I truly believe Edwards WILL be the next Democratic President...

[scheming daemons]

Either this year (if the Dems wise up in time and realize he is the best bet to win in November) or in 2008 (if the Dems continue on this disastrous path of nominating John Kerry - who will be eaten alive by Karl Rove and lose handily.)

But the next time a Democrat sits in the oval office, his name will be John Edwards.

Let's hope it comes now, before Bush has four more years to f*** up the world.

The "Kerry is electable" argument is circular. Read William Saletan today. http://slate.msn.com/id/2095311/

MacAuliffe and Co. are miscalculating on this one. Kerry is to 2004 what Dole was to 1996.

Please, Wisconsin and March 2nd voters: Think long and hard about this before you pull the lever for a candidate that cannot win in November.

Voting for Kerry is like a football team "playing not to lose" instead of playing to win. People need a positive reason to vote FOR a candidate, not just a reason to vote against a candidate.

Kerry will receive votes from everyone who cannot stand Bush (including me!) in the General Election ... but a vote for Kerry is simply a vote against Bush - not a vote *FOR* anything. He won't generate any passion or bring in new people.

Edwards gives people a positive reason to vote... a reason to vote FOR something, instead of just against something.

And if you don't like Edwards, vote for Dean - that's another positive vote FOR something instead of just against. The same was true for Clark too.

If we pick the "safe" candidate, we will lose. Edwards is Clinton without the bimbo eruptions. He's Rove worst nightmare among the remaining candidates. He has more foreign policy experience than Clinton in '92 or Bush in '00 - that's a non-issue.

He is ready.... if you aren't ready for him, get ready for four more years of chimp boy.

[jpgpenn]

1. I don't

[KnucklesBuchanan]

2. One could also argue...

that he is Clinton without the incredible intellect and deep understanding of domestic and foreign policy. Me, I'll either be a delegate for Uncommitted, or Kerry.

[spooky3]

4. excuse me, anyone who graduated with honors from a good university

in 3 years while working his way through, who succeeded fabulously in law school and in life, plays second fiddle to no one in intellect.

[efront]

23. True dat n/t

*

[DjTj]

6. Don't underestimate Johnny...

...anybody who has chosen a profession and become one of the best certainly has an intellect worthy of respect.

I see the Clinton charisma and intellect without the baggage.

Also, welcome to DU Knuckles! :hi:

[KnucklesBuchanan]

15. Thanks for the welcome.

My problem with John Edwards is simply that I do not trust his motives. He ran for a Senate seat that he had no real interest in, from what I can tell. It appears to me that he simply ran for his Senate seat in order to give a bid for the presidency some legitmacy rooted in "legislative experience". One of the reasons I supported Wes Clark, and admire DK and Bob Graham, is that they all are motivated not by a desire for the job, but by a desire to serve their country and their fellow Americans in the best and most useful way they know can. I do not believe that to be true of John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Edwards or Al Sharpton.

That isn't to say that any of the aforementioned would not make a good president, they very well may. I, however, do not trust their motivations.

[DjTj]

16. I really don't see that.

He had a long career in private practice and never considered running for office. Most lawyers with that kind of success would be far more politically involved than Edwards was.

Some of Edwards' critics here have pointed out that he didn't even vote for much of his life. I really don't think he ever sat around and thought about how he was going to become President.

Something happened to John Edwards in 1996 after his son died. I don't even know that he can articulate what it is, but it lit some sort of fire under him and he decided he needed to seize every opportunity and try to make a difference in the world.

I'm not sure what you think his motivations are. Why do you think he wants to be President? For the prestige? For the power? I think John Edwards simply believes that he can do something for working people that no other candidate can do, and I think he believes he can do that best in the White House.

I just don't see a power-hungry politico in Edwards, if only because he spent so much of his life completely outside of the political process.

[surfermaw]

13. How can you question his intellect

He graduated from College in 3 years while working to pay his way. Like Clinton, Edwards will find the most intelligent people for his cabinet...wouldn't you say Rubin was one of Clinton's best...

[AP]

18. Why do you think he doesn't have an incredible intellect?

[spooky3]

3. hey, scheming, I think the rules say you have to edit out the f***

I'm afraid I think that Rove and friends will be out for bear no matter who the candidate is. For example, the RNC has a nice little smear sheet on the web about Edwards too.

[SangamonTaylor]

5. go Edwards!

[Tim_in_HK]

7. I don't think so.

Sept 11 and Iraq war changed the comparison to Clinton '92 and Bush '00. I'm still amazed that some people can't process that. Clinton's win in '92 was helped by the end of the Cold War and a move towards (even more) disinterest in international affairs. Bush's foreign policy position was also, basically, screw the rest of the world; we're gonna be 'humble' and ignore it, accept to push our own interests even more forcefully.

Neither of these perceptions are now the case. And these aren't credible positions for voters, regardless of how you think the US should act (either neo-con or not neo-con). Bush is gonna run this election on national security. While the Dems shouldn't allow Bush to lead the debate, it's (a) kind of going to go that way regardless b/c incumbents get a large say in setting the agenda and (b) if Dems want to shift the debate, at the least we need a candidate who can at least deflect that issue. Sorry, but Edwards ain't the candidate.

And if Edwards doesn't get the nomination in '04, what do you think he's gonna be doing for the next four years to keep his name in the public? I hear he's not exactly a shoe-in for reelection in North Carolina.

[disenfranchised]

8. You Edwards supporters shouldn't be here.

You should be writing letters to Wisconsin!

[DjTj]

11. You're Right!

Go Johnny Go!

[abburdlen]

10. Ding-ding-ding

you are correct sir.

[surfermaw]

14. Before criticizing Edwards be a little better informed

Edwards was running ahead by a great deal in North Carolina at the time he decided to run for President. Edwards will be either V.P...or Attorney General if he isn't successfully at the run for President. And for your information, Edwards isn't running for any thing in North Carolina...he is the most promising young person in the democrat party, and hear this he will be in the lime light for the next 4 years now matter what.

[genius]

9. I would love to see someone from the working class win.

Also, I like attorneys. Unlike other professionals, attorneys have to pass ethics exams.

[flpoljunkie]

12. I would wager voters were allowed to pick only ONE reason why they voted

for whoever they voted for. It is not mutually exclusive: You can think John Kerry is the "most electable" and also think he "agrees with you on the major issues."

To suggest otherwise, is disingenuous, and Saletan knows it.

To buttress my case:

John Kerry's support is incredibly broad-based. In Virginia and Tennessee,

• He won among Americans of all ages, incomes, and races.

• He won among voters who said that they're top issue was economy and jobs, health care, education, taxes, and national security.

• He won among voters who were looking for a candidate with experience, a candidate who stands up for his beliefs, and a candidate who can beat Bush

• He won among voters who described themselves as very liberal, moderate, and very conservative.

[Edge]

17. Edwards is the best of all the candidates.

He's not telling us to "get over it" among very important issues. He sticks up for the little person. He's especially fond of us college students and wants to help us all get help to pay for it.

Edwards for President, 2004!

[Tweed]

19. No thanks! Kerry in 2004

John Edwards is quite the joke candidate. He needs more time to become the real deal

[Edge]

20. I hope you're right...Edwards is the best choice now.

and Kucinich.

I don't like Kerry and I will NOT support him until I have to vote for him.

[efront]

21. I think you nailed it.

I respect Senator Kerry immensely, but I also do not believe he will bring new people to the polls/party. I'm still dreaming of an Edwards/Dean ticket. I know the party insiders won't like it, but I think a lot of voters will LOVE it.

22. Edwards/Dean?

:evilgrin:

edit -- just saw reply 21 after I posted. Synchronicity.

In all seriousness, if Kerry doesn't have the nomination sewn up but the convention... it is not outside the realm of possibility.