How does anyone feel about John Edwards for president?

[closeupready]

Is he too regional, i.e., not well-known enough? Look at Bill Clinton - who'd heard of him before that 60 Minutes piece back in '92? I hadn't (I mean, prior to the campaign). I can think of a lot of reasons to like him, and not a single reason NOT to!

[mourningdove92]

1. I would vote for any ticket with John Edwards on it!

[Virginian]

22. I'd vote for him.

I always thought of myself as an independent. These days, I will vote for tomato sandwich if it has a (D) after its name.

That aside, I really like the man and what he stands for. I don't know if he can beat out the Rove machine and Diebold, but then again, can any Democrat?

[NVMojo]

2. so would I. The man has integrity. Compassion. Brains. Imagine that!

[AmericanDream]

3. Definitely... just listen to these two interviews - the guy gets it:

John Edwards' New Job: Fighting Poverty: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5160731

Former V.P. Candidate Edwards: Class and Katrina: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4928873

I thought they were terrific audios that presented a very coherent vision for America's future... though, of course, this was only a tiny part of his ideas.

He'll have my vote.

btw... he is not regional... he was on the national ticket... everyone around the nation knows him, they just might not know all sides of him but that's true of all political figures.

[redwitch]

4. I would vote for John Edwards

with enthusiasm and encourage others to do the same.

[Erika]

5. A Warner/Edwards ticket is now my dream

Warner is brilliant and Edwards has the optimism to bring hope and smiles to this country.

This country now reminds me of Narnia. It's been in a cold, ugly, and evil winter state since W took office.

[...of J.Temperance]

12. Warner/Edwards or Warner/Clark...either would be great, but Warner

Needs some foreign policy credentials...Clark would give him those and Edwards could be Attorney-General.

Or if Warner did choose Edwards...then Clark could be Secretary of State, as he's banned from being Secretary of Defense.

[Tiggeroshii]

23. I would do Edwards/Warner

But either one is a winning ticket!

[madeline_con]

53. "Do" Edwards?

:evilgrin:

[SaveElmer]

6. No problem with Edwards...

Would prefer Hillary

[MrSlayer]

7. I don't think he brings anything to the table.

Didn't finish his first term as senator and would not have won a second, no foreign policy experience. At least Clinton was a governor before he went for the ring. Edwards is young enough to go for a lower office first to get some executive experience. Can he win governor in his state?

He's a good speaker and seems to be a nice enough guy but I don't see his chops.

[CottonBear]

14. I agree. That said, I voted for him in the primary and I'm an NC native.

I ADORE Elizabeth: one of the smartest and brightest political, legal and intellectual minds that we have.

Perhaps he should run for Governor. That would be a great stepping stone to the Presidency. (Senatoes or congress critters have a harder time due to the fact that they have a voting record.

John would be an incredible candidate, especially with Elizabeth at his side.

How about Wes Clark, Dean or Richardson for President and John for VP?

[1932]

28. One thing he brings to table better than anyone is focus on polarization

of wealth and power in America.

I don't think anyone else in politics today represents that issue better.

I'm not saying Edwards will be best candidate in '08, but I do think that this will be the most important issue, and if there is a better candidate, it will be someone who represents this issue better than he does.

[KoKo]

38. I wish he would run for Governor.

Kick that DINO out who's in there now. :-(

[ultraist]

51. Wes Clark has NO experience in an elected office

Perhaps Clark should run for something other than President, first.

But since he's a Fox paid employee and doing a lot of private contract work, it doesn't look like he is positioning himself for a run at all.

Sorry, but Clark is not even on the radar screen as a presidential candidate, as all of the polls indicate.

[Adelante]

61. A different view..

The Presidency is an executive position, not a legislative position. The best qualifications, in my judgment, are leadership experience, executive ability, extensive service to the nation, government experience, diplomatic experience, integrity, and a brain. Clark has all of this in spades and you don't get to be a 4-star General without extensive political experience. Finally, not holding previous elected office is probably a benefit to a candidate, because there is no voting record to be picked apart and used against him. I don't see what legislative experience brings to the presidency, particularly, although I believe it is of great value in the vice presidency.

As to what he has been doing, aside from holding the Democratic line on right wing television in an effort to bring 50 Blue States in 2006, after all the primary goal of all Democrats this year, and helping to prepare localities for future disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, which I hope is a good thing even if you make your living at it, I give his you last year of work on behalf of the Democratic Party.

Endorsements in 2005:

For Congress:

OH-02, Paul Hackett
NY-29, Eric Massa

For Governor:

Arkansas, Mike Beebe
Virginia, Tim Kaine

Also supported in 2005:

Mayoral Candidate Chris Coleman of St. Paul, Minnesota
Virginia House Democratic Caucus Chairman Brian Moran
Gov Doyle/Lt Gov Lawton of Wisconsin
U.S. Rep. Lincoln Davis of Arkansas
U.S. Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York
U.S. Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin
U.S. Sen. Candidate Jim Pederson of Arizona
U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida

Democratic events in 2005:

-Alabama Democratic Party Rally, Birmingham
-Alabama Democrats/Grassroots dinner at Doe's in Little Rock
-Alabama House Democrats Dinner, Keynote, Birmingham
-Arizona Democratic Party Press Conference with Veterans
-Arizona Democratic Party "Democratic Vision" Speech
-Arkansas Democrats Khakis & Catfish event
-Annual Wisconsin Corn Roast at the La Crosse County Fairground, West Salem
-Association of State Democratic Chairs Quarterly Meeting Reception with Chairman Dean, hosted by General Clark, Little Rock, Arkansas
-Audio message for Maine Democrats re Muskie Lobster Fest 8/7
-California Democratic Party Convention
-Clark County Clinton Day Dinner, Arkadelphia AR, Keynote Speaker
-Congressman Charlie Rangel's 75th Birthday Gala
-Dallas Democratic Forum, Texas
-Democratic Activists Lunch, Mason City, Iowa
-Democratic Activists Meeting, Emmetsburg, Iowa
-Democratic Party Evaluation and Strategy Retreat, Williamsburg VA
-Democratic Party Memorial Day Radio Response
-Democratic Party Radio Address on Iraq
-Democratic Party of Arkansas 2005 Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner
-GOTV audio message for Paul Hackett OH-02
-Iowa Democratic Party fundraiser, Okoboji, Iowa
-Iowa Democratic Party fundraising breakfast, Decorah
-Iowa Democratic Party fundraising breakfast, Sioux City
-Jimmie Lou Fisher Campaign Debt Payoff Fundraiser, Little Rock, AR
-Lea County Democratic Party headquarters, Hobbs NM Groundbreaking ceremoney
-Maine Democratic Party Ed Muskie Annual Lobster Festival, Brunswick ME, Keynote Speaker
-Manchester City Democratic Committee Annual Flag Day Dinner, NH, Keynote speaker
-New Mexico Jefferson Jackson Dinner - keynote speaker
-Oklahoma Democratic Party reception/fundraiser, Keynote, Stillwater, Oklahoma
-Online fundraising for Jim Pederson, opposing Arizona US Senator Jon Kyl
-"Path of a President" Dinner, Clinton Presidential Library, Little Rock - keynote speaker
-Payne County Democrats fall celebration, the Brayfest, Stillwater, Oklahoma
-Radio Interview, KPCC Radio (NPR Affiliate), "Air Talk" with Larry Mantle; "The Future of the Democratic Party"
-Wisconsin Democratic Party, Fundraiser luncheon, Madison, Wisconsin
-Wisconsin Democratic Party, 4th Annual Corn Roast, West Salem, Wisconsin

Congressional Events in 2005:

-Congressional Black Caucus Annual Legislative Conference, Washington DC
-Congressional Candidate Boot Camp, Guest Speaker, Phoenix, AZ
-Congressional Mission to Haiti; UN Peacekeeping Reform Study Group
-DSCC Petition: Demand Accountability Past and Future on Iraq
-Democratic National Security Advisory Group Report
-House Armed Services Committee Testimony on leadup to Iraq War
-House Democrats' GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century Announcement Forum; Petition: GI Bill of Rights
-'Out of Iraq' Congressional Caucus, Washington DC
-Senators' Democratic Policy Committee lunch, guest speaker
-UN Task Force Congressional Hearing Testimony

Next week he will be campaigning for Gammage for Governor of Texas, and for Juan Garcia and Hubert Vo in state House races. He is in great demand, actually, in red states and that's where Chairman Dean wants him to help out. He does have to make a living, since, of course, he is not on the public payroll as an elected Dem, but he does what he can.


Fuck you very much ;)

[CottonBear]

105. Point taken. Iwill reconsider Clark. Who is your choice for P & VP? n/t

[TheFarseer]

31. do you think we could pair him with Wes Clark

or someone similar to help him with foreign policy? Do YOU care that he doesn't have foreign policy experience or are you concerned that he would lose the election because they would attack him on that?

[Clarkie1]

35. I agree...he doesn't bring anything new to the political equation.

The Democratic Party needs an extreme makeover and someone with enough gravitas to overcome the "fear factor" the Republican Party will continue to play.

We know the cards Rove is holding...all we have to do is raise him 4 stars.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

44. Remember how Cheney handled him in the debate.

He couldn't counter with "Yes, you did meet me before" or call him on his bullshit.

He needs a LOT more work. Looks only get you so far.

[AmericanDream]

55. OH puhleez...

"Looks" only get you so far... the guy can talk extensively about any domestic program and was known for giving 2 hour closing statements without ANY notes. When ppl at an online forum tell a guy who has had the swiftest political rise in modern american politics that he "needs a LOT more work," I can only laugh.

And he called Cheney on all his bullshit... the meeting part was a smart move in my opinion... by not addressing it, the story next day became about "Cheney's lie" rather than Edwards' experience. No one was debating edwards' experience after that, instead they were talking about the Vice President's lie. That was a very quick and smart decision for him to move on to Cheney's congressional record and get back on the offensive...

Of course, only those in the major league like him would know that... not you.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

62. He looked like a deer in headlights.

And 2 hour closing statements don't get you elected. They make people's eyes glaze over. Bush makes short speeches and gives sound bytes (although not often coherent ones). And the idea (at least partially) was to pick him to help out in the South. Which means we didn't lose by as much as we might have. No wonder Democrats haven't made much progress even though we keep getting issues on a platter from * and his people.

And he may have had the "swiftest political rise," but I don't see him in any office right now. How is that? Peaked a little too quickly, perhaps?

If Kerry had picked Clark, we wouldn't be worrying about Alito right now.

[AmericanDream]

70. Umm...

if kerry had picked clark, that would have been the most BORING and uninspiring ticket ever. lastly, ppl donn't vote for VEEP. I've met numerous ppl across the south who would have gladly voted dem. if edwards was at the top of the ticket. As for whether he peaked too early or not... well, we are about to find out in 2008.

2 hour closing statements make ppl's eyes glaze over only when they come from the mouths of ppl like Kerry and Clark.. Edwards can get a crowd fired up in 5 minutes and keep talking for as long as he wants and ppl listen to him. You would know if you had ever been to a rally or town hall with him.

Look, you like and support clark? well, that's great... but to prop up your guy, you don't need to find just totally ridiculous points to criticize about edwards.

[Southsideirish]

72. I saw Edwards speak in Waukesha, Wis and he phoned it in. Maybe Kerry tol

him to be low key as not to eclipse him, but it was one tired old cliche after another. He was nice and all but the crowd had been standing in a hot field for a long time and expected a little more fire in the belly. I think its possible for him to be a powerful candidate but he would have to really let 'er rip - no DLC crap. The "Two America's" was a great idea but I read that Kerry made him drop it as it didn't sell to the sought after "undecideds." What ever happened to them? I guess they didn't "decide" on the "electable" one after all.

[Tom Rinaldo]

71. I thought Edwards did reasonably well against Cheney

There was room for improvement. Each man tried to emphasize their experience, and during an active war that worked to Cheney's advantage. I could critique the debate further but don't think it would serve a useful purpose. Gore could have done better in his debates against Bush also, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't have been a great President.

[tishaLA]

73. If you go off message to confront Cheney about all his lies

You hve no time to talk about your message. Cheney was bullshitting and that came out.

I'm not a huge Edwards fan, but Cheney did NOT "handle" him in the debate.

[butterfly77]

133. Agreed!

And there are plenty of others who are better suited and well versed on fighting those sneaky bastards. CLARK 2008!

[struggle4progress]

78. "Didn't finish his first term as Senator"? That's BS!

And while the local Rs made lots of noise about Edwards not having a chance at a second term, I've never seen any objective evidence to support that claim ...

[mlawrence]

83. Um...check your facts...

John Edwards most certainly did complete his first term as senator, right through to the very last day. He chose not to run for re-election, but this is not the same as not finishing his first term. By the way, he could have won re-election had he chosen to do so. I, for one, give him credit for putting all his eggs in one basket and choosing to put his fight into running for president and then vice-president. Consider the difference in what he could do in any office higher than serving in the senate again, where he would have just been one of one hundred. Regardless, check your facts before you make statements like that please.

[fishwax]

112. he certainly didn't show it in '04

I grew to like him, and he is a good speaker, and it seems reasonable to believe that his concern is genuine. But I think we can do better.

[rzemanfl]

8. Not enough experience. n/t

[...of J.Temperance]

10. He's got as much experience as Junior had and he's also got a

Functioning brain, unlike Junior.

[rzemanfl]

11. Our cat is smarter than Shrub, although just about as lazy, but I

wouldn't want her to be President.

[...of J.Temperance]

13. So why don't you like John Edwards? The man is dynamite n/t

[rzemanfl]

15. Never said I didn't like him, said he lacked experience.

The person who has to try to clean up after Bushco is going to have a real mess to deal with.

[...of J.Temperance]

16. I agree completely on the real mess...so who would you choose?

Who would your candidate be?

On Edit: Dammit spelling error.

[rzemanfl]

17. Since Monday, Al Gore. n/t

[...of J.Temperance]

18. Okay

But we'll have to agree to disagree.

:)

[martymar64]

32. I'd be down for Gore/Edwards

that way Edwards can get executive experience where it counts.

[mlawrence]

84. too bad...

Gore messed that one up in 2000. Had he chosen Edwards over Lieberman, he really would have won. Too bad he didn't. I think this says something about Al Gore.

[rzemanfl]

95. Gore doesn't have the baggage of having supported anything

Bush has done. A Gore/Obama or Gore/Finegold ticket would be cool too.

[Fovea]

9. I would vote for him

But he needs to start getting back in the news stream last December.

[Bumblebee]

19. I am all for it. Was during the last election as well.

[Awsi Dooger]

20. He should have been the nominee in 2004

Beating an incumbent requires likability and crossover appeal, not a bloated resume or war background. Edwards was by far our best chance in the dynamics of 2004. Opinions of Bush were locked in place and bashing him was literally wasted time and dollars and sense/cents, every one of spent via the Kerry campaign and MoveOn, etc. We desperately needed a positive mindset and alternative. It's hardly back fitting because I stressed those theories before the primaries. Both sides were locked at 45% minimum and swaying the critical 5-6% of the remaining 10% was only going to be accomplished by a special charismatic politician, not someone who spoke with 18 commas in every sentence.

Regarding 2008, the correct handicap switches to Mark Warner. In an open race the personal characteristics are less significant and it becomes an armageddon power struggle of one philosophy against another. Especially when one party has controlled the White House for two straight terms. Those are historically, and especially since 1960, the most closely contested cycles in American politics, normally within 1% in the popular vote. It's absolutely vital to nominate the person who has the most margin for error in the electoral college, the one who will prevail in the greatest number of electoral permutations in a 50/50 atmosphere. Given Virginia's 13 electoral votes, and that annexing means not needing Florida or Ohio in numerous feasible scenarios, Mark Warner is a simple choice.

[Radical Activist]

128. Edwards has a winning populist message.

I think he would have won in '04.

However, I think Edward's appeal was his populism, not his moderation. I have a hard time seeing Warner inspire people the way Edwards can. I have a hard time equating the two. If '08 is about party philosophy then I have a hard time seeing how a moderate with the losing "I'm like a Republican but not as bad" message is going to give us a victory.

[Douglas Carpenter]

21. I think that might be a good idea

I am impressed with how he addresses the issues of poverty and two America's -- we have not heard very many Democrats talk like that in a long long time,

[BigYawn]

24. Edwards at the top of ticket would be awsome, watched Warner last weekend

on TV interview, and was not impressed. He seems too serious,
does not smile much and his smile looks forced. Edwards is a
dynamo by comparison and just as good in knowledge based answers.

But I still think Hillary will be hard to beat for getting the nod.
Bill Clinton still has a lot of power amongst the DNC. Hillary will
be sold again as "you get two for price of one", and Bill is still
extremely popular amongst democrats, especially African-Americans.

[lojasmo]

25. I feel like he enabled bush for the last four years

Voting for the IWR and the patriot act (and NCLB)

Like Hillary, Kerry, and the rest of their ilk....if Edwards is the nominee, I'll be voting locally, but not for the presidential ticket.

[struggle4progress]

81. He's since called IWR a mistake.

[bearfan454]

26. My f&cking dog would be better than what we have now.

You know ?

[neverevergivein]

34. My dog wouldn't...

He's a total sissy. I call him "Rove"-er.

[AtomicKitten]

80. my 10-month cat would kick ass and takes names

[Vinca]

93. We need a candidate with the kind of guts your cat has!! nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. Far from my first choice. Not my last choice.

It is too far from 2008 to spend time on listing what I don't like about a given Democrat, I would rather just say that I believe Edwards is an important and positive part of our Democratic team. But if you want one good reason to find fault with him, I'll give you one, though I know that his position has since evolved. Edwards supported the invasion of Iraq, not just the IWR, but the actual invasion. And not in an abstract sense while commenting about actions that the United States may need to take, he supported Bush's literal invasion at the time of the invasion. By this I don't mean that Edwards wished our American troops well and hoped for their victory once they had been sent into battle, which he and almost all leading Democrats did. Edwards went further. He continued to support Bush's actual reason for invading Iraq even after it was clear that our occupying forces did not turn up WMD's. Edwards thought the future threat that Hussein posed the United States still justified overthrowing him.

If you weren't asking me about Edwards as our potential next President, I wouldn't care as much. He's admitted he was wrong about Iraq. I can forgive him and still value his positive qualities. But in my opinion his judgment in international affairs failed at a critical time, and I would rather he wasn't the Democrat who became our next President. Even so, even in foreign affairs, I concede that Edwards would be better than any Republican and better than many Democrats, but no I can't support him while there are other better choices available.

[CarolNYC]

37. Agreed.

His support of the Iraq invasion, intially and then for a way too long time after, is something that's really hard for me to get past. I just can't imagine myself feeling comfortable putting someone who for so long supported this mess in a postion to make foreign policy decisions....not the way the world is now. Way too hawkish on this for my taste. I know he brings good qualities to the table but, IMHO, this is just too crucial an area to be lacking in at this point...

[ultraist]

50. Clark said he'd have probably voted for the IWR

http://www.factcheck.org/article107.html

General Clark says he's been "very, very clear" about opposing the U.S. war with Iraq, but earlier statements show otherwise

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623.html

The Right Way in Iraq

By John Edwards

Sunday, November 13, 2005; Page B07

I was wrong.

Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.

[Tom Rinaldo]

54. I just knew this would happen

First off, is this thread about Clark? Did I say anything about Clark? Did I say people should support Clark instead of Edwards? The OP of this thread flat out asked people what they thought about Edwards running for President. The poster could not think of a single reason not to support Edwards AND ASKED people if anyone else could.

I bent over backwards to 1) Say good things about Edwards 2) Say it was too early to tear into another Democrat 3) acknowledge that Edwards had apologized for his earlier position on Iraq and 4) Agree that Edwards had changed his position on Iraq.

There is no way to give a thorough answer to your comments about Clark without hijacking this thread away from a discussion of Edwards for President, because this is not the first time this dance has happened on DU and there has ALWAYS been a long back and forth when people get into it. Clark said he supported "a" IWR, not "the" IWR that was passed. Clark was misquoted by a suspect reporter. Clark supported Senator Levin's version. Subsequent to that fact check look at the question the "facts" it was based on have been challanged further. Recently the Washington Post Ombudsman got facts wrong also. It happens. And even if you take the position that Clark loved the IWR that Edwards co-sponsered, Clark called the actual invasion of Iraq a "bait and switch", Hussein for Bin Ladin, and Clark called the invasion of Iraq a completely elective war and a strategic blunder.

BUT THIS THREAD ISN'T ABOUT CLARK - REMEMBER?

[ultraist]

56. Yes, people did bring up Clark

And I'm not a bit surprised that the local Clarkie brigade jumps on the Edwards thread and starts posting negative comments, as usual.

Why is that? Why do so many Clarkies make a concerted effort to trash Edwards? It's so transparent.

For the record: I'm not saying all Clarkies do this.

[Tom Rinaldo]

60. I said I didn't bring up Clark

And I resent your slur about a "Clarkie brigade". There are hundreds of Clark supporters at DU and they all exercise free will. Given the sheer number of Clark supporters present here I am never surprised when some show up on any thread, let alone one pertaining to the 2008 Presidential elections. More to the Point though; the OP of this particular thread ASKED people if they had any reasons not to support Edwards. To then complain when people comply is simply not fair.

Find some Edwards thread where people are praising him for something, like his opposition to Alito for example, and make your point there if you feel someone is trashing it looking for opportunities to attack Edwards. I might sympathize with you then, but not when people are invited to give their opinion of Edwards for President, and asked to detail their reasons for not liking him if they don't. It isn't only Clark supporters who have a problem with how Edwards initially related to the invasion of Iraq. It is a hot button issue for many on DU. You know that. Edwards just has to deal with it, and in fact he has as I already noted.

[CarolNYC]

104. Geez, isn't the title of the OP "How does anyone feel..."

I didn't realize it meant how does anyone but Clark supporters feel about John Edwards for president.

I don't make a habit of jumping into any kind of thread to post negatively about Edwards (but don't let that get in the way of a good rant, eh?) but, when I read this post, I just thought I'd give my opinion. I'd thought it was asked for.

For a little background, I am quite the political neophyte, actually. I got involved with moveon because I was so upset by what Bush was doing to this country (and using as an excuse my city's tragedy above all things!) and the coming Iraq invasion. When MoveOn was having their little primary poll or whatever it was, I basically knew nothing about any of the candidates, except a little about Lieberman. I based my opinion and my vote solely on the questionaires the candidates filled out and I considered my vote very very carefully.

The first guy I eliminated was Lieberman because he couldn't even be bothered to respond to the questionaire. The second candidate I eliminated was Edwards because I really had a problem with his answers regarding the Iraq invasion and other national security things....At the time I had no idea who Gen Clark was. He did not figure into the equation at all....I finally narrowed it down to Bob Graham and Dennis Kucinich and, in the end, went with Dennis.

So, I have had a problem with Edwards' stance from the time of my introduction to him. And I continued to have a problem with his continued support of the invasion long after many others quit supporting it. I'm glad he finally said he was wrong to support the invasion but it took him an awfully long time. I don't understand why that doesn't bother people and I don't understand why, because I've shown support for Clark, I should not be allowed to state this here.

Do you see the others here voicing concerns with Edwards' experience, etc? Why is it only the Clark supporters' posts you object to? And if the only way you can answer the concern about Edwards' judgment regarding the invasion is with an attack on Clark supporters, then I guess there really is no defense for it....and nothing that can be said to allay the concerns about his judgement regarding foreign affairs and national security. It certainly doesn't make me feel any better about Edwards for President...

[Tom Rinaldo]

57. P.S. I never focused on the IWR by the way

I didn't talk about Edward's role on the Senate Intelligence Committee or his having been an actual Co-Sponsor of the IWR. Many Democrats claim that their vote for the IWR was not meant to be a green light to invade Iraq. I only brought up Edward's defense of Bush's actual invasion.

On edit: OK on review I changed the post subject line because I did in fact mention the IWR, but only to note that it wasn't where my concern was focused.

[ultraist]

63. What?

A co sponsor of the IWR? Are you sure you have your facts straight?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00110:@@@P

[Tom Rinaldo]

64. That's a link to House sponsors you posted

Edwards was a Senate co-sponsor. I don't have time to double check this right now, I have to run do something. If I am wrong I will gladly apologize for posting misinformation.

[ultraist]

66. oops

Sorry, you're right. I should have looked at it more closely.

Do you have a link to support your claim? TIA.

[Tom Rinaldo]

69. Here you go

Edwards was among 16 Senate Co-sponsors of S.J.RES.46. Lieberman was the prime Sponsor.
http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Iraq_War_Resolution

[BlueCollar]

29. he was my first choice

He's still my choice. I'd love to see him take on the neo-cons in a national debate.

[Festivito]

129. My first choice, also. And, was in '04 primaries as well.

We need a southern boy.

[TheFarseer]

30. I love JE

He's well known. My goodness he was the VP candidate. His populist message is a winner IMO and the fact that he is very likable and from the south helps also. He's my first choice for our presidential nomination.

[leesa]

33. He's not a leader.

[AmericanDream]

47. Yeah... I wonder who else was talking about poverty before Katrina

:eyes:

[struggle4progress]

82. Absolutely right

[karynnj]

91. Every Democrat ever has talked about poverty - Edwards was not the first

- They may not have said "poverty" or had a stump speech that concentrated as much on it, but from the time I followed primaries (1964 or 1968) I honestly don't remember ANY Democratic candidate who didn't speak about things like minimum wage, a living wage, fair income distribution, health care, etc.

FDR's New Deal certainly was in response to the poverty of the depression. McGovern wrote the legislation for food stamps. Humphrey had a long Senate career dealing with issues that help people in poverty. LBJ's Great Society added Medicare, Medicaid and other programs. Ted Kennedy has a very long track record on this - speaking as eloquently as Edwards and doing more. Even in 2004, the other candidates all had proposals that dealt with helping people who needed it - listening to them I never thought they were less sincere than Edwards. (Last year, Kerry's comments on LIHEAP (heating subsidies) or children's insurance or the poverty exposed by Katrina were as emotional and heart felt as anything Edwards has said.)

[TriMetFan]

36. I would vote for him or any other

Democratic for President at this point.

[zann725]

39. I can think of plenty! Despite his boyish charisma, & alleged concern for

the poor...oh, and his 'effected' southern accent...to me Edwards is blatantly DLC, DLC, DLC. (And this is NOT Edwards-bashing. This is just how I alone feel. And YOU asked.)

And WHERE did he first meet Cheney (as learned from '04 debates)? A "prayer breakfast."

Instinctively, I do NOT trust Edwards. On a gut-level, I consistently get a "red alert" when he flashes that phoney smile, and obviously deepens that Southern accent for "warmth.' Again, this is NOT Edwards "bashing"...but my TRUTHFUL gut-feeling 'opinion' of Edwards...a resounding NO! I would NEVER vote for him, do NOT trust him in my gut of guts. Sorry.

[GreenArrow]

132. I hear ya

He's a slick turd, patently phoney, a walking, talking cliche, and a stale piece of white store bread. His facile, oily "charisma" raises my red flags as well. I won't vote for him either.

[benny05]

40. If John Edwards Decides to Run for 2008

It's true he hasn't been a governor of a state. But neither was Jack Kennedy. JRE threw all of his eggs in the basket and decided not to run for re-election. I read all of the time that he couldn't have been re-elected. Balderdash. He could not see how we could possibly tackle the problems, especially the poor, and you know, I don't blame him, considering a lot of our senators have not been strong enough to take on BushCo. So he decided to go out on his own and start promoting awareness of the issue himself and get our college youth involved to help the poor. Opportunity Rocks campaign from last fall was one of the most successful ever. When he and his staff were told only 300 were showing up, 3000 would show up. They wanted to hear his ideas, and vice-versa.

I've been asked many times, especially by Republicans, why do you like John Edwards. Here's what I tell them: JRE has the moral compass to bring this country back and start the rebuilding process. He exudes values that even moderates can appreciate: love for his family, hard work, and humble beginnings. I also want someone to lead who went to public schools just as I did. I was the second person in my immediate family to go to college and work my way through, both as an undergrad and graduate school.

Elizabeth would make an excellent First Lady. She is very articulate, and she has a great understanding of what just the regular American woman is about, yet she is very sympathetic towards women not originally from here because she was an Army brat and lived abroad. I want someone who looks like the rest of us, and she does.

JRE speaks in a way that can reach to the middle. No one can win without the middle. He just needs to continue paying attention to the liberal progressives while doing so. And he has. He admits when he makes mistakes, and he's sincere about it.

When I met JRE in 2004, at first I thought I was star-struck, but then I realized what I really felt: spiritual. He has an aura that others can graviate to. I trust him to promote diplomacy and working together again with other nations. No foreign policy experience? Guess some people don't read the NYT very often. He's the co-chair with Jack Kemp for US-Russian relations for the Council on Foreign Affairs. They wrote an article (about a month ago)noting that Putin is trying to revert back to the old days of the Cold War by limiting the entry of NGO's and what they can do in Russia. But you can find the article most anywhere, especially on the One America Committee site.

My fellow DU'ers, I hope you will check out his web site, http://blog.oneamericacommittee.com. Right now, there isn't quite as much traffic because of us have been testing the new blog, which will have many of the cool features you find here or the DK. I believe I heard they are flipping the switch next week.


To conclude what many of us believe describes his philosophy, I borrow the lyrics from John Mellencamp's Your Life is Now:

See the moon roll across the stars
See the seasons turn like a heart
Your father's days are lost to you
This is your time here to do what you will do

Your life is now
Your life is now
Your life is now
In this undiscovered moment
Lift your head up above the crowd
We could shake this world
If you would only show us how
Your life is now

Would you teach your children to tell the truth
Would you take the high road if you could choose
Do you believe you're a victim of a great compromise
'Cause I believe you could change your mind and change our lives

(repeat chorus)

I hope you will join the rest of us in working on the moral cause of poverty and figure out how we can help each other. And believe me, once you get rolling, you will be as inspired as the rest of us. With him, I feel hope is on the way.

John Reid Edwards is ready--when you are.




Photo courtesy of Jason Jason; little Jack is on JRE's shoulder.

[Catchawave]

102. Wonderful post Benny!!!

Thank you for sharing so eloquentely what a truly special man he is. :hi:

I'm a big fan of www.jregrassroots.org too !

[benny05]

115. Hi there

thanks for the Kick! Yep, JREG is my mother ship. :hi:

[Bucky]

41. One of several possible good candidates. At least we're not feuding yet

I expect we'll start knocking on each other right after the midterms. I don't look foreward to it.

[Triana]

42. I'd vote for him in a New York minute! (n/t)

[robbedvoter]

43. Famous last words: "I promise you, all votes will be counted"

[ultraist]

48. Edwards did want to fight for the votes

It has been reported in several articles that Edwards did want to fight for the votes, Kerry didn't. It was Kerry's decision, not to.

Please get your facts straight.

[robbedvoter]

75. But he was bound and gagged in a basement - still is - as I hear nothing

Not a sound about the stolen election from him - why?

[benny05]

77. He May Say Something

when the time is right. JRE has mentioned more than once about the importance election reform since he's left the Senate, and how elections have held up in Iraq, but not our own country.

http://www.jregrassroots.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=14146&pid=75990&st=0&#entry75990

[robbedvoter]

97. REFORM? It was stolen - Bush was NOT elected! THAT"S WHAT HE NEEDS

TO SAY! He promised to count every vote, now I am supposed to be impressed by reform? After being trice robbed?
Fox the barn door after the cows got eaten?

[mlawrence]

85. Check his website...

He has a statement on there in late 2005 about electoral reform, the problems in Ohio, etc. Look for it on www.oneamericacommittee.com. Just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it hasn't been said.

[robbedvoter]

96. I shouldn't have to do that! he needs to reach ME!

[AmericanDream]

108. And that is what he is doing by keeping a regularly updated website...

Subscribe to his emails... and he WILL come to you! He is not going to come knocking on your door to let you know about everything he does. You are no better than the fox viewers if you want stuff to be spoon fed to you. You are just as lazy and ignorant. All you have to do is visit his website or sign up for his updates... I'm sure you do that for the candidates and politicians you like and support. That was a very silly retort by you. Edwards is not to be blamed for your ignorance.

[robbedvoter]

109. Is he saying on the website that THEY WON?(W lost)

because I know that, and they gloss over it. Anything less is irrelevant at this point.

[Catchawave]

122. 75 million registered voters .....

DID NOT VOTE in 2004 ! What are you doing to reach them ?

[robbedvoter]

120. I checked. No stolen election, though it;s good he regrets voting for IWR

His statement for it at the time was so blowhardish, GOP had displayed it!
Wake me up when he talks about Crispin Miller findings (and other such FACTS)

[karynnj]

92. Has he publicly said this even once since Nov 3 - Nov 2nd doesn't count

What if anything has he said on any of the election problems or the need to fix things. The articles I've seen cite a friend of a friend or a a relative - but Edwards has clearly NOT publicly made any statements.

This is said NOT TO BLAME EDWARDS but because you are using his name to bash Kerry, which he didn't do in his very kind words in the Senate expressing his admiration for Kerry.

Edwards' supporters always claim he wanted to fight. Kerry has publicly spoken of the known ways votes were suppressed. The fact is they did not have proof at the point it was needed (and still don't.) This is why neither man is likely to go on TV and say the election was stolen. Without definitive proof, it would be irresponsible.

[robbedvoter]

121. Right. If he wanted to fight - what happened? Whatever came out of that?

[ultraist]

45. Edwards has the most crossover appeal

A candidate needs broad appeal to win. John Edwards clearly has it. His broad appeal coupled with his ability to connect with the voters, is a winning combination.

All of the exit polls during the primaries showed that Edwards had the broadest appeal as did a fairly recent Pew Research Poll.

Edwards is a progressive populist, an advocate for the working class and those in poverty. A REAL Democrat, with a powerful voice---someone who has the ability to articulate our message in a straightforward manner, a way in which people hear it.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=261

Among possible Democratic candidates, former Sen. John Edwards has the greatest crossover appeal­ he is viewed favorably by 85% of Democratic voters who can rate him, 68% of independents, and 48% of Republicans. Sen. Joe Biden is viewed favorably by 42% of Republicans who are familiar with him, but only 56% of Democrats. Fewer than half of registered voters knew Biden well enough to give a rating.

By comparison, Sens. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry remain highly polarizing figures. Democratic voters view Kerry favorably by roughly four-to-one, while Republicans view him unfavorably by the same margin and independents are divided (49% favorable, 51% unfavorable among those able to give a rating). Sen. Clinton receives similar ratings, though somewhat higher than Kerry among independents.

[Catchawave]

119. Cross over appeal is very important....

Even if such polls are more about the Q factor (name recognition), at least this proves JRE isn't *unknown* !

Voters in 2008 will elect someone who puts our citizens ahead of party loyalty.

[Spiffarino]

46. I'd be down with it - he can win.

He talks like a Democrat, but he's also smooth like Bill Clinton. I think people would listen to him. He kicked Dick Vader's ass in the Veep debate. Kerry tried to pull off the "Mary's a lesbian" meme and got pilloried; Edwards did it and all Cheney could do was say, "Thanks."

I like Kerry, but he was a poor presidential candidate. If Kerry had run a proper race, Rove and Diebold would never have been able to get away with the fraud. It wouldn't have been close. Kerry's problem is that he's cautious to a fault.

Edwards may not be a firebrand, but he knows when to use his weapons. I think he could win.

[NativeTexan]

49. Edwards has already been on the national stage....

....he isn't starting from a place of anonymity. Actually, neither was President Clinton within the party....he gave a LOOONG, LOOONG nomination speech for Michael Dukakis at the Democratic Convention in 1988. Then, Johnny Carson had him on just a few days later because of it. Clinton told Johnny, "Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to finish my speech"....

[madeline_con]

52. I'm all for it.

I heard him speak when he came to the Space Coast. He rocks!

[chimpymustgo]

59. JRE - his time is now (from the Des Moines Register endorsement in 04).

Now if we can just fix the voting machines, JRE and the Dems could begin to fix the country.

[Comicstripper]

58. Personally, I like him

...but, he doesn't have much experience. A single senate term, and now four years of...whatever it is he's doing now? I'm sure it's noble, but it's not presidential. Give him a few more terms, let him run for governor or something...

[paulk]

65. a single term Senator who will have been out of office

for four years - who was unable to bring his home state as a VP candidate (the traditional reason for picking a VP)

it's hard to see him as a viable presidential candidate.

other than that - I like the guy

[mlawrence]

87. The traditional reason for picking a VP?

Hmm - That's an interesting concept, but not completely accurate. Do you think Gore picked Lieberman in 2000 because they were worried that the Dems would lose Connecticut? I don't think so. I could cite other examples if I need to, but I won't right now. The bottom line is that the top of the ticket candidate chooses a running mate for a number of reasons. Edwards has great crossover appeal and draws more republicans and independents to vote for him than any other candidate can. This is not my opinion, but proven in poll. If you need more evidence, you can find it in a PEW poll from late last year. In any event, NC was not lost because Edwards was on the ticket. It was lost because Kerry and his "advisors" decided it wasn't worth fighting for, like so many other states. The truth is, the Kerry campaign gave up in a lot of places where Dems would have won if we'd fought. t's a shame and a great reason not to nominate Kerry again - but not a reason not to consider nominating Edwards.

[paulk]

124. it's traditionally been one of the main reasons a VP candidate

is chosen. Anyone familiar with the history of Presidential elections knows this.

Edwards failed to deliver his home state and he failed to help in any other Southern state, including Senate races.

He is a single term Senator who will have been out of office for four years come 2008. He has no foreign policy experience, which is still going to be a major consideration in the post 9/11 world.

This is not a knock on Edwards,
it's just the truth. I honestly don't see how he can be considered a viable candidate.

ps - Lieberman was chosen because it was felt he could bring home the Jewish vote in Florida - which he did.

[hopein08]

67. My first choice...

I'll have to SETTLE for anyone else.

I can see no reason NOT to like him.

[Inspired]

68. Agreed

My only choice in '08 is John Edwards. I'm in Iowa and I look forward to working for his campaign during the caucus in early '08. We are starting early on this one.

I will also be settling for any other candidate in '08, much like I settled for Kerry in '04. If Edwards had been our presidential candidate on '04 we'd be talking about how to RE-elect him in '08.

[Little Star]

74. Yep, yep, yep! Me Too! n/t

[McCamy Taylor]

76. If we run him, he will win. The GOP will hack the Dem primaries to keep

to him from being the nominee, because they dont want to see a white male southerner head the Democratic ticket. They always lose to white, male southerners, and Edwards is an especially handsome, articulate one.

[benny05]

79. and his valuable asset

his love of his life, Elizabeth.

[thatsrightimirish]

86. I think he would be

A great Sec of Labor

[mlawrence]

88. yeah...

because that's a real influental position, isn't it! If you think he'd be good for sec of labor because he so sotrongly supports and advocates for the rights of workers, then there is no better place for him than the Oval Office, where he can direct much more than the dept of labor. remember, secretaries don't make decisions on their own, they carry out the wishes of the chief executive.

[thatsrightimirish]

89. umm

I didn't say he wasn't a bad president, I just said he'll be a good sec of labor. shesh

[thatsrightimirish]

90. oops

was going to be a bad president

[bklyncowgirl]

94. Great guy but too green

I'd like our next president be someone who has executive experience.

Someone who's worked in a barn would be a good thing too. God knows he's got alot of shit to clean up.

[ulysses]

98. some good, some not so much.

I can't see going door to door for Edwards during the primaries, but I'd vote for him in the general.

[Catchawave]

99. I'll support and vote for him !

He's more qualified to unite and lead us than that putz and his thugs in the White House now!

[eppur_se_muova]

100. He'd be 100 times better than our current "president"**...

But then so would my neighbor, or my neighbor's cockatiel. So would that stuff I scraped out of the bottom of the regrigerator.

[tritsofme]

101. He had his shot.

Its over.

He spent one term as a part-time senator and ran for president because he couldn't get reelected in his home state.

I have never understood the infatuation with this guy.

[bermudat]

103. How do I feel about him for President? No f*cking way.

He is too centrist and I felt he and Kerry did not come out swing for us in the last election. I have seen nothing to believe that he will run another milquetoast campaign. Now I would support his wife's candidacy.

[QC]

106. I can't believe Ole Pasty hasn't shown up spitting venom yet.

Did she finally get tombstoned?

[Demi_Babe]

107. I'd vote for him in a heart beat

[wiley]

110. No Comment

How bout 06?

[NoSheep]

111. I'd vote for him. Can't decide who should run with him. They assasinated

Wellstone. :banghead:

[nicknameless]

113. Excellent choice. He's on my (very) short list.

:thumbsup:

[barb162]

114. I'd vote for him in a second

[Glidescube]

116. NO WAY

He made his millions by doing the very same thing that has made medicine so expensive. He sued his way to the top.

[Glidescube]

117. Your Dream ticket in 2008 and why

Call me a DINO but I'd vote for two RINOs


A John McCain or Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton for VP ticket in 2008 would secure a win. It would carry the most Bipartisan vote in the nation. The moderates from both Reps and Demos would go for it.

Both McCain and Rudy are reasonable people. They are out there believing they are orders from God and they are not in the back pockets of big Business and the neocon right. With either of them as Perez and Hillary as their six shooter we can start repairing the damage the Texans has created.

[Radical Activist]

126. Do you really buy that?

I know the drug companies like to blame lawsuits for the high drug costs, but don't you find it suspicious that those companies still manage to make billions of dollars despite litigation? Lawyers aren't to blame. That's a Republican BS line. Someone has to hold corporations accountable for their actions.

[rodeodance]

118. actually 'peachy face" (term of endearment)-was my first pick----so I am

delighted to see him still on the radar.

[Joanne98]

123. Eliot Spitzer/ Patrick Fitzgerald 2008

[Radical Activist]

125. He was on the national ticket, so he's not a regional figure.

I think its a shame the Kerry campaign didn't use him to his full potential in '04. I think we could have carried North Carolina with a real effort. His kind of populist message is a winning one.

[depakid]

127. He's a one term Senator!

who can't even carry his own state!

Not only that, but he's an opportunist- and quite frankly- a hypocrite.

[sirjohn]

130. Yuk. n/t

[quinnox]

131. Very strong candidate

It's true he a lot of crossover appeal, I talked to republicans who said they love the guy and would've voted for him as president.

Pretty sure he is running again so it all depends on the field to see what kind of chances he would have of taking the nomination.