similar things from other older voters.

[AmericanDream]

84. He has enough substance to go with his style

So, just because he did not talk at the level of college students, means that he is weak on policy details? As for the comparison of edwards performing worse than Kerry.. c'mon... cheney has far more gravitas than bush can ever imagine ... Edwards and any other candidate would've crushed bush's "hyper" debate peformances just like kerry did! Cheney is a life-long politician and Edwards held his own against him... I thought the debate was actually quite redundant and basically a tie... but I was satisfied with edwards performance. And, lets keep in mind that most americans are not political junkies... and to all those independent regular folks who were polled, edwards seemed like the winner... becaue he knows how to frame the issues in an understandable yet impressive manner. He is an effective communicator and that can't be taken away from him. However, his speech as DNC was a disappointed... later, I heard him say that he wasn't prepared. Btw... I have numerous recorded events of him at college campuses, and he sounded just fine to me, exciting a lot of young voters. I think that one event is no means of judging a candidate. Nevertheless, the line up for '08 is gonna be long.

[independentchristian]

17. He didn't carry his home state?

No, Kerry didn't carry North Carolina.

Edwards got elected to the Senate, because he won North Carolina, duh.

He couldn't win North Carolina "with" Kerry at the top of the ticket, and that is a completely different situation.

[WI_DEM]

20. see what I wrote

I don't think we disagree.

[spooky3]

36. I think the other point is that Kerry had Edwards spend his time

in the midwest rather than NC. Edwards may well have made the difference in some of those states, so it may have been a good strategy.

But the past election was not a very good test of how well Edwards could or could not do, either atop the ticket, or in appealing to southern voters.

[LittleClarkie]

109. Actually it sounds like they worked together quite alot

They planned and agreed where Edwards would be the most effective. Edwards thought he'd be good in the rural areas, so that's where he was. The media pretended he'd dropped down a manhole, asking, "Where's Edwards" instead of going and showing him in these rural areas, which would have been just too good a picture, campaign wise.

I like that aspect of the campaign, that Kerry and Edwards sounded like they were a team, making decisions together.

I like them both. And I hear they still keep in touch.

By the way, as far as appealing to Southern voters, I know he headed for WV at one point.

And it has been said he wasn't all that popular in his own state, and was likely to lose his seat. If I have one criticism of Edwards, it's that he' seems to be on a fast track, without the patience to build up a resume. I don't think he spent enough time in SC when he was their Senator.

For some reason, I picture Kerry as Yoda, and Edwards a Luke Skywalker. "Teach you I will, yes!"

But then, it's late, and I'm a goof.

[spooky3]

111. Who made the decision is irrelevant.

The point is that the OP is raising the question of how Edwards would do in North Carolina, and the fact is that Edwards spent very little time in NC during the campaign. WV is not NC; going one time doesn't do it; and WV is no more "southern" geographically than is Maryland. So the campaign provided no real test of whether Edwards would carry the state if (a) he spent more time there and (b) he were atop the ticket.

[LittleClarkie]

114. Alrighty. Just objecting to a bit of your phrasology

in saying that "Kerry sent Edwards."

[independentchristian]

89. I get you.

I was talking about that line in general, because I get sick of hearing Edwards' detractors saying it.

If he "couldn't even carry his own state" as they say, then how in the heck did he become a Senator?

If anything, they should be able to realize that he did carry his state, the one time that he was at the top of a ticket. If anything, Kerry was too big of a weight for him in NC, not the other way around.

And that's not a knock on Kerry, it's a fact.

[GOPBasher]

25. He's very charismatic, with a postive message. I think

that resonates well with swing voters. And he definitely has the populism to hold on the base.

[liberalpragmatist]

26. I really like Edwards

And Kerry. And Clark. Honestly, I don't know who I'll support in '08 - I'll decide in '07. I might even go for Hillary - I'm willing to hear what she has to say.

Anyway, I think Kerry would be a great president, so I'd definitely consider him again. I also really like Edwards. Maybe an Edwards presidency with Kerry as secretary of state?

I just hope things don't get too nasty between the two of them during the primary campaign. They apparently grew quite close during the campaign and still talk quite frequently unlike Gore and Lieberman, who quickly stopped talking to each other.

[WI_DEM]

27. it would be interesting to say the least

but it is not unprecedented. In '72 Hubert Humphrey and Ed Muskie both sought the nomination and they were the democratic ticket in 1968. Of course George McGovern was nominated that year.

[Cuban_Liberal]

28. I hope he will be, but I'm not sure.

I liked him (and a few others) and supported him, but 2008 is so far away that it's just hard to tell.

:shrug:

[Tactical Progressive]

30. Gore/Clark 2008

Domestic and foreign policy/military experience.

Both great talkers.

Gore already won, so I don't think he's seen as a loser. Honest people know he won against the Lying Cheatermen. Others know he only lost by either 1 vote or 500 votes.

Clark is smart and tough. The only thing he lacks is experience, which isn't much of a factor as VP. There will still be foreign policy/military problems in three years, and he's a huge asset there.

As to Edwards, I don't think so. He never seemed to have enough gravitas, and ultimately, he didn't perform as you say. I like the guy, but not as the Presidential candidate. VP maybe, but I really think Clark has it hands down over him, both in experience and overall presentation.

[WI_DEM]

31. I love Gore

I wish he had run in '04.

[XemaSab]

67. I think Clark

has the experience Gore lacks, and Gore has the experience Clark lacks. They're both from Southern states, but not *too* far south. Clark connects very well with both common people and the intelligentsia. Gore has really come into his own as a speaker in the last few years. He was very restrained before, during, and immediately after the elections, but the more I hear him speak now, the more I wish he had been our president. They're both very honest people, and they both say things that make a lot of sense and don't sound like campaign rhetoric.

I think Gore/Clark '08 would make a fine ticket. :-)

[Pastiche423]

32. No more DLC type candidates!

[AP]

Again, that would be Edwards. DLC didn't like him because of his

votes on free trade. Dan Schorr talked about this on NPR in 2003 or early 2004.

[cidliz2004]

87. Gimme a break, the DLC loved Edwards

[AP]

88. Then why did Dan Schorr say they didn't like him on All Things Considered?

I trust Dan Schorr and logic more than I trust your opinon.

[cidliz2004]

100. Watch the media

Edwards was being hailed from Iowa and it never stopped. All anybody heard about was Kerry, Edwards, Kerry, Edwards, All other candidates were shut out. The DLC ordained BOTH Kerry and Edwards, that is why there was a blackout on coverage of all of the other candidates.

When Dean got torpedoed with his fabricated scream, where was the DLC....Pulling the strings.

I don't care who says what, watch the events, the LACK of opposition and the silence from the powers that be and you will find the true intentions.

[AP]

101. Where do you think I heard Dan Schorr say this? From across the table

at Luna's? I heard it on NPR (from their one honest journalis!).

As for Edwards, if the media loved him so much, why were his poll numbers uniformly low throughout the primaries until the last three days when people were hearing more about him that wasn't mediated by the national press?

If giving people the facts about Edwards put him at the top of people's list (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/march04-poll.html) why was the media forcing him to the bottom, making him fight for his doubling and trippling numbers in the last three days of every primary? If they wanted him to win, obviously it would have been easy for them to turn the candidate informed voters liked most into the nominee. All they would have had to have done was inform voters!

Answer: Mediatenor.org showed that Edwards got relatively little coverage, and when he did it was positive "personality" coverage and not "issue" coverage, and it's the ISSUE coverage which gets people to vote for a candidate. It wasn't until the last three days of each primary when people figured out from Edwards and his commercials and the less whorish local media where he stood on the issues that people started liking him.

[AmericanDream]

104. Dean was the media fav.

My word.. are you kidding me? Dean was the media's darling... he got a lot of fun press but he got a lot of serious press too before that. Before the screan, the media had all but coronated dean. However, it was the iowa caucus that turned things around... from there, the focus was majorly on kerry and finally, the media started paying attention to edwards. Edwards was largely ignored in the initial run until he came such a close second in Iowa. So, I think you've got your observations wrong... I followed the campaign very closely, from start to finish... and Dean was by far the media guy until he blew up and the media backfired on him! Dean was the hillary clinton of '04. Now, the media is gonna fight tooth and nail to keep clinton's name in the circulation and tout her candidacy... until she gets over the top or loses the steam.

[saltpoint]

33. I'm still wondering how John Edwards made it --

-- out of Iowa last winter -- the people he talked with there loved him to death and it was quite clear they planned to adopt him and never let him leave.

On sheer fumes of good will and that "Two Americas" message, he almost won the Iowa caucuses.

I agree with you, WI_Dem. He'll be a strong contender.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[WI_DEM]

39. but how do we know Clark could win his homestate?

he has never sought elective office from Arkansas. Edwards at least did win the Senate in NC defeating an incumbent Republican.

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. Obviously we can't know, but Edwards had sought office

and was elected Senator of NC, and Kerry/Edwards still lost the State. I remember during the primaries there was talk that Edwards would have faced a tough race getting reelected from North Carolina for Senator had he tried. Partially that's because NC is a fairly Red State (though it does elect Democrats for Governor). But it might also be because people tire of incumbents sometimes when they can't live up to the expectations or fantasies that voters have.

This is what we can say with certainty. Kerry with John Edwards on the ticket lost NC 56% to 44%. Kerry, without Wes Clark on the ticket, lost Arkansas 54% to 45%.

[WI_DEM]

41. Arkansas is also, I think more democratic statistically in

presidential elections. Gore came close, Clinton won the state twice. Heck even McGovern did better in Ark than he did in most other Southern states. But I don't want this to become a Edwards vs. Clark thread. I think both men potentially could do well.

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. That may well be true

And it may not have been realistic to expect, if anyone did, that Edwards would help carry NC (though I know many of his supporters here made that case for Edwdards being on the ticket).

At this point no one would believe that putting a Democrat from Idaho on our National ticket would help us win Idaho either. The fact that Arkansas is an easier State to possibly swing blue gives circumstantial credence to the idea that having a VP from Arkansas running with Kerry might have done the trick there which is what this speculative line of thought is about after all.

By the way I agree with your opening premise. Edwards may well be a strong contender and you did name his major liabilities.

[safi0]

46. Edwards/Feingold

That's a ticket that would do very well in the Midwest, I don't know how well they'd do in the South, but I think this ticket could sweep the industrial Midwest. As I'm sure almost all of you know Industrial Midwest+West Coast+East Coast=White House.

It'll be interesting to see how Edwards tries to stay in the public eye for the next 4 years, if he can do an effective job of that I think he could be successful in the primaries

[WI_DEM]

64. hmm, yes I like it

of course I would hate losing Russ but we hopefully would have a democratic governor to appoint a successor.

[safi0]

85. Unless Tommy Thompson runs

Which right now looks unlikely as he seems to be eyeing Kohl's seat more than Doyle's, I dont think any other Republican could beat Doyle so I don't think we have any problem in that area.

[AmericanDream]

86. He does have appeal in the south & midwest

North carolinians are pretty conservative when it comes to their family values and lifestyles. They just didn't connect with Kerry, like a lot of others in rural areas and small towns. The democrats, however, increased their showings in the rural counties in south by 10 points. Now, was that because of kerry? I doubt it, because edwards was the one campaigning in all those rural areas in the midwest and other swing states... the kerry campaign never considered NC as a swing state, they gave up on it too soon. Nevertheless, small town folks are not going to vote for a candidate like kerry simply because they can't connect with the elite intellectuals (kerry's smart.. but he lacks the people skills)... and they know very well that kerry was going to be president if they voted for the ticket, and not edwards. So, it's a little bit of stretch to be blaming edwards for the loss which is actually kerry's. I've heard so many repubican friends of mine come up to me and say that they would've voted for edwards in a heatbeat because they are "comfortable" with him... but not unless he was at the top of the ticket.

[AmericanDream]

105. They didn't even campaign in NC

I would like to point out that Arkansas is a lot more of a swing state than North Carolina is. NC has been a solid red state since Carter, who ran about 28 yrs ago. Arkansas went for clinton and is a little more independent. But the main reason for NC loss is that to turn such a red state blue, you have to have a really appealing candidate that would force those voters to look beyond issues like abortion and gay marriage (on which they are very conservative). But kerry was not the candidate to do that because they didn't relate to that. When you are not comfortable at all with the guy on the top... and by comfortable, I mean that they did not trust him to represent their principles or lifestyle. A good chunk of american voters look at the candidate's personality, background, and lifestyle as an indication of whether that's the kind of leader they want their kids to follow... and those are the kinds of voters kerry lost badly among due to his lack of attractive personality (I don't mean to say he doesn't have an outstanding personality... but just that it didn't come through in his campaign as effectively as it should have!). There are three kinds of voters: about 20% of american voters vote based on real policy issues, approx. the same amount vote based on idealogical reasons and party affiliation, and lastly... about 30% percent vote based on sheer human characteristics of the candidate. I remember talking to a very respectable public school biology teacher who was voting for bush... I asked her if she knew he's against a broad research of stem cells... she said "no" and then added that he's gonna be in office for only 4 years and that the research can resume after that. I asked her why she was voting for him and she replied, " I am not very political, but I just like him and his demeanor." So, go figure! My point being that personality matters and I do think edwards scores a lot of points in that arena. The regular republicans, who are not as politically savvy as us, loved edwards as a person and some even told me that they would've voted for him if they didn't feel so "awkward" with kerry being the President. Hence, as we look forward to '08... let's keep all parts of a good candidate in mind. As for foreign policy, as mentioned by some others, I really don't think that's his weakest point... I've seen him speak about it in town hall meetings and interviews and he is tough and sensible about it at the same time. I think the real problem for edwards has been that he was never given enough national footage to actually make a national impression. During the primaries, dean was the frontrunner and then kerry jumped the fence to beat him... and edwards was lost in that turn of events. And as a VP candidate, he was hardly ever seen on TV because he doesn't talk rubbish and shoot unnecessary zingers, which the media loves... now if he was the nominee, he would have made a very different impression with the press giving him much more air time on national TV... and I think that is something we should keep in mind while judging his performance. Anyway, why do we have so many edwards threads?

[Bridget Burke]

53. What experience did Bush the Younger have?

We've all seen his foreign policy victories.

His domestic policies were no surprise to many Texans.

[WI_DEM]

70. exactly

Bush Jr. was a weak governor (in a state where the governor is constitutionally weak) with no fp experience. Frankly, Edwards' six years in the senate are more experience than Bush could claim in international affairs.

[AP]

74. If people feel they know your essential character, that is worth a mile...

...of bullet points on your resume.

Bush had no resume. But he had a ton of people thinking they knew what he beleived in (and, even that wasn't worth 50% of the vote in 2000, although it gave him the nod in 2004).

Not that there's anything wrong with his resume, but Edwards's advantage is that he's best able to communicate his character to voters. (And, in fact, the things he has achieved in politics and professionally are probably indicative of that ability to communicate.)

[AP]

44. RE #2, although Kerry and Gore did same in NC, Gore did better nationally

and was a southerner.

I think one reason that Kerry did as well as he did in NC was because Edwards was on the ticket. In other words, Edwards does have some pull in NC.

If you put him on top of the ticket, run a campaign that competes in NC with a message to which NC'ians respond, and he's going to do pretty well there.

Furthermore, his wife noted in an interview with Charlier Rose that the Democrats won at least one place in NC where they hadn't won in years. Guess where it was? It was a mill town which had suffered tremendous job losses recently. Who do you think they were voting for?

[WI_DEM]

49. that's a good point.

[AP]

51. Just to fill that argument out:

Gore won the popular vote and Kerry lost the popular vote by 3 million. Kerry lost those three million in states like NC, but not in NC. He did as well as Gore in NC.

You have to assume that Edwards was the difference in NC. They didn't campaign very much outside the swing states, but NC'ians certainly knew something about the ticket and NC'ians were willing to forgive the Democrats for having a NE'ern liberal not really talking their language because they liked the guy in the second slot.

And you also have to assume that the things that NC'ians like about Edwards would be appealing to others in the SE once they hear more about him.

[Igotsunshine]

50. Clinton/Edwards

Seriously, I get goosebumps. What a dream team. They have the best shot, in my opinion, to open up the south. Both have visible spiritual lives and would strengthen our military and standing in the world. It would be the begining of at least 16 years of a democratic white house.

[stray cat]

54. Edwards is a true populist - I really like that!

[DU_ONE]

56. No way

He's too stiff . . .can't think or act out of the control box . . .

[AP]

60. Others might say he's disciplined and knows exactly whate works.

Or, he cares enough about what's at stake to figure out the best way to win.

I think one thing can't be denied: this guy came out of nowhere and was obvioulsy doing something that really worked, and it was almost definitely on the retail level (whatever people tell you about national media, it was only worth 4-10% in the polls, and in the last three days of every primary, when retail politics pays its dividends, Edwards often trippled his poll numbers).

[Placebo]

58. Sorry but I have to say it: Edwards was HORRIBLE in the VP debate!

There were countless times when he could have put Cheney down or exposed his lies, but didn't do it. There were some whoppers told during that hour and a half, and Edwards let some the biggest ones slide by. His convention speech wasn't great either. Watching him say "We will destroy you", just came off as uneasy, our of character, and almost slightly comical.

Now add to that his meager record of public service and polarizing profession, how does this make him a strong contender in 2008? He couldn't even make it through the primaries last time around! His beautiful family, uncanny youthful looks, and southern style will only take him so far.

[AP]

61. I disagree with you on your interpretation of the facts, and I really...

... disagree with your measure for whether Edwards would be a good candidate for Prez in his own right.

I'm going to judge Edwards's effectiveness as a presidential candidate based on his ability to advocate his own positions and policies (ie, on his primary performance) rather than on his ability to advocate on behalf of Kerry and Kerry's positions and policies. I though his primary campaign was absolutely remarkable.

Given that "we will destroy you," was not a part of his own primary campaign, I'm not going to hold it against him because it turned up when he started advocating for Kerry.

And I also think he did great in the VP debate -- the debates all the way around were great for Kerry and Edwards -- Sep/Oct was when the finally went over Bush/Cheney in the polls despite the Swift Boat crap, and it wasn't until the last two weeks when the media really stepped up the fear that they slipped back.

[Awsi Dooger]

108. You watched a different debate than I did

Perhaps the Lieberman replay.

Admittedly, I was worried going into that VP debate. Edwards drew 10 fold the tougher debate opponent than Kerry did, and as AP mentioned Edwards in many respects had to argue Kerry's positions more than his own. Also, I've always viewed Edwards as a much better stump and off-the-cuff speaker than formal debater.

I thought Edwards was terrific. Just look at the body language, Cheney sat pissed off in his seat at debate's end, while an energetic Edwards sprung to his feet. It wasn't unlike a boxing match when the combatants know who won, and show it, long before they go to the cards.

There wasn't a single reputable poll that gave either guy a significant advantage. And in a way, your estimation boosts the contention of those of us who preferred Edwards over Kerry, partially due to likeability and therefore Teflon. If Edwards was terrible in the debate, and there were others on DU who thought so, then why did he fare so well in the polls on who won the debate? Hmmmm, could that have translated to similar at the voting box if Edwards had been the nominee, an amazing benefit of a doubt? Let's say Kerry was terrible in one of the debates. You know damn well the opinion polls on who won the debate would have indicated that, and then some.

[BigBearJohn]

66. When I listen to Edwards, I don't feel any BS coming from him.

May I be so brave as to say, I trust him?
I just worry that he might not have the political capital to win.
I hope I am wrong. I really like the guy. Plus, he is against
outsourcing -- and so am I.

[AP]

72. And here's a good speech to listen to...

... for those who still need convincing:

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/03/03-12edwards-audio.html

[tjdee]

69. I think he is fantastic, that's not a secret.

Dems were unwise not to go with him last time.

[WI_DEM]

73. I've often wondered

what a Edwards/Dean ticket would have been like.

[mtnester]

75. If we are still at war (and we will be)

Then Wes Clark has to be on the ticket.

Regardless of who the Presidential Candidate is, OR the VP is, Wes Clark needs to be there. Not having him on this past ticket was a big mistake.

It seems the last two elections have had the serious error of picking the wrong VP candidate. I shudder thinking about Lieberman.

Forget pandering to the "Republican lite," if we are at war, nothing better than an ex-general on the ticket.

And there are a LOT of us who will not go with another ABB candidate, like Hillary. Not again. We need real candidates, not just alternatives.

[ZootSuitGringo]

80. I am in agreement with your statement.

Whether we like it or not, war is an issue, and defense is the Republican's strong suit. We can not move on to Dem issues unless the GOP is neutralized on this point. The election results made it clear that many voted for Bush because he was a wartime president and they (for whatever stupid reason) believed that he would keep them safe, or that he was better than the unknown.

Plan A: Talk about domestic issues with America.
Problem with Plan A is that, without fail, the GOP will change the subject back to defense issues, as this is their strength (they would be crazy not to do this) and they control current events and the media message (to a very large part).

So what then?
Dems will have to go to plan B-- Kick the shit out of them on their own issue, then we go back to plan A.

But we need the Plan B to work to get back to our plan A. Plan B only works with a undeniable strong figure representing the Dem's defense strategy. Without the set of balls on this issue that we need, the Republicans win and we will look silly, weak and ill prepared.

[mtnester]

82. Exactly, as long as the Republicans keep up the

terra terra terra meme, we need to have an alternative, like a 4 star general.

[w4rma]

76. Feingold and Edwards are my two favorates for 2008. (nt)

[WI_DEM]

77. that might be a great ticket.

[independentchristian]

90. Only if it's Edwards/Feingold. John Edwards will not be a running mate...

...again.

[AmericanDream]

81. I can find myself rooting for edwards '08

There are two things I would especially be paying attention to in '08 and they are: the candidate's ability to win and his passion for advancing and actually legislating progressive ideas. I'm sorry but I don't want another triangulating president whose main goal is to be the president rather than solving the country's problems. We need someone with a vision to lead us after bush's messed up presidency. Be it Reagan, Clinton, Bush Sr, Bush Jr. ... they all range from bad to mediocre presidents who were primarily reactionary in their approach rather than being visionaries who initiate reform like FDR.

Currently, I see only Edwards talking about bold initiatives with a passion so rare among the current flock of politicians. He is obviously ambitious (but only ambitious men achieve big!)... but there is a sincerety in his message, attitude, and convictions. I've heard him talk at numerous events and his ideas actually reflect everything that needs to be fixed in this country.... he was the only candidate in the primaries to have the guts to speak out on controversial issues such as fair trade, poverty, etc... and still does. He has a very progressive approach to almost everything ranging from the environment, education (he has got the whole idea about the downward progress of our public school systems totally right... we need to strengthen our education system to compete globally!), jobs, healthcare, medicare, etc... honestly, he inspires me the most in the dem party right now with a policy message that actually would empower our country if implemented. His policy book, "real solutions for america" has some great initiatives in it.

So, for me its not just about winning... its about winning with a candidate who is going to move us forward... that is why i think its time to move on from the clintons, I appreciate their part in the party... but they are more show than substance. Its time to move away from the third way candidates and embrace those who will speak up for their convictions.

I've been quite impressed with Edwards latest speeches... besides dean, he's the only one to so effectively lay out why we as dems should be proud of the party's legacy and talk about the progressive core beliefs that are so deeply rooted in the country's values & will lead us to victory in the coming years.

Now, as for his appeal as a candidate... there is plenty. The biggest part of it is that he appeals to repubs and independents the most. In the primaries, he got the largest share of the independent and republican (ones not impressed w/bush) votes... thereby, showing his strength in bringing in voters from outside the liberal base.

I think edwards is a strong candidate... I am not totally committed, but I'll be watching out for him. He has that spark of a leader, and even his critics concede him that.

[VOX]

95. Wow. What a terrific post!

Extremely well thought out, AD, and a pleasure to read.

Welcome to DU! :toast:

[WI_DEM]

103. excellent post

[Sapphire Blue]

96. Yes, Edwards would be a strong contender

On Black Wednesday (otherwise known as November 3, 2004), I went into shock, as did so many of my fellow sane Americans. The initial shock was followed by a range of emotions, from inconsolable sadness to anger resembling the steam & ash erupting from Mt. St. Helens. I find the fascism that has overtaken this country, and the gullibility of so many of its citizens, truly abhorrent. As we debate the attributes of possible 2008 Democratic candidates, my hope is rekindled... we are the party of integrity, as demonstrated by the caliber of the candidates we discuss... each worthy of the nomination.

It will, indeed, be interesting to see what the field will look like in the end. Right now, it looks very promising.

[WI_DEM]

98. yep it is a tragedy for our nation

that today we don't have President Kerry and Vice President Edwards.

[sadiesworld]

99. He talks a good (populist) game but I don't trust him.

-He's DLC
-I didn't care much for the Bilderberg visit
-His votes were not terribly populist (economic issues) until he decided to run for president. Then he went all warrior on us.

Bill Clinton redux.

[AP]

102. -Dan Schorr said DLC doesn't like him 'cause he's not pro free-trade

-Kerry sent him to Biltberg where he gave a speech telling people that the world is in trouble if we keep polarizing political and economic power and wealth.
- He voted against Bush more than any other Senator or Congressman who ran for president, and he always put the interests of the working person in NC first as a Senator.

[sadiesworld]

110. -When did Schorr make this statement and why does his statement

carry more weight than Edwards' actual DLC membership?
-Do you have a link for your second point?
-Please provide some proof of Edwards' populist votes cast PRIOR to the 12-18 month period preceding his run.

[AP]

112. -He made it on ATC in late 2003 or early 2004.

-it weighs more than DLC membership because Dean and Obama prove that being a member of the DLC doesn't mean much. Dean was actually head of some DLC subgroup (the governor's election committee?) while he was a member of the DLC, and the DLC certainly didn't have much loyalty to him. Furthermore, they said that Obama was a member until Obama asked them to stop saying that since he wasn't a member. Makes you wonder what it takes to be a member if their membership rolls include people who never signed up.

- Do you know that in the at least one of the two DLC semi-annual meetings in summer '03 and (IIRC) winter '04, Kerry, Lieberman and Dean (yes Dean) made presentations. I believe Gephard did as well, and I wouldn't be surprised if Clark attended. I believe Mosley-Braun attended. Guess who wasn't invited to speak and didn't attend? Yep. Edwards. If they liked him so much, why don't they invite him to their house to play? Because Schorr wasn't lying when he said they don't like him that much because he puts the interests of people who work for a living ahead of corporate profits.

- What proof do you want? Last summer Edwards was ranked the fourth most liberal Senator by the National Journal based on what, a dozen or so votes over the previous year? They said that after he dropped out his senate race (not after he entered the presidential race) he voted straight left wing on about four votes. But if he finished 4th overall, he clearly was voting pretty progressively to average that high, regardless of how he voted on the last third or so of the votes. It wasn't running for president that freed him up. It was probably NOT running for Senate that freed him up. In previous years, Edwards voted at the high end of the moderates (was it roughly 12-15th among Democrats?). It's not like he went from 49th to 4th. He went from 12th to 4th. It could be a reflection of the kinds of votes that came up at the end, but it's not a gigantic variation.

Another stat from his senate career: other than the SC delegation, Edwards voted unlike his fellow senator more than any other senator in congress. That's an excellent sign of his politics. Many many bills will have so much regional significance, they trump party polarization. A Republican and a Democrat from Nevada will vote the same way on a mining bill because it will have such a huge impact on the wealth that both workers and corporations will be able accumulate. Edwards defied the gravity of regionalism more than anyone else other than the last Democrat who sat alongside Strom Thurmond, Ernest Hollings. And this was while Edwards was voting in a way that was giving him the "high moderate" ranking in the National Journal, so it seems that the NJ was missing something in its measure of liberalism.

The Hill also had a report that ranked Edwards as the congressperson who voted against Bush more than anyone else running for president last year (including the Kooch). What do you think that's a measure of? Moderation? Right.

And regardless of what you think about the National Journal's ranking, Dan Schorr said the DLC didn't like Edwards for his career record of not voting for every trade bill -- he voted for only 2 of 6, IIRC -- he voted for China and Jordan and against the rest, and most of those votes were from before he ran for president, and before he dropped out of the senate race. He voted the way he did on those bills for the same reason he voted on every other bill before him: he put the interests of people who work for a living in NC ahead of everything else. Not a bad guiding principle if you ask me, since it's the threat of extinction of the middle class that poses the greatest risk to America's future.

[sadiesworld]

113. No links?

At least you acknowledge that Edwards' made a noticeable shift to the left in the lead-up to the '04 primaries. It also comes as no surprise that Schorr's statement was made in the same period.

You seem to think it relevant that Obama requested that his name be removed from the DLC Directory. Did Edwards do that? I see a difference b/t giving a speech to the DLC and being a member, don't you? (Not that I have any illusions about those you mentioned being populists. Lieberman, please. Kerry is a liberal, Gephart defected to the dark side some time ago, Obama has been a disappointment, and the jury is still out on Dean.)

I see a lot of "I believe" and "it wouldn't surprise me" in your post. As the the biggest Edwards supporter on this board, I can't imagine you don't have links readily available.

If the best we can do in '08 is retreads from '04 (yes, that includes Clark) and Hillary, I'd say we're in sorry shape.

[AP]

115. I have links. They're in the archives. I've referered to these reports...

...dozens of times here and if I felt that you could be persuaded with facts in front of your eyes, I'd take the time to search for my earlier posts.

But I'm not sure that doing the footwork for you is the most productive use of my time.

So I invite you to google or search the archives yourself.

- If the DLC tried to embrace Edwards the way they tried to embrace Obama, perhaps he would have told them not to. Since they didn't try to embrace him, I'm not sure that it matters whether he told them if they're not going to invite him to their conferences they shouldn't put his name on their website.

- Every major candidate EXCETP Edwards went to the DLC conference -- even Dean, while he was being criticized by the DLC. If that means nothing to you, then fine. But I think that evidence alone disproves your claim that Edwards was DLC.

[McCamy Taylor]

106. Edwards will be the next president! I believe!

:dem: