I really like John Edwards

but he just seems to not have enough experience. Does anyone know why he decided to run for President after one term in the Senate? I think he would have been better served running for NC governor, and than running for president in 2008, 2012 or something.

He has a great message, great personality, etc, but he just doesn't seem seasoned enough to me. I think if he were running right now with a term as a governor he would be in much better shape. What do others think?

He seems to be a "Want to be Kennedy". How about a VP candidate??

the guy knows whereof he speaks.

don't know how but he is smart. sometimes thats enough

he is very smart, and he does a great job of being able to communicate that to different groups of people.

whats the deal with this group ? just ignorant, not a smartass.

w/the group. It's how johnny boy fucked us.

ok, fine

to misrepresent Edwards on the issue of the dissabled, and turn him into an anti-disabled politician, which is completly contrary to his record as a whole even before his senate career

pity for them then.

it you are unwilling or unable to offer an argument it usually speaks volumes.

Especially when it was condemmed by NOW, Justice for All, the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times.

Judiciary Committee Vote Insults Women; NOW Vows Campaign in Full Senate

May 23, 2002

Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy

The field of credible Democrats running for President was significantly narrowed today when two rumored candidates insulted every employed woman, every woman in business, and every woman who has been a victim of violence in this country. In casting their votes to promote Judge D. Brooks Smith to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, only one step below the Supreme Court, rumored candidates Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., and Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., disregarded the extensive evidence of unethical behavior and discriminatory conduct that caused the Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times to oppose Smith's confirmation.

- snip -

Another Presidential wanna-be, Sen. Edwards, hid out in his office across the hall from the hearing, and didn't even have the courage to cast his "Yes" vote in public.

http://www.now.org/press/05-02/05-23.html

He voted yes, despite a two month campaign of letters, phone calls, emails and faxes, begging him to vote against the misogynistic, bigoted judge that threatened to further water down the ADA.

he co-authored the patients bill of rights for christ sake.

You're a Dean supporter, he has heralded his support for and from the NRA. Should he be called anti-disabled for thousands of maimed americans whose injuries could have been prevented had it not been for the lax gun laws they force on congress?

At least as much as Edwards deserved to be called "anti-disabled" for one, isolated, non-close, judge confirmation

get back to me.

They had to bite the bullet on some questionable nominations so that they could block the really bad ones. Sad, but true. And effective.

Also, if you google that judge Pastich talks about, you find two things:

- The PA press was all over this story, and were intent on destroying any senator who didn't back the nomination. Unfortunately, PA is a key state for 2004.

- Regardless of what Pastiche says, the media said nothing about this guy's attitude towards disability discrimination. Some women's groups hated him becuase he had some connection to a club which excluded women, and there was some question about whether he resigned in time (or something like that). In any event, it wasn't the guy of situation where'd you'd jeopardize your 116-4 credibility over.

you can't spin or make excuses for.

There were only three Dem holdouts on the Smith vote. Each one of them knew Smith's history (that you quite apparently did not take the time to research).

I will say the same to you, when you become disabled, get back to me. I may afford you the same courtesy of understanding that you have afforded me in my struggle to live a half ass life in an abled bodied world. But then, maybe not.

You best watch your step.

it was in committe that those holdouts happened.

two years, serving his first term when he announced his candidacy for prez, and now says he won't return to the senate. What's up with that?
You can't just walk into the presidency without some experience. Somebody needs to tell John there's a little matter of paying some dues before you go after the highest office in the land.
I also have a problem with him not wanting to run for the senate again, we need every sitting dem we've got to keep running and winning their seats.

learn to subtract

who do you support? Edwards is the best candidate positioned demographically to hold onto the GOPs top senate targets. 3 of the 5 southern seats are states which he has lived in.

he's older than he looks, he has a plan for his life and he's pursuing that. he wants to do his public service while he's young so that he can enjoy hs grandchildren in retirement.

he's made his money, he's living his dream life and its time on his calender.

My brother is similar in a lot of ways. some people plan their lives to that extent and have the drive to execute that plan.

what does that say about Edweards ?

the boy is a winner. plain and simple. thats why you have to like him and why he resonates with people so well.

I don't know if it's true, but I heard that his Senate seat was in jeopardy because North Carolina is becoming more and more conservative. He really wouldn't have a legitimate chance to win the nomination in 2008 or 2012 if he lost his Senate seat next election.

His lack of experience is his only drawback for me too. I think he is very bright and personable. As a lawyer, I'm very impressed with his analysis of the law, esp. the Patriot Act, and his ability to explain these complicated issues. Personally, I would love to see him as VP or Attorney General, then run for President in 2012.


Edit because I'm not really such an idiot that I don't know the difference between North and South Carolina. :) Must learn to not reply late at night.

a small but significant difference

Sorry about that. I just corrected my post. I should know by now that I need to reread my posts especially late I night when I tend to become flaky.

Senate seat.

I'm sure Edwards would have won it. In fact, his numbers in NC are getting better all the time.

and the reason he dropped out of the senate race is that he was getting tons of shit for NOT dropping out of the senate race so that another dem could start his campaign, mostly from rival campaigns.

his opponents gave him crap for not making a decision, and they gave him crap for making a decision. He has just as much a right to run for president as any of the candidates

Give him a chance. Visit his website.

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/home.asp

By the way, he's 50, he's older than he looks.

I corrected my original post. It's late and I made a mistake.

I didn't give him crap for anything. He's my #2 candidate. If it was completely up to me, I would love a Kerry/Edwards ticket and have Edwards run for President again in 2012. He has a huge advantage that he looks so young and can run whenever. I just feel that Kerry has more experience.

and if I had it my way it would be an Edwards/Kerry or Edwards/Clark ticket

Not a first choice, but I think he'd make a solid running mate.

He will have the exact number of years in political office as Bush did, with 6 more years of Washington and international experience.
Which lends itself to the obviousness of him being the true anti-Bush.

Jimmy Carter was seasoned and is considered one of the worst, day to day administrators to occupy the whitehouse ever.

Edwards has the best policies, platform, and big ideas, and because he is the biggest contrast with Bush, he person who will most shake up the republican targets, geographical and demographic.

who do you support?

thing he set out to do (ie, destroy America, and shift a ton of wealth to the wealthy).

He didn't even need his 6 years in TX to do that.

Edwards is like the anti-Bush. You don't need 6 years, or any amount of experience to achieve what you want to achieve if you have all the magic in place.

Bush has the fascist magic in place.

Edwards was the anti-fascist, democratic magic in place.

and it shows.

I'm not solidly committed to anyone, I'm leaning Dean, but would be happy with him, Clark or Edwards. I am not comfortable with any of the others.

I think the thing I am concerned about with Edwards is I don't want this ruining his political future. I think he is a very good candidate, but I think he would have been smarter to wait to run until he had at least completed a term in the senate. I could very easily see him being the nominee in 2012.

He didn't need ANY experience in government to do that.

Experience is basically just something you need to make voters comfortable.

Unless you're an idiot, if you have any sense of how government works, and you work hard, and can persuade people with language (or propaganda, in Bush's case) anyboy could be a good president, in the sense that they could get done want the set out to achieve.

Bush didn't need 1 year in government to be as good as he is at transferring wealth to the wealthy.

Also, I don't think America can afford NOT to have Edwards as president. He's the only one who seems to care enough to reverse the flow of wealth and political power to the wealthy.

with approx. 20 years as a very successful litigator and life experience. If you don't count that relevant experience, what does it say about Clark's & Sharpton's candidacies?

You spend too much time in politics you find yourself giving policy speeches to the Cato Institute and deregulating energy companies.

Edwards (along with Kucinich and Shartpton) has more experience living the kind of life most Americans have lived.

That's the kind of experience I value.

But why does he think he can run for president?

He voted for the war which I am not too happy about, but I think he is smart, sincere, and real easy on the eye (very telegenic). Personally, I think John Edwards' "problem" is that he looks too young (I should only have that problem), but I am serious here.

His time will come.

I hope he gets back in the political ring. He has immense talent.

In my mind, Edwards is one of only three viable candidates to put up against Bush - the other two being Dean and Clark.

I hope he gets back in office and is heard from in the future. Edwards is a great candidate.