"You put John Edwards at the top of that ticket

and you will hold those senate seats."

I think he makes a compelling case when addressing people, and will catch fire in the general election.

My observations after Matthews...

He would kick Bush's ass, I've always thought that.

General election?

He won't make past the primaries. Why would anyone want to listen to a non-candidate that lost us another seat in the Senate?

On edit: Spelling

White house or Congress...

I think he made the right decision... I dont like what the others do... they dont have heart and soul in wanting to win the white house....

:bounce:

make it to the White House, I would say the Senate. But then, he's done such a lousy job in the Senate, maybe it's best that he will be in neither in 2005.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

It will be contested by the dem Erskine Bowles, who built a lot of name recongnition in an eventual loss for NC's other senate seat to Liddy Dole last year, and Richard Burr, a lying pig of a republican whose only chance is to ride the coattails of a possible Bush reelection.

I like him more and more.

I love the homeland security initiative, the Iraq War vote, and boy he did great voting for that Patriot Act, bring on part two please sheeple!

He is a REAL stand up guy! Maybe if he wins he can take Lieberman as a VP, great team!

I think anyone who voted for the IRW to invade a soveriegn nation without clear and compelling evidence of an imminent threat really needs to do some soul searching on leadership and values. That was one of the saddest days in US history.

I believe these monsters that voted for the war and now seek the highest political office in the land, make it even worse by being unaplogetic for there votes, which have been proven to be clearly wrong since no WMD have been found, nor have they established ties between Huessein and Al-Queda.

I believe that these most immoral votes should not be rewarded with support or kind words, and it will certainly not be rewarded with my vote.

PS: Too bad he didnt have some of that gumption he had about not running for Senate on Matthews, and investigated Bush's claim further, and challenged Bush on the Patriot Act, IWR, or Dept. of Homeland Security.

please

Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton-lol.

Anyone who opposed the Iraq Invasion, Patriot Act, Tax Cuts, most of Bush's initiatives.

I have no firm support for any candidate yet, but I know who I oppose and why.

considering he would not repeal it, and unlike edwards has no platform proposals to permanantly protect civil liberties.

Edwards has authored plenty of privacy legislation, would create an office of civil liberties and civil rights, while reorganizing the intelligence community for more congressional oversight.

Dean of course has no real proposals in this area, so of course he gets a free pass from the anti-war-iors

i've heard rumblings about edwards being "clintons heir" for a longtime.

oh, for the record: i'm officially undecided in primary. the chances of it mattering by the time it gets to PA are slim to none, though...

For him to give up his Senate seat for the Presidential run AFTER polling so poorly--sorry folks, it's the truth--makes me wonder if he's seriously thinking he'll be POTUS, or if he's gunning for the #2 slot.

He also seems to have a good populist streak in him. I could see him becoming more progressive on the national stage than he could be in NC. He's young and Southern and horse-smart: not only for his running mate, but for our Party, he's a bit of a dream VP candidate.

Clark/Edwards: Ushering in 16 Years of Democratic Dominance.

the only state poll Clark has won is New York, and it was a narrow lead

He's basically tied for third in NH, where obviously that's all he needs.

he's winning by a wide margin in SC. He could win every other Feb 3 primary. And then a week later he has the TN and VA primaries, where he's organized better than almost any candidate.

He's not running for vice president. Nobody has ever run for vice president so please stop trotting this out. People say the same thing about Clark and you know that's not true

In certain polls--SC for instance--Edwards is doing well, but Clark has great numbers nationally, and that is before most of his organizing and campaigning has gone underway.

People said Clark was running for VP, but that was implausible since the numbers just looked and look great for Clark, especially when you look at where the trends are leading. The same is just not true for Edwards. I don't see how he can pull it together. I could even see how Lieberman could squeeze out a victory--the vote divides, he gets a slightly bigger, albiet meaningless chunk.

Edwards has been on the cusp of momentum for nearly a year now, but still hasn't gotten there. Why? I don't know.

any strategist or polisci student will tell you that.

But it's alawys made so little sense to me. National polling results can be self-reinforcing; the popular become more popular, especially as we desperately look to beat Bush.

National polls are also very important if the primary focus isn't on winning--instead on having a decent showing--in early primary states, looking instead to win the meatier states that come later.

Edwards, to my surprise, isn't even in sight in Alabama, at 4%.

ago, the Democratic official practically begged the Dems voting in primaries earlier than Alabama's to send them a populist from the south who talks about middle class and working class opportunity, which I read as a meaning Edwards.

at least not until after all of the winter and spring one's that matter

it's not surprising that Edwards wouldn't show up there, because he hasn't campaigned there at all

Right?

who's a son of the South, right? If you plan on going down that route, you're going to have to show me some evidence that this is a name recognition issue, because the numbers are a little too big for it to be mere name recognition. Alabama is also apparently a key fundraising state for Edwards according to one of the stories I read.

Back to you. How many polls has Edwards led?

and to tel you the truth, all due respect to Wesley Clark, I think Edwards is the more agile speaker, and better makes the case against Bush.

I'm liking him more and more. He really held his ground with Matthews. One thing he should have known about though, is the "form letter scandal" - who the hell is briefing him? He should have known about all breaking news before going on an hour-long MSNBC interview. Other than that, I was impressed with how likeable he is and how firm he was on the issues.

The candidate I really like is Kucinich but he does not have a polished image at all and doesn't really debate well. On paper he is right on, but he really needs to work on how he projects himself.

he said so on TDS

Hey in case your guy does get the nod, Edwards/Kucinich I would like although my bias is Kucinich heh but these two obviously like each other and I like both of them,

Actually, on Hardball, Edwards said his three toughest opponents are Dean, Clark and Kerry. I think Bombtrack was saying the same thing that you said - that Kucinich likes Edwards.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Thanks for the welcome!

That those three are.

on TV. It is quite another to win a major party's nomination for President. Edwards is ahead in SC now, 16% to 7% for Clark and Leiberman, Kerry at 6%, Gephardt and Sharpton at 5%, Moseley-Braun at 4%, Graham (who has withdrawn) 2% and Kucinich 1%, but 42% are still undecided. That's nearly as many as the top six in the poll put together.

The candidates who haven't already attracted media attention need a breakthrough performance to get noticed. That translates into either a surprisingly high fundraising quarter, or a surprisingly high finish in an early contest.

Lots of candidates have attempted to avoid the Iowa and New Hampshire contests, hoping to get big wins later to propel them into contention. But since the primary became significant in 1952, only one man has ever won the Presidency without winning the NH primary: Bill Clinton, who finished second but claimed victory in 1992.

He didn't win NH, just an observation.

Lyndon Johnson-1968. Jimmy Carter-1980. Gary Hart-1984.George Herbert Walker Bush-1992. Bill Clinton-1992.John McCain-2000....

I bet I missed some....

and advisors on C-Span this morning. Despite his shaky speech habits Edwards manager has their strategy down well- if they can do it. Absolutely crucial are grass roots volunteers since Edwards probably cannot dominate the big picture anytime soon and personal exposure to himself as good as it is only reinforces the ability of the others(and the media) to ignore him.

Or rather to create the presumption he is "out of the running". His public appearances and issue statements have improved immensely. His organization will tell the true capacity of his campaign.

suicided or plane crashed.

We're keeping edwards on the down low until next spring.

PLEASE keep it quiet.

It will be very hard for Bush to paint him as unpatriotic.

If one of the anti-war candidates comes up against Bush, you know the first thing out of Mr. Chickenhawk's mouth: "You don't care about the security of America." He can't do that with Edwards.

He also can't talk about Edwards' lack of military service, because the first thing Edwards will do is pull out Bush's last OER--the one that says "no one here's seen him for a year."

If Bush brings up the trial lawyer thing, Edwards brings in his intestine-sucking case. If he brings up the country doctor Edwards put out of business, like Faircloth was about to do, Edwards brings up the plaintiff in that case, like he was about to do with Faircloth.

I'm sticking with Edwards for one reason: I see him as our best chance to get rid of the BFEE. And yes, it is that serious. If Bush gets another term, the Democratic Party is gone. I think he'll outlaw it.

was that they'd be characterized as soft on communism, and soft on national security.

So JFK ran to the right of Nixon on national security. OK, so he let DDE's bay of pigs go on, but he doomed it to failure by not giving them air cover, and he made sure that was the last attack on Cuba during his administration. And, although he put some troops in Vietnam, but planned to take more out.

JFK also wouldnt' vote to censure Joe McCarthy, because he didn't want to look soft on communism. (To which Elanor Roosevelt said that she'd like to see a little more courage and a little less profile from the freshman senator from Mass)

40 years later, Castro says that JFK is the US president he respects the most.

So, folks, would you have been happier with or without JFK as president? Do you understand how campaigns are fought and won in America?

I'm beginning to take a closer look at him. Not that that's a hard thing to do. He is smart, speaks well and is passionate. But that vote keeps popping into my mind. WHY did he DO it? I thought he was great on Mathews. Even with Mathews hounding him. AND trying to put words in his mouth.

He believes that regime change in Iraq was the best way to be proactive about doing what is needed in that region. It's about Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, Syria, Lybia, and Lebanon in the short term(I.E., either getting those governments to be agressive about the W.O.T., and/or spreading democratic values to those countries) and Iraq in the longterm(the undeniable reality that Saddam did want to strengthen his threatenability to the US and the west, and eventually would be more of a serious threat).

it's the view shared by alot of open-minded liberals, and if you study foreign relations and listen/read people like Fareed Zakaria, Chris Hitchens, Tom Friedman, Jonathan Alter, Michael Kinsly, most of The New Republic, .. it's not that crazy, and it certainly isn't evil.

Yes, there is war profiteering going on, and Edwards is certainly adressing it, but it's just dumb to believe that that is the primary motivating reason for the wars support, and not just what some Bush-buddies see as a perk.

Look, we aren't going to win in Iraq. We aren't going to create a stable democracy and that stable democracy that won't exist will not spread to other Middle Eastern countries. There is a fundamental disconnect between the Wester world and the Middle East, and that is not going to be changed with war. I don't know what the answer is, but war with Iraq certainly was NOT it.

there is no other option. The US/UK and whoever else will help are OBLIGATED to leave Iraq with a fledgling illiberal government and nothing else. The children of Iraq don't want to grow up in a totallitarian state like there parents did, and the better, fairer, ideas and ideals will win out.

Why can a monarchy like Qatar become a constitutional democracy and not Iraq? Arabs and Muslims come here because they don't like being used and abused by thugs like the Mullahs and the House of Saud.

They're human, they deserve freedom, and it's immoral to root for it to fail