Edwards/Obama '08?

I realize that Obama is no longer very popular in GD and GDP. I also realize that Edwards has his opponents in these boards, as well. Let me also state that I will back *ANY* Democrat in '08 enthusiastically if s/he is nominated. Every single one of our potential candidates is better than anybody the Republicans will put up.

Personally, I am increasingly leaning towards John Edwards for 2008. He is young, telegenic, and although he does inspire some opposition, he is the most popular figure to emerge from the 2004 election season. He has genuinely high favorability ratings. Prospective matchups have him as the only Democrat that is competitive with McCain. Moreover, he is liberal enough and outspoken enough on issues of poverty and class disparity to appeal to the Democratic base, the working-class voters, while still being mainstream enough to appeal to Centrists. He isn't as polarizing as Hillary Clinton, is more popular than she is with the base, and appears to be a more charismatic and appealing candidate than Mark Warner.

I'm increasingly intrigued by the prospect of an Edwards/Obama ticket; both are very popular political figures. They're both telegenic and among the best public speakers the Democrats have today. And given the disgust that most people have with Washington these days - a disgust that shows no sign of going away by 2008 - their short records in Washington may not hamper them. They would present a forward-looking new generation. Coming after eight years of reactionary Republican rule and neocon misadventure, an Edwards/Obama ticket could be extraordinarily appealing. I also think that IF McCain were the GOP nominee, an Edwards/Obama ticket would stand the best chance at running even or beating him; any other Democrat would likely lose a lot of Democratic and independent votes to John McCain (unfortunately). Granted, the GOP may well not nominate McCain. But the possibility is real, especially if the Democrats win this November and panicked Republicans decide they have to make a break with Bushism.

The obvious drawback to this ticket is their lack of national security experience. It's a serious drawback and may be what disqualifies this ticket from emerging; depending, however, on what the situation is vis-a-vis Iraq, this may not be as big an issue. Keep in mind, however, that both Edwards and Obama have more foreign policy experience than George W. Bush and more experience than Mark Warner, as well. Given their clarity of speech, both could overcome this simply by presenting a coherent foreign policy and national security vision and getting the endorsements of retired generals.

Plenty of you will probably object; there are plenty of valid reasons for doing so and I can only hope you guys can keep it civil. The election is more than two years away and we have a mid-term cycle to get through. But this is our favorite pastime, is it not? Just a thought to throw out; it may be worth considering.

I have been a long-time supporter of both Edwards and Obama...I love it!

And who gives a crap if they have little or no experience in foriegn policy/national security? That's what you get Cabinet members and advisers for. You surround yourself with good, strong, intelligent people who DO have that experience.

Clark/Obama would work for me. I think with a former general it will be harder for them to play the safe from terrorism with a republican card. I think it will be the dirtiest nastiest race to end all races when it comes and I dread (the nastiness)

I'm quite willing to see if he runs again and how he runs.

Clark Internationally is already credible and Edwards has the domestic policy and political factors. I'm just not ready to trust Obama yet, he stared off great and then...

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Clark/Boxer. Time for a woamn on a national ticket again......she deserves it. Obama needs more time in the Senate

I would then let him pick his running mate as I trust his judgement.

...and damn, that is one fine picture of JE....

W has shown how his foreign policies have worked.
They haven't.

Edwards supports the American worker (a nasty word to the W administration) and Obama represents the inclusivness of the party.

Go for it. Two men who care about the American people, not the corporate interests.

Edwards supported the war crime against Iraq. He belongs in The Hague, IMO, not in the WH.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623.html



I realize that you may still not forgive him and that is your right. But ultimately, is it better to have someone in there who still sees nothing wrong with the war (say, the Republican or, so far, Hillary Clinton), or someone who has seen the light? By your standard, even George McGovern, RFK, and Eugene McCarthy would have been unacceptable; all of them voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution yet later came to oppose the war.

...but that lapse of judgement is still killing people by the tens of thousands. Maybe if the damage could be undone, but it can't, and anyone who shares responsibility for it does not deserve public office, IMO. If he REALLY regretted it he'd do more than simply make a "mea culpa" speech.

make a "mae culpa" speech!
He screwed up, and he knows it. But he did so because he was misled by the misadministration...he was fed false data upon which he based his decision. He has come to regret that decision, in light of getting the actual facts.

don't blame Edwards...he thought he was doing right at the time...and, based on the info he was fed at the time...he WAS doing right.

It takes real balls for a politician to stand up, take responsibility, and say "I WAS WRONG."

Have you ever heard motherfuckin' Dimson ever ONCE say it? Nope!!

Credit Edwards with having real class and real balls.

I think if we got Edwards for Prez, he'd do everything he could to get us the fuck OUT of Iraq! He can't change the past. At least he takes responsibility. At least he's a straight shooter. at least he's for the poor, and for the american worker.

So he fucked up once. He owned up to it...and he took responsibility for it...and he's apologized for it. Move on. Why do some people fucking insist that our guys have to be fucking saints?

Goddamn it, I mean...all right...fine, if you don't like Edwards...and you're gonna be such a fucking one-issue person...at least have the courtesy to acknowledge that Edwards has real class and real guts!

of making a mistake....and doing so at the same time that the polls turn to where Americans in the majority are also rejecting this war.

The Iraq war was not just a "mistake"....it is a colosal strategic blunder of yet uncounted porportions.

I think that John Edwards is a fine upstanding Democrat who's heart may be in a good place....but, I reject that his support and Co-sponsorship of Lierberman's IWR can now merely be excused and he can now be rewarded with the presidency.

Here's the link to show that he actually co-sponsored the IWR (something John Kerry did not do) http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Iraq_War_Resolution

I cannot vote for one who's insight was so flawed on one of the most important issue that our government deals with; War and peace....not matter how many times he says he is sorry, three years later...once he realized that things were not going so "hot" over there.

Edwards was very clear in his op-ed (written at the time) that he supported the war, not so much because of the WMDs, as much as for the geopolitical control it might give us. In fact, he had made up his mind before any hearings took place. Here he is writing an op-ed a month before the vote.

"Congress must also make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East.

Iraq is a grave and growing threat. Hussein has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people.

Iraq's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and it poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam Hussein's arsenal and would stop at nothing to use it against us. America must act, and Congress must make clear to Hussein that he faces a united nation."
http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_09/alia/a2091910.htm
John Edwards Op Ed in the WAPO dated 9/17/02

Edwards is possibly a good man, but not Presidential material. He doesn't have what it takes to lead this nation; leadership abilities and a built in sense to filter out bullshit.

Once again, for the umpteenth time, there are more Clark partisans than Edwards partisans on this board by a factor of at least 8, and there are love-gushing Clark threads started on a daily basis. Those of us few who are unabashed Edwards supporters tend to not rain on your constant parades, but the civility is not reciprocated.

Clark supporters are better organized and more vocal than the supporters of ANY other candidate on this board. Congratulations. What still reeks after all this time is the whiff of conservative tactics: scorched earth dismissal of any rivals and the obsequious fawning over the cult of brash personality. Tactics of ridicule--a staple of conservative methods--have cooled off a bit since things aren't at a fever pitch these days, but the unmistakable allegiance of many of the more conservative members of this board to the man is still obvious.

Maybe Clark is superior on "leadership", but Edwards is miles ahead on "diplomacy", "statesmanship",
"finesse", "precision" and HONESTY. All of the major candidates of the '04 primaries made gaffes that they had to retract, with Dean taking the cake, but Edwards made nary a one. He's cautious and precise when he speaks, and his focus from the very beginning has been economic fairness. Much as I know it rankles you to no end, I remind you that Clark deliberately lied about Edwards' and Kerry's votes on the Bush tax cuts, did it repeatedly, and when confronted refused to address it as he then distorted Edwards' voting record in response. This is an extreme character issue. Much as the Patriot Act vote and the IWR votes were wrong, he didn't equivocate, and he didn't duck them. He is the only major politician to publicly apologize for the IWR vote to the sincere degree he did, and that matters. I've had enough of blockheaded males who can't admit mistakes, and that's one of the reasons I like him so much.

Edwards is Clark's bete noir. Deep in the hearts of many of his supporters, Edwards should have folded his tent the moment Clark entered the race, accepting Clark's white knight superiority; the gall of backwoods Johnny not salaaming to the alpha male is an outrage to them. This isn't as much directed at you as to some of his other more vehement acolytes.

We don't rain that much on your endless parades, so please try some pluralism.

on the asshole who is spreading malicious rumors against Edwards.

Actually my honest opinion is that over the last few months it is the Kerry and Gore supporters who have been most "organized" on this board, posting multiple new threads about the virtues of each man on a daily basis.

I understand where you are coming from, and mostly I agree with you in spirit, that for the most part a live and let live spirit between all center left Democrats (at the very least) is best for all of us now, especially while it is so important that we stay united to win back Congress in November.

Human nature being what it is there are no threads on DU that are safe from detractors of any given Democrat. And as long as people don't get compulsive about it, a certain amount of critical discussion I guess should be expected and even welcomed to a point. Having said that we do not need to be consumed by intra Democratic squabbling right now. I always continue to say that Edwards is a good Democratic leader, and that our Party needs more good Democratic leaders, not less. For the most part I stay off Edwards threads but I can't promise that I will never have a critical word to say anywhere at anytime, that would be unfair to expect from anyone about anything. It really depends on the context, but basically I take your comment in good faith and am essentially in agreement about what would be best for all of us to keep in mind.

Great post, Tom. We've tangled in the past, but you exhibit the kind of spirit that'll prove to be the true strength of the non-reactionaries in this country: one of perspective, coexistence and willingness to accept a confusing and shades-of-gray world for what it is.

None of the potential leaders is perfect, and they all need to be called into account in the court of reality, so speak your mind as you generally do. This makes us stronger.

What galls me is the cadre of extremists who just won't let their advocacies and their attacks on nemeses drop.

Mercifully, we're in a bit of a lull on the board these days and things are not at such a fever pitch. That's always nice, but flare-ups will always happen.

As for the "factor of 8" crack, it's pulled from thin air and probably a tad high, but it IS amazing to me how polls on this board are consistently won by a huge margin by Clark, with Edwards generally trailing just ahead of true dark horses. This simply doesn't mirror the lefties at large in this country, yet it's been consistent. As an early supporter of Edwards, I can attest to his never getting much more than ever-so meager support here, even toward the end of the primary season when he was the only alternative. Clark routinely comes out in polls with 40%ish ratings where Edwards is in mid single digits. That was my broad-strokes estimate.

Whatever.

Once again, your post was a breath of fresh air.

I don't see very many Clark partisans on this thread. I hope you weren't counting posts like mine defending Edwards when you did your rough math. On edit I acknowledge that some posters did say they prefer Clark to Edwards, but that doesn't fit into the pattern I think you were expressing concern about. Far as I know they aren't long time identified Clark supporters who regularly post on Edwards threads. I could be wrong about that I guess.

FWIW I always see people popping onto any thread lauding any potential 08 candidate to say, I would rather have Gore or Kerry or Feingold or whatever. It just comes with the territory it seems.

whether you like it or not......and so, I shall speak. I did not smear John Edwards...but I do have my opinion on him.....

And further more, I didn't mention Gen. Clark while voicing that opinion.

I have to assume that you are implying that I have no right to that opinion.....and that only those identified as non Clark supporters have a right to have their say within this thread.

I think you are mistaken in your reasoning on that one.

Edwards is no one's bete.....and neither is Clark.

You say that John Edwards is miles ahead on "diplomacy", "statesmanship",
"finesse", "precision" and HONESTY, and that is your right to think so. I don't know what "diplomacy" Edwards achieved...although I know that Clark negotiated a peace treaty and held a 19 nation coalition together and won a war. The adjectives you use to describe John Edwards are fitting in your eyes as the beholder.....and I wouldn't ever try to keep you from seeing what you see in Edwards.....but that doesn't mean that I necessarily see it the way that you do.

If I think that Edwards' 3-years-after-the-fact-apology wasn't sufficient for the damage done, and that the judgement he exhibited at the time tells me that he wouldn't make a good President no matter that he's saying that he's sorry now, than I should be allowed to say so.

You can either rebut why you think that his co-sponsorship of the Lieberman IWR was really a good decision, and/or why waiting 3 years before understanding that his vote wasn't a good one...then fine. You attacking me simply because I support Wes Clark is a distraction, and does not address the issue of John Edwards.

No potential candidate is perfect, with that I agree....however, I do believe that some potentials are better prepared instinctively to lead and clean up the mess currently known as the world stage.

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

First time I've ever been tempted to alert or ignore

She sounds like she has a problem with DU..

:shrug:

It sometimes takes two alerts to lock a post. With mine, we'll have a lock slapped on that nastygram!

but around this time the mods don't seem as active so it might take a while to delete and tombstone the post and person.

Notice how she never told us who her source was?

Probably because she hangs out at the freaknoid type clans for info like that!

I'm trying to figure out why anyone would write such nasty allegations about such an honerable man?

Who knows-- she may have fled the scene..

I didn't even know how an alert worked

Elizabeth Edwards goes by her first name, "Elizabeth." Update your file.

clinton was, too - that didn't stop him from being one of the best Presidents of modern times!

Who gives a FUCK about his private life? Republicans attacked clinton on that all the time, because they could not attack Clinton's POLICIES...because they WORKED!!!

And most of the Repukes who point fingers and scream...turns out they are guilty of sexual misconduct themselves!!

Newt Gingrich, anyone? Bob Packwood, anyone? Clarence Thomas, anyone??
Anyone?? Anyone??

Bueller???

Difference is?? We know by FACTS that its all true about Bush. Where are your FACTS about Edwards?

I'm sure the alert box is full now :shrug:

Democratic Underground is not a Murdoch rag. It is not acceptable to come here and throw poison on good Democrats in hit and run allegations. That charge has as much backing as one I could make up about that poster right now, about someone who was recently discharged from a certain prison. It someone puts it in print it must be true, right? Wrong. I guess I better issue a retraction because the only source I have is my imagination and I don't know how to give a link to that.

Unless you have sources to cite to back this shit up.

DLC sellout with insufficient experience.

certainty. GOP tickets of the past are almost as bad, or worse, than the present GOP administration.

Nixon-Agnew. Reagan-Bush. Bush-Quayle. --all of them were horrifying.

The GOP field of nominees for 08 is a pack of soulless cretins and humorless psychotics. Allen. Barbour. Brownback. Huckabee. Romney. GiulianiTime. McCain. THE CAT BUTCHER.

God save us all.

I'm gathering no nails & boards to crucify Sen. Obama. I love the guy. And I'm REAL partisan on that position. He is a red-hot Democrat of the future and our party's fortunes will depend on his continuing influence. Already he is a key fundraiser for other candidates and state parties. But only a few months ago he was a state senator and I think he knows that 08 is not the time -- yet -- for him on a national ticket. I'd support him, sure, but I think he knows there's a trajectory for his political career that arcs past 08 into '12 or '16. There will be a President Obama.

John Edwards is definitely presidential material. He's polling strongly and has enormous appeal to a lot of low income people and working people because he's talking their language after 6 years of economic fascism. He finished a strong second in the 04 Iowa caucus on a campaign running on maybe 62 bucks and fumes. While Bush blathers about "freedom on the march" as Baghdad and America's world standing are reduced to piles of rubble, Edwards is insisting that people be lifted out of poverty and into full citizenship. There are sexier issues; he picks this one.

If he's our nominee, he's got my vote.

FEH on that bastard.

Don't like him ever since he got elected and started opening his repuike-lite mouth.

FEH.

like him and expect him to be extremelyl prominent in our party's national profile over the next several decades.

I'd give him a little time, at least, to see how he comes along.

.

It has contradicting problems, but still a very charasmatic and capable ticket.

As I've said in the past, I believe the key is to nominate, not just a ticket, but a presidential cabinet.

Edwards' tour for UNITE/HERE and his focus on poverty doesn't seem moderate to me compared to the many moderate/corporate Dems who shy away from that issue. Edwards has a populist style that has obvious appeal to moderate voters, but his agenda sounds progressive.

Obama's record in the Illinois State Senate made him one of the most reliable progressives in a very progressive state and his Senate record has not deviated from that.

The left needs to think about leaders that are capable of selling progressive ideals to moderate voters in the South and Mid West. Edwards/Obama looks like a good ticket to accomplish that goal.

Edwards' tour for UNITE/HERE and his focus on poverty doesn't seem moderate to me

But it is. Political focus on poverty has long been a hallmark of moderate Democrats. Edwards campaigned on poverty issues in '04 when he as just so much "DLC" scum.

Obama's Senate record is a bit more moderate. Shall we drill down into the voting records of these two?

ideology in terms of ones relationship to the corporate establishment that dominates politics. That makes both men look progressive. I don't see Warner and Lieberman talk about economic isseus and poverty in the same way Edwards does.

And no, I don't believe a couple confirmation votes and a speech for Lieberman suddenly makes Obama a moderate.

So their voting records on issues have no bearing. Just their relationship with the "corporate establishment." So, wanna examine each of their's relationship with the corporate establishment? Yes?

And their voting record is part of their relationship with the corporate establishment. I didn't suggest discounting that.

...and their relationsip with the "corporate establishment."

Am I correct?

First, we need a control. At what point does one's relationship with the corporate establishment make one not liberal but moderate? Let's agree upon an answer.

He's almost as bad as LIEberman.

.

much less sell the right agenda, we'd be back in business in the white house. These two guys have it all! Charisma and the right ideas.

I'd like to see some combination of the above 4 as our ticket. I could get behind any of them.

Those are my top four for sure!

:hi:

Both are intelligent men with great communications skills and a sincere love of our country and it's people.

I would trust their choices in selecting the rest of their team (cabinet and other positions)of truly capable and experienced professionals to help run the country!

:patriot:

What a pathetic excuse for a Cabinet the current administration has given us. Of all possible qualified people, we were treated to John Bolton, Chertoff, Ridge, Brownie, and so forth -- a frightening list of inappropriate choices.

and all orchestrated by Cheney, who also "selected" himself as V.P.

I guess we can be thankful Katherine Harris isn't in a cabinet position :D

I feared that Dubya would offer her a plush ambassadorship in exchange for dropping out of the Senate race.

Evidently she's staying in, and while I think Nelson will hold that seat, it's frightening to imagine her anywhere near power.

.

Seriously, we have big problems in this country. I'd like to see the Democrats nominate someone who has considerable executive experience.

I'd love to see both of these gentlemen in the administration in some capacity.

I find Obama is very articulate, but tends to straddle the ideological divide, and leans a bit too far to the RIGHT .....

I will, in the end, vote for ANY Democratic candidate .... We MUST eject this party of destruction from the halls of power ....

I would prefer Albert Gore returning to the fold, and leading the charge ....

He plays well with others. That doesn't make him conservative.

You folks think we're liberals, but we're actually conservative. Bush made a lot of inroads in through the churches. Obama would clean Bush's clock if he ran against him.

I'm liking it, though I prefer many others to Obama.

I have no doubt they would do amazing things to energize and transorm the nation. I've had this thought myself. They're both progressives who know how to appeal to middle America.

You're correct that Edwards' time on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee gives him more experience than Bush had. People worry about that too much. The last two Presidents had no foriegn policy experience and there's little evidence that it hurt them with voters.

as and older person, after Bush, Edwards may seem the safe candidate for the times. Many would think he would be the man to trust after 8 years of Bush lies, and unimaginable thing he has done to this nation.

When this guy is ready, he's going turn the whole nation on.

WH (even though it's unconstitutional)?

It's because the Republicans have the sense to harness the political, economic and cultural power of Texas.

Why do the Democrats ignore California, which is the heart and the soul and the brain of progressivism in America?

We need to harness California the way the Republicans harness Texas. We need a Californian on the ticket who will bring on board all HER Californian political connections and relationships and cultural power so that we can offset the power of Texas.

I think Barbara Boxer really needs to be on the ticket.

love....

I'd love Clark, but I don't see him getting enough coverage to overcome his low profile. Gore was the last democratically elected president we had. After seeing him on SNL, it made me realize how much we lost (even if it was tongue-in-cheek).

I don't see it - I want Gore/Clark or Gore/Edwards. That is my final wish, please take care of it, Big Guy.

:)

The winning ticket

Clark at Sec of Defense,

Fitz at Justice

Obama could be good with a President who has experience. Edwards needs a VP that has experience.

Putting the two together is a recipe for failure.

My choice is between Kerry, Gore, and Feingold for President.

the two headed beast that will eat all republicans in its path.

Thats my ticket of the week.

Edwards seems OK, but really uninspiring.

He hasn't made a right choice since becomming elected.

Feh on him.

I am still upset with his vote for Rice.

Obama has the stage presence and they both steal the show from any of those fat nazi bald pork-eyed Republicans. I'd crawl across hot pavement to watch either of these guys debate those corporate porkers.

n/t

folks are prominent in our national decision-making and problem-solving.

I'm glad they're on our side, and because I trust their judgment as public servants, and trust their SENSE of what a public servant is, I hope they will invest as much of themselves as possible into the process of un-doing the damage wrought by Dubya and his crew of incompetent and corrupt cronies.

That will take time and toil and talent. Whatever these two can give us of their gifts in those areas will be welcome.

As the nation faces various crises, Edwards and Obama are on a long list of Democrats I want helping to confront those crises.

No defense and little interest. There are midterms to be had well before we set up our dream team for the White House.

Edwards/Colbert :)

Obama/O'Brien :)

Edwards/Clooney :)

Edwards/Stewart

Stewart/O'Brien

Edwards/Edwards :)

Are we having fun yet? :grouphug:

I have no doubt that Wesley Clark and John Edwards would find a place in their administration. Both are find men, indeed.

Don't want to see Gore make a SECOND mistake in a running mate.

But there are some that vehemently disagree with you about Barack Obama.

Doesn't make them right, tho.

Gore's ticket.

FEH on Obama.

At most he is a BIG DISAPPOINTMENT.

I would be tempted to STAY HOME if that came to pass.

I'm not hogwild about Joe Lieberman, but with Lieberman on the ticket, a lot of money and votes flowed from Florida's east coast. Gore knew Florida would be close. Had there been no cheating by Bush-Cheney operatives in Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade counties, a lot of Jewish Democrats' votes would have been counted in the blue column.

A shockingly high number of those votes went to Patrick Buchanan, not universely well-regarded among Jewish voters. Even Buchanan said on television he knew those votes were not his.

There were likely enough of those votes, too, to win that election without any challenge, were it not for the cheating that went on from Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris on down.

If we could make this happen we could kick ass all the way to Pennsylvania avenue and I'll walk every step of the way.

a "golden boy" he is? I don't get it, am I missing something?