I Like John Edwards

I really do. I am a Kucinich supporter, and if my primary was held tomorrow, I would vote for Kucinich. But as a pragmatist, I realize that Kucinich hasn't gained a good percentage of the Democratic vote yet. I'm still hoping for a turnaround.

As far as establishment candidates go, I think John Edwards is very good. Edwards is a regular American, who grew up working class and made it through hard work and his brilliant intelligence.

I think his background as a "trial lawyer" could hurt him politically, but I have nothing but respect for Edwards. He has been an effective spokesperson for normal working middle class Americans, and for me personally I am very happy that trial lawyers like Edwards can keep the corporations in check.

I am a huge Kucinich fan, but if he drops out, John Edwards has a very good possibility of getting my vote, and I have told everyone I know about how much I respect him. Like Gephardt, I consider John Edwards to be on my side, and if it comes to it, I will happily vote for him.

I do like Edwards and Gephardt for just that.

He has managed to be an effective spokesman for the frustrations of very many Americans. Why, given your premise, does he not have a chance? John Edwards has managed to excite absolutely no one except you. The same cannot be said of Kucinich. And he's the unelectable guy? Ca it be we're buying into corporate propaganda? Just a thought.

excited by Edwards.

This argument above makes sense to me. If your looking for the candidate whose plan is really focused on looking after the people whose interests Bush has hurt the most, and if your looking for the guy with the track record of a lifetime committed to making sure wealth doesn't flow the wrong direction in America, I see no other ranking of the candidates that makes as much sense as Kucinich and Edwards at spots one and two.

I know absolutely no one who is excited by Edwards, and I hang around with a lot of Democratic political junkies who are extremely committed to political causes. I know scores of people who are excited by Kucinich. But, whatever. If you want to put Edwards in the number two spot, I won't complain too much. It's just that no one - and I mean absolutely no one! - that I know thinks Edwards is the real deal.

You know, I know ONLY Democrats, and lots of them like Edwards.

I'll break it down: I know exactly one person who likes Dean (don't know if she donates). I know one person arguing for Clark, and another intrigued by Clark. I know three who donate to Edwards, and about three more who say he's the only person who has a chance, demographically, and he has a great message they say (one worries about the polls but is reassured by SC numbers). Among the rest -- 12 to 15 maybe -- they're all on the fence waiting to see what happens in Jan and Feb. All are open to Edwards. All are intrigued by Dean's fundraising. None are intrigued by Dean's message. The distinguishing feature of this group might be racial diversity.

either support Dean because they think he could win or support Kucinich. I haven't run across Lieberman supporters or Edwards supporters or Kerry supporters. I'm on the West coast. We are late in the primaries, but there really isn't a lot of Edwards support here,

AP, I really agree with your post here. In many ways, I am very impressed by Dean, and I'll freely admit he's changed the way Democrats will work from now on. He figured out how to work around McCain-Feingold and his breadth of donors is amazing, even if it is all upper middle class white people - he's still done it better and more progressive than anyone else.

I also really like Dean's position on the second amendment, as a strong supporter of gun rights, but other than that he seems to be a typical DLC-style Republican-Lite, supporting deregulation and privatization, with little if any populist message.

I'll certainly vote for Edwards or Gephardt over Dean or Kerry, but I'm still pulling for Kucinich, maybe I'm an idealist after all :)

To be precise, that's what my friends say. Ok. I guess I agree a little. The way I see it is that Dean found a way to circumvent the media. He has created his own media distribution system -- the internet.

The funny thing is that the media is more than willing to reinforce Deans message and help him along. Also, I find that his message isn't better due to the fact that he has an alternate distribution method. In fact, it's kind of libertarian, in my mind (social liberal, economic conservative)

What I'm looking forward to is the candidate you can use the internet as the way to circumvent the lies the media tells about the candidate, and uses the internet to deliver an overall liberal message, countering the lies about liberalism the media perpetuates.

I know people feel that Dean is doing exactly that. But I don't feel it the way the Dean supporters feel it.

KaraokeKarlton says:

This foolishness is getting mighty old, so I'm going to just blow this one right out of the water once and for all.

Here ya go:

The conference was held as enthusiasm for utility deregulation in Vermont is waning due in part to rate shock and rising prices in California, Maine, and Massachusetts. Even Gov. Howard Dean, once an ardent proponent of electric industry competition, said recently that he was glad the Legislature derailed his administration's drive to deregulate.

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/14542.html

And Vermont Gov. Howard Dean thanked lawmakers for blocking his push to deregulate 31/2 years ago.

How long did it take to change Dean's mind?

"About five minutes once I saw what was happening in California," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/02/03/power.woes.02/

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

need to read this post so they know what it means.

I don't know what history you two have, but...ouch. That's nasty.

a comment that reflects complete ignorance of a situaton?

Frankly I thought the poster was mercifully mild. Completely accurate but mild nonetheless. Do a search.

Julie

kiss-kiss!

As a new member, I was going to make my first ever post about this nearly exact topic. I too am a Kucinich supporter, however I intend to vote for Dean in my state's primary. After 2000, liberals are forced to do as conservatives have in the past, and vote strategically to prevent another candidate from winning, rather than voting for who they may really prefer.

As this is my first post, I must introduce myself by saying that I am not a "true" Democrat. I am registered as a member of the Natural Law Party, but I do not feel I am a partisan. I am, however, EXTREMELY anti-Republican, and following 2000, I will certainly vote for the Democratic candidate, even if it is Joe Lieberman (my least preferred Democratic potential), though I would prefer to vote for a more liberal candidate if one were running. I voted for Al Gore in 2000 because I thought he would have made a good president, but in reality, I would have prefered Nader.

Similarly, though I would like to support Kucinich, I intend to support Dean. Dean isn't even my second or third choice, but of the five likely winners (Dean, Clark, Kerry, Gephart, and Lieberman), he is easily my top choice, and thus I feel compelled to support him over Kucinich, Edwards, Mosely-Braun, and Sharpton. If not for the evil that is Bush, I would certainly be tempted to vote for a third party candidate in the general election if particulary Kerry or Lieberman were nominated.

I would hope that most liberals would view Kucinich as the superior candidate. But true archo-conservative nazis undoubtedly preferred Buchanan to Bush, yet still voted for Bush. One should vote for the candidate he or she truly prefers, however, I feel that it is of the utmost import that Bush is defeated, and perhaps sadly, this mentality is bleeding into our Democratic nomination process.

Psst. Easy answer: just say you're in an open primary state. You wont raise any eyebrows with that answer.

Clearly, you have given much thought to your vote and the entire process.

Glad to have you with us, and glad to see that you're ABB. (Anyone But Bush.)

:toast:

John Edwards is a trial lawyer and - as a group - trial lawyers have been the single most generous and consistent supporters of Democratic candidates. What a ticket (in either order)- Dean & Edwards - a doctor and a lawyer. I like it!

Other observations:

None of the candidates has gotten much media/air time. The average American can't name more than one of them, so how can they judge the candidates' positions on the issues? Not one primary has been held. Therefore, it is far too early to say which candidate will catch on with Democratics in general, or the public in general.

Edwards may not excite many people (yet), but he also does not alienate many people, and his views and positions are clear and acceptable to many Democratic across a wide spectrum, despite some disagreements on some policies. As evidence, a recent poll of DUs gave him a very good net positive rating.

1. Kucinich by a mile. I don't see him dropping out.

2. CMB. I'd like to see her return to the senate. Or win a spot in the house. I don't think she's going to get the nomination this time, so I'd like to see her introducing legislation and voting for our issues in congress.

3. Sharpton. He ought to be the official speech writer for whoever gets the nomination. And a position in the administration would be good, IMO.

4. Edwards. This position is shakey; I haven't spent enough time looking/listening to him yet. I've just read his issues on his site. I'd have to dig a little deeper before committing a vote.

I don't think I'll have to make a 2nd choice; I think DK is in for the duration. If the time comes that I do, I don't think CMB or Sharpton will still be there, so I'll have to do some more research to firm up support for Edwards.

:)