Edwards leans left, where votes are

[JohnLocke]

Edwards leans left, where votes are
By Lee Bandy--The State
Sunday, January 7, 2007
----
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has veered to the left in his quest for the party’s 2008 nomination.
Not a bad move. That’s where the votes are in a primary.
If you have any hope of winning a Democratic primary, suggested Winthrop University political scientist Scott Huffmon, “You’ve got to go where the ideological votes are. They dominate the primaries.”
(...)
Today, Edwards is running a more progressive campaign, offering ideas that make him into a different candidate the second time around.
His platform calls for eliminating poverty, reducing global warming, an increase in community service and the minimum wage, cuts in troops in Iraq and establishing a universal health-care plan. All are pet programs normally touted by liberals.
Smart move.
(...)
Edwards rejects the notion his candidacy has taken a left turn to save his hide.
“What I’m doing is saying what I think America needs,” he said. “Americans taking responsibility, taking action. I’m not talking about just themselves. I’m talking about for their country. I don’t think there’s anything liberal about that.
“I’m not saying the government can solve our problems. I’m saying the government plays a role. And you play a role. And if we don’t take individual responsibility and action, I think it’s going to be very difficult to deal with the issues this country faces,” Edwards said in an interview late last month.
“I don’t think most people see that as ideological at all,” he added.
Edwards, 53, is a serious contender. He has been strengthening his ties to organized labor and other liberal groups and hiring a top-notch campaign staff.
(...)
Edwards will face a stiff challenge. But don’t write him off. He is leading in some polls, including in Iowa, site of the first Democratic presidential contest.
Can he keep up with front-runners Clinton and Obama?
“Bring ’em on,” said the son of a Seneca textile worker. “I’m ready.”
----
Read the rest here.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. if Gore doesn't run...

I could vote for this guy. :)

[JohnLocke]

2. I think I might, too.

;) ::hi:

[still_one]

3. I haven't made my mind up about Edwards yet

There are three people who I would vote for today without any problem:

Gore
Clark
Obama

[stranger]

5. kate michalman will kill him

I would vote for edwards if he is the nominee.
but he better clearly and unambigiguously
state that he opposes the so called
"partial birth" abortion. even if kate withdraws her endorsement
she ain't that popular anywhere.

if he doesnt, he won't take north carolina or any southern state.
and will probably also lose missouri and west virgina.

[David__77]

6. no such thing as "partial birth" abortion.

he should say he trusts women and their doctors - period. he's not going to win the south by pandering to the anti-abortion weirdos. in any event, he doesn't need the south.

[stranger]

7. he who will not pander, win not win.

"he's not going to win the south by pandering to the anti-abortion weirdos."

no, but if he offends them he wont win one southern state.
and oh, yes he most certainly does need at least one or two southern states.
Can you name on presidential candidate who has won without a single southern state?

he needs at least preferably two of these:
al, ga, sc, nc, tenn, va, kentucky, miss, la, ark.


as for partial birth abortions, I doubt whether they exist either, but thats
totally irrelevant if voters think they are a "problem".

It doesnt matter whether mexican aliens are a threat to
blue collar jobs for working men and women-if the voters think they are.

So, it doesnt matter whether partial birth abortions actually exist
or not-there are enough religous voters out there who fervently believe they
do exist; and it energizes them like crazy-_enough
to sink Edwards if he doesnt repudiate them.

bottomline: hes toast if he doesnt say he opposes it,
after he gets the nomination-whether its a figment or not.

You can take this to the bank: kate michelman will cost him more votes than
she gets for him.
.
He might as well be endorsed by madalyn murray O'hare.
(rip)

the only voters for whom this is a litmus test are
the anti-abortionists- a sizable plurality of pro choice
people voted for repubs-just as many self hating gays
have and they will continue to do so.

There's more christie whitmans out there than you think-
voting for pro life repub candidates. and that gives
power to the religious anti-choice crowd

[David__77]

8. Nope - all we need is OH, or NM and NV.

The Democrat does not need a southern state. Electoral patterns change. I'm sorry, but it will depress many, many voters, myself included, if the Democrat panders to anti-abortion sentiment. There are indeed millions of us who have no problem with abortion as chosen by free women. Lieberman's pandering cost Gore because millions voted for Nader instead.

The Democrat can do what you're saying "I oppose late term abortion," but add that he or she also does not favor locking up women or their doctors.

[karynnj]

13. No he doesn't

Gore would have won with none of those plus Fl which he really won and Kerry would have won with Ohio, where we now have a Democratic SOS and Governor, making the state quite winnable. You could in fact have a landslide without those states. (Add Ohio, Iowa, NM, Nevada, Florida, and Co to the states Kerry won - and it would have been a landslide.)

In 2004, Kerry beat Edwards in the primaries of many of those states.

[still_one]

9. so let me understand your point

You are telling me that if the life of the Mother is in danger in any southern state, they would say it is fine to have HER die in lieu of the fetus?

If that is the sad state of affairs in this country, then we are doomed. Science becomes irrelevent, and the world deserves to overtake us

[Viva_La_Revolution]

21. and if they both die?

:(

[Beaverhausen]

15. Watch that right wing terminology, people will wonder about you

No such thing as partial birth abortion.

and Edwards doesnt have to win any more states than he and Kerry won in 2004, except Ohio, which we know they did win (but that's another thread...).

[Eurobabe]

12. Ditto here too.

My three favs: Obama, Clark, Gore. Bring THEM on!!

[seashorelady]

19. I will, vote for this guy, period.

[oldtime dfl_er]

4. Amusing

"His platform calls for eliminating poverty, reducing global warming, an increase in community service and the minimum wage, cuts in troops in Iraq and establishing a universal health-care plan."

Geez, what a radical lefty!
:sarcasm:

[ultraist]

14. Who said RADICAL lefty?

That would be Dennis Kuchinich who, being a good guy and all, does not stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning.

Edwards is very progressive on all of the major issues--he is opposed to the McCain Doctrine, for Universal Health Care for all, and for eliminating poverty within 30 years.

[oldtime dfl_er]

18. maybe I didn't make the "sarcasm" avatar big enough

The issues I mentioned are humanist issues that no one should oppose. The article refers to them as issues that indicate Edwards leans "left". I say that's a bag of crap. Edwards leans toward progressive, humanist interests and I don't like that he gets slapped with the "lefty" label for these kinds of positions.

[provis99]

10. hmm, ironic the info is from my old buddy Scott Huffmon

I knew him as a flaming right-wing libertarian back in Ole Miss grad school. Maybe's there's hope for even right-wing libertarians!

[bigdarryl]

11. But but they keep telling us Hillary is the canidate who's ahead in polls

[jsamuel]

16. Edwards is left on domestic policy, but he isn't on foreign policy and that is what the Pres does.

I am concerned over Edwards' lack of foresight on Iraq and his defiance to renounce his vote in the 2004 debates. I also think we need someone who can call someone like Cheney on his lies. He let Cheney walk all over him in the vice-pres debates in 2004.

I love his domestic policy plans though.

[nicknameless]

17. Edwards is okay - AS LONG AS - he pledges to leave Iran alone.

It's time for the Dems to knock off the goddamn Neanderthal saber rattling!

The idiots among the Dems need to understand that THE PEOPLE DON'T WANT ANY MORE OF THEIR EFFING WARS!!!
It's time they put away their paranoid, reich-wing-media-pandering "military options".

If they won't do it out of a sense of decency, then they need to do it because it infuriates their base.

[PeaceProgProsp]

20. As a person who leans left myself, I'm amazed more people didn't realize

that Edwards was pretty far left in '04.

Nobody running presented a more left-wing agenda striking exactly at the mechanisms which were feeding neofascism and which, most importantly, could actually get the support of a majority of Americans and achieve its goals.

If I were Kucinich, I would have been thinking, "man, so that's how you sneak everything I want to do under the radar of the right wing!"