Insiders call (John) Edwards a contender (Clinton number one)

<<SNIP>>
http://newsobserver.com/news/story/2365988p-8744059c.html

Insiders call Edwards a contender

By ROB CHRISTENSEN, Staff Writer

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards' presidential ambitions are being taken seriously by Washington insiders. Not as seriously as those of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. But seriously.
The National Journal surveyed 90 Democratic members of Congress, consultants, activists and party officials to name the five people they thought had the best chance of capturing their party's nomination in 2008.

By far, the Democrats named Clinton, the New York senator and former first lady.

But Edwards came in second, followed by Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.

<</SNIP>>

anyone who voted for giving * the authority to go into iraq will NOT get my vote.

So you have to wonder if your reluctance to vote for Edwards on those grounds puts you in a small minority.

70% of the people voted who for Kerry voted against Bush (not for Kerry) always left out.

Edited to refer to posters in general.

Me "always leaving out" and your claimed 70%?

Furthermore, I've lost track of the number of posts which argue that "More Americans voted for Kerry than any other Democrat ever." Maybe you weren't among the posters but I would be very surprised if you weren't. On edit: I have some work to do but later I'll search the archives and if I'm wrong I'll apologize.

until I can find the time to search the archives. I tried to find a quick link to the 70% (obviously the google search is going to take longer than anticipated; however, I know that poll was WIDELY reported after the election by numerous sources).

I have to run now or I'll be late for an appointment.

!) 70% voted against Bush - How do I fit in,my politics have been about the same since I cast my first vote for McGovern. If you asked in Jan 2001, I would already have said I'm not voting for Bush. In late 2003, I was between Kerry and Dean - after reading more I wanted Kerry - and my biggest concern is they would divide the NE liberal/moderate vote between themselves. Am I ABB (from Jan, 2001) or Pro-Kerry. Every election has a huge % of people who are almost certainly going to vote for one party or the other. Using the AB language in the general election made no sense. Prior to 2004, I only heard it used in the primaries where a lot of people don;t like the front runner but split among the alternative candidates.

2) Kerry got more votes - He did, it was a good GOTV effort, but the number of votes plotted over time, goes up. There are more potential voters than there were in 1996. I don't have a problem with Kerry using this number, because the main point he was making was that GWB did not have a landslide - which some of the media seems ready to claim.

...then why bother posting?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200411100002

"According to CNN's exit poll reporting, the data actually indicates that 25 percent of all voters cast their ballot "mostly" against their candidate's opponent, rather than "mostly" for their candidate. Of that 25 percent, 70 percent voted for Kerry. That means 17.5 percent of the electorate voted for Kerry as a vote "mostly" against Bush. Since 48 percent of the electorate voted for Kerry, that 17.5 percent represents 36 percent of Kerry voters."

I voted for kerry also, but when he was in the grand canyon during the campaign and they asked him, knowing what he knows now if he would still give * the authority to go into iraq, and he said yes, I knew it was over

I am not afraid of being in the minority. It was the minority that was initially for civil rights in the 60s, and against the viet nam war.

She said Bush put them between a rock and a hard place and Democrats are not neocon war mongers.

she has been one of the shinning examples of principles for most issues

I would vote for her in a minute

It takes courage to be between a rock and a hard place, and do the right thing

Johnson pushed the civil rights act of 1964 even though much of the country was against it, because it was the right thing to do. That was an act of courage.

...against good Democrats who voted yes on the IWR?

the only Democrats who voted for IWR were those cowards who were afraid of being painted as unpatriotic by the Bushies

I guess idolizing Boxer only goes so far as narrowly interpreting her IWR vote without listening to what she says about why she voted against, and what we should think of other Democrats who voted for it.

I didn't vote for her because of that

she quickly retracted her statement after several gay rights groups called her on it

it's amazing how some people on here think that certain people can do no wrong

that allowed * to go into Iraq

I don't have to agree 100% with someone I vote for, but by destroying the seperation of powers, where Congress was supposed to be the body to declare war to the executive branch, is such a serious event that I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who supported it, especially since it was based on a lie, and those in Congress did know Iraq did NOT impose an immenient threat. They are responsible for the deaths of Americans and Iraqiis alike, and have helped increase terrorism due to their cowardice, to take the path least travelled.

Sorry that is just my field. This is the same crap they pulled on Viet Nam. In 7 to 10 years after the loss of life and cost has become too much, then we will be out of Iraq, but unfortunately, I do not see it happening before then. The country will pay for the consequences of their actions, first in 2000, and then in 2004.

2006 is the last chance

Diplomacy backed with force almost always works. Under the threat of war Saddam would have let the inspectors in..which is EXACTLY what he did soon after.

The media prostitutes quickly translated this to mean Kerry would have still voted for the war, just so it would get a lot of attention.

I think Kerry fumbled while trying to explain the "nuance" in his position and ended up reinforcing people's impression that he held no clear position on the issues. ('He is for the war AND against the war ')

He was in a very tricky corner I think. American's were not against the war nearly as much as they are now. The RW painted anyone who was against the war as being unpatriotic, and I think Kerry had to be very careful choosing his words. I wish he would have been a little less careful, or listened less to whoever was advising him. Any way you look at it though, it was a tough spot to be in, and the RW media knows the spin game well.

I started out being ABB, but I'd vote for Kerry again in a heartbeat. I just hope they get the little election "irregularities" taken care of first.

that is what the war powers act is all about

REMEMBER VIET NAM

http://icasualties.org/oif/

it really matters what percentage of Americans voted for him.

America's population grows, ya know.

Considering turnout was still much lower than 70 years ago when dems were winning by 10 pt margins, Kerry didn't do great. Most importantly...he didn't win.

...which gets back to my point that people who say they can't vote for an IWR yes voter are in a very small minority.

I should also point out that many senators who voted Yes on the Gluf of Tonkin Resolution were later embraced as anti-war candidates. Voters had no problem separating a vote on a war resolution from an honest evaluation of whether a candidate is a warmonger.

I did and I regret HAVING DONE SO. He was a wimp, too goddamned polite. I want someone who calls the shots and tells it like it is and doesn't pusyfoot around.

and he did poorly in most of the primaries.

That he has a devoted following on DU doesn't account for much among Washington insiders... not that they have a clue, either at this stage.

most of the democrats in congress voted to give * the authority to go into iraq, for the patriot act, for the bankrupcy bill, etc.

for me it is time to vote for principle.

Basic LSAT-type logic, but Clark is a Clinton ally.

Clark would make a good VP, Sec of Defense, or National Security Advisor. He has no executive experience to bring to the table. He has no legislative experience. He's a great guy, but no experience. He can get experience in the new Dem Administration and then run.

Get over it.

seriously considered in '08--infact, he might be Mrs. Clinton's strongest opponent.

not Mrs. :)

Just FYI

But how will he keep his name in the headlines? This little Poverty Institute he's working for at UNC isn't going to cut it.

n

I like the guy, and I respect the fact that he spoke so frequently about poverty in our country during the primaries. It's been a long time since I've heard a Democrat make poverty a central issue - correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing Humphrey.

I'd like to see Edwards do what Gore has done from 2003 on - examine this war, do some soul-searching, and come out against it. We know we'll still have boots on the ground in 2008 - the Bush agenda requires it. It would be tragic to again have to cast a vote between two war parties. I don't think our democracy would survive it. If Edwards were to publicly distance himself from this immoral war, I think he'd be a leading contender for the nomination.

And he did it at a time when everyone else only wanted to talk about Vietnam. And although RFK expressed doubts about Vietnam (even though he supported his brother's Vietnam policies) he never put it front and center in his campaign the way everyone else did.

And RFK's position on Vietnam evolved - hell, he was in the cabinet when we first sent advisors there. If Kennedy could become the eloquent anti-war voice that he was, certainly Edwards could do something similiar - if it's truly heartfelt, and not just political posturing.

That being said, Humphrey's 1968 acceptance speech at the DNC in Chicago was still the last time I've heard a Democrat speak so movingly about poverty in our country - and yes, it's probably only because HHH got the nomination. I've no doubt Kennedy would have made it a centerpiece of his campaign had he lived.

On edit: In his final Senate speech on Vietnam, Kennedy said, "Are we like the God of the Old Testament that we can decide, in Washington, D.C., what cities, what towns, what hamlets in Vietnam are going to be destroyed? ... Do we have to accept that? ... I do not think we have to. I think we can do something about it."

Everything I've read and everyone I talk to remember RFK as avoiding Vietnam and focusing on race and poverty. He couldn't attract students to his campaign because he wouldn't run solely on Vietnam.

I'm sure that RFK saw the risk in talking only about the war, which the '68 and '72 elections proved was bad strategy.

And he mentions Vietnam several times in his announcement of his candidacy.

Granted, he didn't make Vietnam his single issue when he decided to run, as McCarthy did. But he clearly stated that his opposition to our Vietnam policies were a motivation for him to run. Here's the text:

Announcement of Candidacy for President

Washington, D.C. March 16, 1968

I am today announcing my candidacy for the presidency of the United States.

I do not run for the presidency merely to oppose any man but to propose new policies. I run because I am convinced that this country is on a perilous course and because I have such strong feelings about what must be done, and I feel that I'm obliged to do all that I can.

I run to seek new policies - policies to end the bloodshed in Vietnam and in our cities, policies to close the gaps that now exist between black and white, between rich and poor, between young and old, in this country and around the rest of the world.

I run for the presidency because I want the Democratic Party and the United States of America to stand for hope instead of despair, for reconciliation of men instead of the growing risk of world war.

I run because it is now unmistakably clear that we can change these disastrous, divisive policies only by changing the men who are now making them. For the reality of recent events in Vietnam has been glossed over with illusions.

The Report of the Riot Commission has been largely ignored.

The crisis in gold, the crisis in our cities, the crisis in our farms and in our ghettos have all been met with too little and too late.

No one knows what I know about the extraordinary demands of the presidency can be certain that any mortal can adequately fill that position.

But my service in the National Security Council during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Berlin crisis of 1961 and 1962, and later the negotiations on Laos and on the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty have taught me something about both the uses and limitations of military power, about the opportunities and the dangers which await our nation in many corners of the globe in which I have traveled.

As a member of the cabinet and member of the Senate I have seen the inexcusable and ugly deprivation which causes children to starve in Mississippi, black citizens to riot in Watts; young Indians to commit suicide on their reservations because they've lacked all hope and they feel they have no future, and proud and able-bodied families to wait our their lives in empty idleness in eastern Kentucky.

I have traveled and I have listened to the young people of our nation and felt their anger about the war that they are sent to fight and about the world they are about to inherit.

In private talks and in public, I have tried in vain to alter our course in Vietnam before it further saps our spirit and our manpower, further raises the risks of wider war, and further destroys the country and the people it was meant to save.

I cannot stand aside from the contest that will decide our nation's future and our children's future.

The remarkable New Hampshire campaign of Senator Eugene McCarthy has proven how deep are the present divisions within our party and within our country. Until that was publicly clear, my presence in the race would have been seen as a clash of personalities rather than issues.

But now that the fight is on and over policies which I have long been challenging, I must enter the race. The fight is just beginning and I believe that I can win ...

Finally, my decision reflects no personal animosity or disrespect toward President Johnson. He served President Kennedy with the utmost loyalty and was extremely kind to me and members of my family in the difficult months which followed the events of November of 1963.

I have often commended his efforts in health, in education, and in many other areas, and I have the deepest sympathy for the burden that he carries today.

But the issue is not personal. It is our profound differences over where we are heading and what we want to accomplish.

I do not lightly dismiss the dangers and the difficulties of challenging an incumbent President. But these are not ordinary times and this is not an ordinary election.

At stake is not simply the leadership of our party and even our country. It is our right to moral leadership of this planet.

Vietnam was everyone else's focus. RFK is shifting the focus back to race and poverty with this sentence. You have to look at this in context.

He clearly focuses on Vietnam.

"In private talks and in public, I have tried in vain to alter our course in Vietnam before it further saps our spirit and our manpower, further raises the risks of wider war, and further destroys the country and the people it was meant to save."

As I said, he wasn't a one-issue candidate. But he certainly didn't support Johnson's course in Vietnam after 1966, and he expressed this in the Senate and on the campaign trail. I certainly viewed him at the time as an anti-war candidate; everything he said supported that.

There were many students for RFK. There was some initial resentment when RFK entered right before LBJ announced he wasn't running, because some students felt a loyalty to Gene McCarthy who ran an anti-war campaign and came a close second to LBJ in NH. In reality McCarthy was basically running almost entirely on the war. RFK quickly became the stronger candidate and he had basically won the nomination in California on the awful day he was shot.

The real lack of interest by the students was for Hubert Humphrey who got the nomination in Chicago -while the anti-war movement demonstrated. It was a weird time - there was a draft Ted Kennedy (who was barley old enough) movement and a very late effort to for George McGovern.

and he gave people hope.

It wouldn't have been because he ran on being against Vietnam.

Hope inside folks keep us at mind here. Going out on a limb here, but in NO WAY will Senator Clinton win us an election. I don't know know of anyone that likes her. Sorry... that's what I hear in my big neck of the woods.

Everyone likes Edwards and Gore. Both are as DemBeans states - they'd be the team to bring back peace, solace, hope and civility to our nation. Because right now, we're in a deep culturally, ecomonically, globally, etc.

I liked the way Edwards tore into Cheney in the debates. A+
Gore - We need him back, "badly, folks!"

Geez, and they call themselves Democrats...

of Edwards on ESPN and then mocked him as not even having enough "gravitas" for ESPN. He also took a shot at Kerry as if they were both losers.

That's the problem with the left and the media, imo.....they chop and dice ALL Democrats, especially Gore and Kerry, as losers while Bob Dole is always held in high regard and considered a sage and a statesman, even though he lost by a landslide and then starred in male impotence commercials and Pepsi ads that suggested sexual feelings for an 18 year old Britney Spears.

shooting itself in the foot once again. Also maybe he is trying to counter the push for Edwards (which the Republicans and corporate media are only to happy to participate in).

is a surer way to shot the Democratic party in the foot. (and I didn't even know political parties had feet). It is also completely unfair to the two people who were good enough to be considered for the Presidency. In addition, Kerry was the victim of the worst character assignation effort I've ever seen. Although, he had no real scandals in his 22 years in elected life, a distinguished military career, and a very principled and very public anti war stand, he was hit with a barrage of lies that the cable media repeated rather than examined. After al that he lost a close election, emerging with his head held high. Having spent 30 plus years serving his country well in various ways, he does not deserve to have people attacking his character or dignity now for laughs.

In 2007, it will be clearer which candidates are most viable. If Edwards (or Kerry) fit what people want then they can compete for the nomination.

Making fun of them now and calling them losers is just dumb. They are the same people they were in August 2004. they are both good, intelligent men, either of whom would be better in the white house than Bush is. Kerry is being a very active Senator, eloquently fighting for military families, health care for kids, and saner energy and environmental plans. Edwards has created a center that is going to be dealing with the issue of poverty. Both men are eloquent spokesmen for a Democratic agenda. In 2006, the party needs issues to be identified with if we want to stand for anything - the issues pushed by Kerry and Edwards are good and I am sure other prominent Democrats will add others.

Am BLM mentioned, there is something wrong when a nasty hatchet man who made sleazy commercials after a landslide loss is treated like a respected elder statesman (and is given an opportunity to sprout nonsense such as claiming Kerry didn't bleed from his wounds - ignoring that the 25 yr old Kerry could have died each day he went out on his boat) while the far more dignified John Edwards is seldom seen on TV. Kerry who has been far more statesman-like in his career than Dole could dream of being, is never given the respect Dole is accorded.

the poster to which you are responding does not have any allegiances to any political causes other than to Wesley K. Clark. She has laid waste to innumerable liberal bulwarks in her drive to advance Clark's political prospects, because she is no liberal. She likes Clark because she sees in him what many of Bush's most ardent backers see in him.

Seems like no Democrat can win. If Wes Clark gets in the running and has a chance he will be Swift Boated worse than Kerry with Generals and Admirals smearing his integrity, not just Swifties.

like they did Kerry. When you have an opponent of Clark's caliber it's not so easy to take them down (which is why the Republicans worked overtime to keep him off the ticket). The Republicans are trying to paint the Democrats as a bunch phony, political opportunists devoid of any integrity or moral compass. A Clark candidacy would shoot a big hole in this game-plan.

And that is no reflection on Clark.

Do not underestimate these people's (Republicans) viciousness or mendacity.

who would completely distort Clark's record and words while the media gave them hundreds of hours of free airtime while they discussed it ad nauseum.

It's not a matter of whether a candidate can or cannot be assailed, THEY WILL DO IT ANYWAY.

They would do it to Four Star General Jesus Christ if he was running as a Democrat and the media would be doing their utmost to do their part for their fascist masters.

The question is what you're going to do to fight it when it does happen.

You better be running on more than the thing they're going to attack, and you better have a counterargument to the attacks that's going to resonate with the public.

Clark won't lie down, roll over, and take it like... someone I can think of.

The swifties were 3/4 of the way around the track while Kerry was still at the starting line, tying his shoes, trying to show how he didn't consider them a threat.

Clark would kick the shit out of them. In fact, I believe that's pretty close to a direct quote from him:

his side of the story.

Kerry released Naval records, and had firsthand testimony from many others, including the editor from the Chicago Sun Times who wrote a legthy description of events while HE, himself, was on the swift boat with Kerry. The media didn't book him on any of the news shows to discuss his article.


After Nightline went to some length to uncover what happened in Vietnam by interviewing the actual Vietnamese villagers who witnessed it, the rest of the media went to great lengths to IGNORE what Nightline discovered. It didn't matter to most of them that the swift vets were all lying through theur teeth. It was their job to win the election for Bush, whatever it took.

Because your premise leaves few other choices.

(1) Vote Republican
(2) Nominate Corporate-Friendly Democrats
(3) Conquer the media

You are basically claiming that a great Democratic candidate can be slandered in the media and there is nothing that they can do about it.

What prevents a "swift boat" treatment against John Edwards? Hillary Clinton? Barbara Boxer? Bill Richardson? Barack Obama? Anybody?

And they cannot answer because according to your premise, the media will not allow it.

ON EDIT:
But the media's "blackout" of John Kerry, if it exists at all, had nothing to do with the fact that he had a hundred thumbs up his ass when the Swifties first started slandering him. He didn't "dignify them with a response", and in fact went skiing or wind-surfing or some damn thing. Took a few weeks off, letting them get their charges out there, unanswered.

When he finally got around to disputing the charges, it was way too damn late for the short-attention-span American public, who had already heard all they needed to hear.

Would John Kerry have been able to counteract the Swift Boat Liars if he had tried really hard? We'll never know.

and it's time not to base support on the notion that, magically, your candidate will be impervious to the inevitable criticisms.

Think about it in terms of Clinton. Of course Clinton was attacked on his lack of service in Vietnam and the fact he was governor of a small southern state and because of his problems with his marriage. What happened was those attacks didnt work. It wasn't because he kicked the shit out of them. It was because ultimately, those things didn't matter to voters who (1) saw themselves in Bill Clinton, and (2) decided that the things Bill Clinton said mattered mattered much more.

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1438792&mesg_id=1439236

doesn't happen to any Democrat.

I swear, sometimes folks get more concerned about spinning FOR their preferred candidate in 2008 that they ignore the snake pit in waiting for ANY Democratic candidate TODAY which will be even deeper by 2008.

Either we deal with exposing the GOP control of the media and the voting machines or let fascism go unchecked while jockeying for favored candidate position. It's 2005, fer chrissakes, and we have 2006 to deal with.

All we have to do is get on network news, cable news, talk radio, magazines, etc. and let the American people know... oh, wait...

barriers or there will be no next time for any Democrat. The only way to succeed in breaking down those barriers is through a concerted effort by Democrats to FIRST, acknowledge it and then to get on the same page to expose it and demand fairness.

Maybe the best way to make that happen is by bringing up the Fairness Doctrine again and doing it as a unified party effort.

Not in the media, I'm sure.

so important.

The Democrats could present a well-researched document chronicling the right wing control of the corporate media at a press conference where the media won't know what hit them, and see where it goes from there, hopefully to a call to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

It would be OUR jobs to give them support on the LTTE pages and calls to tak radio all complaining about the very real problem.

It would certainly be alot more helpful to the cause of democracy than pretending our preferred candidates are immune to corporate media and their storylines.

I would, however, point out that Kerry came very close to winning an election despite sitting on his thumb for a month while the Swift Boat Liars got their story all over the media. What would have happened if John Kerry had called them out for being the liars they are -- at the time they were making the false accusations?

That's impossible to know, or as Don Rumsfeld would put it, "That's a known unknown."

Bottom line -- the media cares about the bottom line. If Kerry had blasted back at the Swifties, that would have sold some ads, and they would have given him some airtime. But by the time Kerry woke his ass up, it was far too late and the media didn't give a damn anymore. They already had their storyline and they weren't going to change it midstream.

Clark would fire back immediately. He wouldn't go off wind-surfing for a month, then come back and blandly release some paperwork. He would step out in front of the cameras, look straight into the eyes of the American people, and say, "These motherfuckers are liars... now watch me prove it."

that's exactly a big part of the problem, Dems who repeat RNC spin as fact.

Every candidate got screwed by the media in 2003-4. People still call Clark the perfumed prince because of the media's emphasis on everything BAD they can throw at any Dem.

My aim is to change that dynamic and it would help if all Democrats would recognize it as a very real problem ASAP. Blaming Democrats and being in denial of the press's coziness with the RW noise machine only legitimatizes the press's storylines.

Kerry DID take a shit-load of time off to go windsurfing, skiing, etc. That's not a right-wing talking point, that's a fact. Kerry was supposed to be fighting for you and me, but he had more important fucking things to do with his time.


http://www.bartcop.com/1435.htm (emphasis mine)


Now, the past is the past, but let's not romanticize things here. Kerry is a great Senator, but he was a fuck-up as a presidential candidate, and there were things he could have done better.

Kerry did not do the best that he could do, much less the best that Clark could do.

windsurfing or even that he took a month off at all.

Just because bartcop exaggerated for an argument doesn't make it anywhere CLOSE to being the truth.

Repeating it JUST for the sake of repeating it is pure folly.

When you realize that Kerry did NOT take a month of vacation at ALL during 2004, I expect you will retract your post accusing me of bullshit especially because the whole windsurfing is an elitist vacation activity WAS a RW talking point unfortunately picked up by too many on the left.

You're the one making the claim, you prove it.

Are you going to try to rewrite history and pretend that John Kerry did the best job he could do?

and you pointed to the windsurfing, which was made out to be an elitist activty by the RW media. You can't even prove he took a month off during the entire campaign, let alone during the summer.

He did the best he could with 90% of broadcast media against him, just as they were against ANY Democrat. With the GOP in control of most broadcast media and most of the voting machines, Kerry did a great job.

I can't believe you are even fighting this point, G_C. I suppose you DON'T want Dems to deal with the media and the machines, so your preferred candidate can prove that they can win in 2008 on the same terms that Kerry did?

Not me. I will fight to make it fairer for Kerry, Clark, Edwards, Clinton, Feingold, or ANY Dem nominee. I don't want 2008 to be on the same GOP controlled playing field.

Is not conducive to winning in 06 or 08.

A person does not lose weight by convincing himself that he's not fat.

They don't get their finances in order by fooling themselves into thinking they're rich.

And they don't win elections by pretending that what John Kerry did with regards to the Swift Boat Liars was anywhere CLOSE to a winning strategy.

Lying and saying that Kerry effectively defended himself to the best of his abilities against the swift boat liars flies in the face of the facts:



and



The Swift Boat Liars really got into the swing of their assault on John Kerry in late July. Kerry wanted to act like the Swifties didn't bother him, as though they were unworthy of the effort of him firing back. So he sat on his hands until Thursday, August 19, 2004.

Here's what Dowd had to say about it at the time:




But let's pretend that it was the media and not John Kerry taking a nice relaxing break while his reputation and war service were being trashed by Bush's fucking winged monkeys. Let's pretend that none of the fault lies with the fact that our nominee sucked as a presidential candidate. Now, I love John Kerry, and I think he's an awesome senator from Massachussetts, and I even think he'd be a great president... if the presidency were handed to him on a silver platter like it was for Bush. But John Kerry doesn't have the advantage of having political opponents who will roll over in terror -- Bush does.

I notice you keep changing the goalposts to cover for your false accusation that Kerry took a month of vacation where he was windsurfing instead of campaigning, so you claim I said Kerry had an effective reply for the Swift lies.

Kerry COULDN'T have an effective reply because the media was determined to ignore the facts revealed by the proKerry argument and gave hundreds of hours of broadcast time over a 4 month period to the lies of the Swift liars.

YOU want Clark or ANY candidate to have that EXACT same playing field? Deal with the FACT that most of the broadcast media is controlled by the media, and stop accusing ME of lying or burying my head in the sand.

No way would I ever hound Clark as the "perfumed prince" after hundreds of hours of broadcast time are given to the scores of Generals and Commanders For Truth to press the case that Clark had serious "issues, and could never be trusted as commander-in-chief" ad nauseum.

Deal with reality, man. Deal with reality.

BTW.....Calling me a liar for something I never said is also bad form.

You are accusing me putting words in your mouth while at the same time you put words in my mouth.

The facts are that the media is unfair to Democratic candidates. We agree on this point.

The facts are that John Kerry did not do as effective a job getting his message out and responding to attacks as he could have. I can't tell from one post to another whether or not we agree on this point, but I maintain it as a fact.

The facts are that another candidate (Clark or Dean, certainly) would have done a much better job getting their message out and fighting back. I'm guessing we disagree on this point, although again I'm not sure.

And finally, the facts are that while the media did its level-best to keep Democratic candidates down in 2000, 2002 and particularly 2004, good, solid candidates with some fight in them could still have one even in the media environment we find ourselves in. A Democratic candidate could have won the election in 2004 if he had fought back harder than John Kerry, and honestly that wouldn't have been too hard. Kerry DID take a month off in the summer in the sense that he let the swift boat liars tell their lies more or less unchallanged for a month. He spent some of that time out windsurfing and trying to pretend that the swifties didn't bother him (and it's your words, not mine, that that's an "elitist" activity -- I never said it).

Blaming the media will only get our candidates so far... we need candidates who are capable of and willing to fight back against the slimiest snakes the Republicans have to offer. John Kerry wasn't that guy. Clark absolutely would have been -- you don't have to agree, but it's the truth. Dean would have been too.

and I agree that at a certain point they ALL got hurt when the media chose to distort them. But, the only one who pulled through the constant media hits during the primaries was Kerry. Clark couldn't. Dean couldn't. Dean totally subdued himself when the media portrayed him as out of control.

So, how any of you figure that Clark or Dean would have gotten past whatever the fascist media had planned for them in the general election when they couldn't do overcome the fascist media in the primary, well..... it just speaks for itself.

I always thought Kerry would break through the media propping of Bush better than Gore did, but, the GOP control of the media just got stronger since 2000.

What the playing field looks like for 2006 and 2008 depends on the work we do now to expose that control.

Ignore it if you choose. I will not.

The media wasn't the only reason Kerry came out ahead in the primaries, and they are not the only reason Kerry is not the president today.

Kerry came within 3% of beating Bush WITH a hostile media and WITHOUT fighting back.

I suspect that a candidate who WOULD fight back could have very easily won against Bush in spite of the media.

I agree with you that the media needs to be addressed; however, I also believe that we need to field better candidates.

decisively that he made it impossible for the media to spin them into wins for Bush?

Kerry did because it was his opportunity to be heard unfiltered by the media. ANY mistake and the media would pounce. Was anyone else as mistake-proof as Kerry? The primaries proved they weren't.

Kerry was a great candidate who had 90% of broadcast media working against him. His numbers were remarkable up against that obstacle.

and not only did they ignore the witnesses that supported Kerry, they continued to give time to witnesses who clearly provably lied - one said he was on Kerry's vote for all three purple hearts. Navy records showed he was there for none. The cable shows didn't care.

The Navy records plus common sense should have sufficed: Here's what you need to believe to accept the logic of the SBVT

1)Imagine that several swift boats go out on a mission and each skipper writes the mission up.
2)One LT, junior grade, reportedly unlikable, writes a totally different story making himself out to be a hero.
3) His commanding officer, who doesn't like him, because he's unlikeable, accepts his story and ignores the mundane stories of the others.
4) He publicly gives the unlikable skipper two medals for these exploits - one of which is the highest medal given in that unit. For some reason no one complains
5) After 3 PH, the skipper is transferred to a plum job where he wants to go. It needs a higher level of clearance so his officers (now among the SBVT) had to fill out paperwork that among other things means they need to attest to his good character.

With no data at all it's clear that even the smartest, most charming 25 year old could not have accomplished this. (In fact in terms of the logic, the one thing they really goofed on was saying he wasn't likable - it would have been easier if they said otherwise.)

They would smear Jesus. They are shameless. Anyone telling themselves they have the immune candidate is delusional.

Julie

...remember the last election where the candidate with more gravitas won?

Bush-Dukakis is a tossup -- but I wouldn't say either of them were running on being likeable, personalbe and average.

Anyway, the Daily Show has always been fair to Edwards, even when poking fun. So, if they're making a joke about gravitas, I wouldn't worry. Perhaps they know that gravitas doesn't matter.

Bush got another 4. So yeah I'd say it's important.

...sideways.

People didn't vote for Bush because he had more gravitas. They voted for him because they thought he'd shoot first and ask questions later.

I wish they'd bring that back.

If that little joke was all it took to "chop and dice" Edwards, then I guess he probably doesn't have the stuff to be president. This article is proof though that he does have a very good PR firm still representing him.

treats Democrats and Republicans is just too stark to ignore even when the comedy comes from someone on the left.

But don't blame Jon Stewart for poking fun at Edwards, Stewart is a comedian and bashes politicians as a career. The Daily Show has made its share of digs at Bob Dole.

The funny thing is, commentators, etc considered Left Wing will make fun of or call Liberals and Democrats when they do something stupid or wrong. The Right Wing commentators are blindly loyal (unless one of them gets out of line/votes with the Democrats).

That's the problem.

He is certainly not a man of huge "gravitas".

We should be thinking about 2006, and taking back the legislature.

Speculation about 2008 is fun, but that's all it is: speculation.

We need to take back control of Congress, put a stop to the far right madness the GOP is trying to foist on our country, and take control of the public agenda.

THEN we can start thinking about the White House.

How often are any predictions on Democratic nominees prior to the primaries accurate? Other than for when there is a sitting President or VP, it is rare for the front runner to win. Of course Hillary is in position we've never encountered before, but it is still way to soon to make any meaningful predictions of anyone's chances.

Nothing DLC about it!

insiders to try and show the "insiders" as having influence and themselves still starring as the media whores. It is a mutually reinforcing paradigm to show nothing will change the 'power' status quo as far as politics is concerned. This is not indicative of the power shift AWAY from mainstream media and insipid insiders who are still licking their wounds from not being able to corral the activists and the dreaded blogosphere.

They would like to retain their paid whoring statuses so we don't get any ideas. So sad and too bad, I have some! :rofl:

:hug:

Look, I went to two John Edwards Rallies, got my entire class to hate me and try to get me kicked out of school for telling a fundie off because she was bashing Hillary, and volunteered for John Kerry's campaign in '04. I don't know much about Wes Clark. They all have good points. Barbara Boxer too-she's incredible. But we need someone who can get more electoral votes-that's what this all comes down to. Do we want to get the White House back or argue about which Dem we like better? Look, Bill got Arkansas to vote for him twice. Al Gore couldn't get Arkansas nor Tennessee to vote for him. Jimmy Carter got Georgia to vote for him twice-even in '80 when he lost to the really bad actor. What do Bill and Jimmy have in common? They were both governors. And both times their states voted for them-even if they weren't elected (Jimmy's second term). A lot of people are talking about Mark Warner-I think this is something to consider-he is a Dem governor for a "Red" state. A "Red" state with a good number of electoral votes to gain, I might add. We could argue about who is better than who 'till the cows come home, but I think the most important thing to do is take back the White House from the fundies and freepers. Isn't this what really matters? Look, states like New Jersey (my home state), New York, Illinois, California, Connecticut and Massachusetts (plus all the other states who voted for Kerry) will vote Dem no matter what. But the South is what we have to work on (per Howard Dean-remember?). I mean, why is a state like West Virginia home to a Dem governor plus two Dem senators and they voted for the Chimp? Unless anyone can prove fraud I think we should start thinking Southern governor for Dem candidate in '08.

And they all won OH too.

I would really enjoy watching Republicans banging their heads against the wall trying to smear this guy if he were to be the Democratic candidate. From what I can tell, he's squeaky clean, worked well with Republicans in the Commonwealth, AND won as a Democrat in Freaking Virginia!

Think about it, 8 years after You are "Not going to have Richard Nixon to kick around anyamore"....

Think of the similarities, a sitting VP from a popular administration, but *perceived* as lacking in personal charm, is running against some one who is *seen as* charismatic. There are allegations of election irregularities in a rather close election. The VP loses his bid, becomes a private citizen for a while and comes back when the country is in chaos to lead it....

(of course in 2000 there really were election irregularities that cost Gore the White House.)

How a one-term Senator who has been out of office for four years will be a contender is beyond me.

I'm sick and tired of hearing "some people" and "insiders"...Dean is on track with requiring direct quotes for responses ;)

I have to give Mark Warner a closer look. Does he have the charsima of Bubba ? Thats the most thing that will count. Look at how a sitting vice president of a popular administration during good times, lost to a simian that just climbed down some Texas tree. Face it, presidential campaigns are show biz and especially more so when there are no incumbents involved ..the one with the most compelling ads and the best public face wins.

Edwrads had his chance, and I would pick him over Kerry, if that wer the choice. The reason is that he seemed to care more about voter fraud than Kerry did. The only way I'd ever vote for Kerry again is if he were the only choice. Otherwise, for me, Kerry is history.

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

who you voted for last November.

HAIR ADS????????

C'mon, now.

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

DTH

It is not going to happen. I tell you, the Democrats will look for a moderate conservative democrat with as little dirt as possible in his life and past. They know what they need to do to win this next election and it won't be Clinton(unfortunately).

The (stupid) Americans vote on likeability..such as who would you rather have beer with ..who would you like to have as a neighbor..who would you fish with. How can you expect Democracy to work when idiots vote with their "gut feelings" instead of facts?

We need someone with charisma who can connect with the people (like Bill). In the end it does not matter if you served your country honorably (Kerry, Dole) or if you achieved this legislation or that legislation, or if you balanced budgets(Dean), or provided health care for all under 18 (Dean). What its going to come down to in the end is who you would like to be seated next to at a bar (George the retard). Sure there are a lot of people who look at candidates objectively but they are not in the majority and they don't decide victors.

Thats the hard truth. So if you can talk to a crowd and connect with them you are in, else you are out. As of now I know of no such candidate from our side.

this could be the right wing trying to get us to pick someone who cannot win...sort of like they did before. I would be VERY cautious about leaning towards anyone like Edwards who can't even carry his own state.

John Edwards didn't bring one southern state to the Democrats in 2004, not even his own state.

On the other hand, Wes Clark would have easily delivered Arkansas, Louisiana and most likely Missouri and West Virginia.

Plus Wes Clark would have neutered the swift boat liars without working up a sweat.

I like John Edwards, but he is not a national candidate for the Democratic Party. He should run for Governor of North Carolina first.

has accomplished nothing(politcally)..and wanted to sweet talk his way into the vice presidency. So much for his "The sa-uth is MY backyawrd..", not only did he not deliver a single southern state, he didn't even have the confidence to run for his own senate seat.

I have nothing against him as such, but the Dems can do very well without oppurtunists like this guy.

The "ambulance-chaser" knock is straight out of the mouths of Ann Coulter, John Stossel, Ari Fleischer, etc., etc.

In fact, Edwards has represented children and families against extremely powerful opponents, like big insurance companies, HMOs and corporations -- the very entities that the right wing is sworn to defend to the end.

He was losing that race with a week to go because people didn't really know him.

His opponent ran an ad about Edwards beeing a greedy trial lawyer. Edwards ran an ad talking about the kind of law he did, and the press interviewed his former clients who all love him.

He shot up 10 points and won the race.

I asked how this could be correct. They had Clinton WAAAAAY above Edwards and my jaw dropped!

Edwards is MUCH better, and I'm sorry I didn't see Jon Stewart. Hard to believe he would do that.

I'm for Edwards and I too wondered why Clark wasn't even mentioned. Obama was. Very curious... could it be that there's some fudging going on in that place??? After all Bill Clinton was a 2-term President and I'm sure has a lot of pull there. We also have to consider WHERE the poll was taken.

Yeah, I'm sure they were talking ot rank and file "actiivssts". This "poll" is worthless.

Julie

If he wants to run, he should absolutely go for it. I think a broad field of candidates helps the party.

Edwards has the same problem Clark has, though, in that neither of them has an elected office at the moment from which to speak. But I certainly still hope that both of them stay as active and vocal as possible, since the party needs as many good spokespeople as possible.

DTH

Give me a break. It says, "The National Journal surveyed 90 Democratic members of Congress, consultants, activists and party officials to name the five people they thought had the best chance of capturing their party's nomination in 2008."

We're turning into sheeple, if we allow 90 party insiders to tell us what we want and think.

I guess now, there's no reason for us to think anymore. Are we just supposed to say, "OK, thanks for letting me know who I like, now I can go stick up some Hillary and Edwards signs in my yard!" I don't think so.

as far as I can tell they don't care about me.

Until someone becomes indignant on my behalf they are just pissin' in the wind.

Same o same o. Blah, blah, blah.

This country has been ripe for a new kind of populist since 2000. Why doesn't someone take some speech/communication lessons and get started. The message is simple - take up the cause of the silenced majority - put peoples and workers rights before corporate profits.

eom

are taking this country is to run the kind of campaign that can win a national election -- one not built on anger and indignation, but one modeled on FDR's focus on hope and RFK's focus on opportunity.

I don't need to see candidates express indignation to know that, by running smart campaigns that can beat Republicans, they are full of it.

population won't tune in until it becomes evident who cares about them. And the press will belittle every democrat until the people take notice.

Just for the record the meaning of indigation: anger aroused by something unjust, unworthy, or mean.

Seems like a pretty legitimate screen to me.

A campaign based on hope won't stand up to the uber-bullies on the other side. Dems = wimp = pushed around. Repugs = bully = male strength = votes.

Reagan did the same thing to Carter.

But you can bet that both were pretty upset about what was going on in America at the time.

There's nothing like winning, and I'd rather win with the methods that work (even if they don't satisfy an angry minority) than satisfy the angry minority and lose.

Anyway, those who are most angry should be the ones with the greatest capacity for understanding the need to appeal to the moderate middle. The angry people are the most informed people. But they should realize that therer aren't enough people like them to win elections. It's the working mother with two jobs and the suburban housewife and her neighbors who make up the vast majority of voters, and they don't have time to read enough information to be angry. They just need their hopes and dreams and their sense of right and wrong to be touched in just the right way to produce a vote for a Democrat, and it's not indignant politicans who do that.

a sea change in perceptions since then. The msm is the biggest block to a positive message. They only report dog fights - it is much sexier than a hopeful message. The media was/is duplicitous in fostering the bullying environment and they are not going to give up the game easily. They are having way too much fun with the current circle jerk.

Gore and Kerry/Edwards failed to win with their nice guy image. It put everyone to sleep.

Regardless of whether history matters, who is your model for the angry winner? Hitler?

Anger never wins for progressives. It's the fascists who win on anger. That's what FDR, HST, JFK, LBJ, RFK, Carter, Clinton and Edwards knew.

insult. Indignation is nuanced and organic. It grows naturally when citizens feel they have been mistreated by the people in power. A populist candidate will just give voice to what most people already feel.

Indignation isn't the sign of a populist. The direction you think power should flow is the sign of a populist.

And populists should be running on hope, opportunity and prosperity.

Like Edwards said about FDR's '32 campaign: he didn't get in Hoover's face. His campaign song was "Happy Days are Hear Again."

Give the speech a listen: http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/03/03-12edwards-audio.html

It makes a great argument about why progressives should run not on being against things and being angry and indignant, but should run on hope.

Reagan did the same thing to Carter.

But you can bet that both were pretty upset about what was going on in America at the time.

There's nothing like winning, and I'd rather win with the methods that work (even if they don't satisfy an angry minority) than satisfy the angry minority and lose.

Anyway, those who are most angry should be the ones with the greatest capacity for understanding the need to appeal to the moderate middle. The angry people are the most informed people. But they should realize that therer aren't enough people like them to win elections. It's the working mother with two jobs and the suburban housewife and her neighbors who make up the vast majority of voters, and they don't have time to read enough information to be angry. They just need their hopes and dreams and their sense of right and wrong to be touched in just the right way to produce a vote for a Democrat, and it's not indignant politicans who do that.

what else is new.

Repubs have got Americans voting against their own interest via "framing", while democrats seem to do it via their own individual arrogance.

Thanks, DLC!

Yes, it does have that distinctly peculiar smell, doesn't it?...

Methinks I smell a....

Please no DLC candidates, anyone who associates themselves with that organization is doing just as much to stop progressive thought as any fascist Republican . In fact I don't want to see any one who voted for the Iraq war get the nomination, so that would leave Edwards out as well. Lets hope that Kucinich runs again, and is actually able to get some attention this time. I swear I will not vote for any DLC candidate ever again, I would rather give the Greens my support than some DLC corporate whore.

that determined Kerry was "most ...... liberal" member of the Senate, just in time for the 2004 Presidential primary season.

Am I surprised to see the National Journal trying to ramp up Cons organizing today, by galloping about shouting "Look out, Billary is coming back?"

Not really ... but I don't pay it no nevermind ...

understands Southerners this time, not just pretends to talk like them.

No more pretty boys or "reporting for duty" types, please. Still want to throw up after voting for them last time.

Boxer or Feingold will be acceptable. Boxer and Feingold would be lovely.

We're demanding the democratic wing of the party run this time. Or, quite simply, we're not going to vote for the candidate.

as vice.

Yeah, that's right you know that's the way it's going down...I'm putting up $20 now!!! Any Takers?

NO. I will not vote her. Come on people. This is another way to influence another loss for us.

Hillary as President. We need her, she'd be phenomenal, she's 10x as qualified as about anyone in recent memory besides her husband- but we don't deserve her and won't be lucky enough to get her. I only hope we don't have to settle for another one who's as undeserving and incompetent as Bush.