Please give Sen. John Edwards a 'second look'.

As we enter the 'middle phase' or the primaries, I would like to ask all Democrats to give Sen. John Edwards a second look, regardless of which candidate you currently support. This is not a 'jump on my bandwagon' post, but a simple plea to consider a fine Democratic candidate for our party's nomination.

Sen. Edwards has demonstrated an ability to appeal to Democrats across a broad socio-economic spectrum: middle-class, blue collar, urban, rural, Black, white and Hispanic. He has a positive message of hope and change that resonates with ordinary Americans and he speaks to issues that matter most to them: the economy, jobs, education and health care. He is bright, articulate, handsome and solidly 'mainstream America', and he is someone with whom our base, Independents and moderate Republican voters can identify.

The nomination is not 'sewn up' by any means, and if you will examine John Edwards' record as a senator, his professional record as an attorney and his personal life as a son, husband and father, I think you will see much to admire and much that is worthy of your support.

Thank you. :)

and I must say I do like his message. But I am a staunch ABBer, so whomever faces chimpychimp will get my vote.

:hi:

I say, don't bother. Edwards is a phoney, a liar, and his unwavering support for the war make him off limits for this voter.

If he were running for Senate again, I'd vote for Erskine Bowles over Edwards in a heartbeat. Then, I'd ask Edwards to leave the country.

They're going to spend 200 million chimp bucks to make this election about national security. The media will go right along. He's got marginally more experience than Dean but not enough to avoid getting killed on it.

I know his supporters really like the guy. I do too. But reality is a very stubborn hell.

You're right they will try to make this about National Security. However, military service does not make someone strong on defense in the eyes of general election voters.

Remember former Democratic Senator Max Cleland. He lost 3 limbs in Vietnam and Republicans still pictured him with Osama Bin Laden in their adds. Max Cleland lost to a Republican draft dodger in 2002, an election the Republicans did make about National Security.

Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney--none of these guys served but they are still considered strong on defense. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush had zero foreign policy experience when they were elected.

Voter's trust candidates who appear strong and decisive. They reject any candidate who appears wishy washy. Judgement and leadership ability are the most important qualities for voters when considering National Security issues.

Unfortunatley, Republicans will run with all of the many gaffs and inconsistent positions of your guy Clark to question his integrity and leadership ability. (I know this is unfair, but that's reality.):

Clark was fired from his position as NATO commander- Why? That will raise questions about him in the mind of voters.

The former Chairman of the Joint Cheifs attacked Clark's integrity directly. That will also raise questions.

At one point Clark said he would have voted for the Iaraq resolution and then he switched his position.

He's said complimentary things about Republicans including George W. Bush, now he's running as a Democrat. They will portray him as someone who changes positions in order to advance his personal ambitions.

Republicans will do to Clark what they did to Al Gore. They will take a fundamentally decent man and turn him into a liar who can't be trusted as Commander and Cheif.

If voter's voted based on a candidate's experience Gore would have won in a landslied and Schwarzenager would not be Governor of the state with the fifth largest economy in the world.

Edwards is by far and away the most electable candidate because people like and trust him. Furthermore, he has more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush when they were elected. He is also extremely intelligent and competent. People will trust him as Commander and Cheif.

Edwards also talks very credibly about post 911 security issues like: securing loose nukes, securing our ports, chemical plants, and nuclear plants. He has worked with these issues in the Senate. He also is very credible when he talks about first reponder preparedness, getting the right quipment to firefighters and police etc. These are the new National Security Issues and Edwards aoofers a very credible and effective critique of GW.

Edwards really is the most electable and he will make a fine President.

A couple of things.
1. Don't like polls but he and Kerry are beating Bush (Clark is not) in recent polls, and this despite the fact that Edwards is not getting nearly the press time that Kerry or Clark get.
2. Heard someone say that you can't name a state that Kerry can win that Edwards can't win, but you can name some where Edwards can win and Kerry will struggle. (Remember he won in NC, or as he says, in Jesse Helms' home state, so you know he can win)
3. Everyone likes the guy, so he is the one to unite the party and to bring the swing voter on board.
4. Edwards vs. Bush debate! Edwards with a smile dices GWB - it is a must see.

being a personal injury attorney does not have the qualifications to serve as president. Have we learned nothing from the Bush admin. We need a qualified individual to lead this country.

and while I think he's an incredibly gifted campaigner, his total lack of foreign policy experience makes it a no go for me in the primary.

Not only do I think that would be a huge liability in the GE, but I'd be a bit nervous about the outcome if he did win (I'm being honest). Not that he wouldn't do a better job than Bush (it would be impossible to not do a better job), but it's a big donut hole to fill (to paraphrase another candidate), and I'm more comfortable with my candidate.

on edit: actually, 'more comfortable' doesn't adequately express my support. I love my candidate's vision of America in the world.

He doesn't offend me as much as the front-runner.

Let them diss him for being a P.I. trial lawyer. He knows what works to manipulate or convince (choose your term) a jury in the face of sometimes overwhelming reams of evidence both pro and con.

He f'd up with the war vote, but if he can find a way out of Iraq, and find a way to avoid anothe war, I'll absolutely look at him.

My preferences, though, to be honest:
Dean
Clark
Kucinich
Edwards
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Kerry? I don't think so.

;)

I think he is a compassionate guy and hasn't forgotten his roots. I particularly like that he is focusing on the economy in his speeches. I'm not that concerned about his lack of experience because he can surround himself with seasoned advisors. Shrub doesn't really run the White House-his cabal does. I have reservations because Edwards still thinks invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Has he addressed this at all?

I've given him more than one look.

Unfortunately I find him greatly lacking based on his voting record and his Senatorial accomplishments.

I've no doubt he's a decent guy, but as we know from experience, decency is not what wins election.

Nothing I'm saying is meant as an insult to Mr. Edwards, he's just not my idea of a president.

He is at the bottom of my list. I like his stump speech--he's got it down pat and makes exactly the same gestures every time he give it--but I don't think he has acted upon it in the Senate.

His unabashed support from IRW and the "Patriot" Act damage him significantly, IMHO.

I'll be honest with you, there are a couple of wee things about him that bother me. But every candidate has a few of those "wee things".

Ultimately I am ABB (especially since Joe has dropped out!)


He is bright, articulate, handsome and solidly 'mainstream America', and he is someone with whom our base, Independents and moderate Republican voters can identify.

I'll agree with you there.

Thanks for looking, and thanks for being ABB--- I am, too. :)

My s/o is also a Dean supporter, but he also likes Sen. Edwards more and more every time he hears him. :)

snow fall everywhere. I've already seen enough of how Liddy Dole seems to clean his clock in working for North Carolina. The rest of the country seems enamoured with the snow.

I am tired of the same stump speech, and I have watched several all the way through. We all know we have two Americas, so what's he going to DO about it, if he were to become President? I call this the Dean syndrome:rant about a problem, then have no solutions.

And any lawyer who couldn't figure out that the Patriot Act would inhibit and/or decimate the rights of ordinary Americans should NOT be President. And that goes for Kerry, etc. too.The Patriot Act must be DUMPED; then we can have hearings in a Democratic Congress about whether ANY part of the Patriot Act has inhibited terror in ANY way.

Begin flame now.

You're entitled to your opinion about Sen. edwards, just like I'm entitled to mine of Congressman Kucinich.:shrug:

NOBODY but DEAN!

:shrug:

IWR!

Trial lawyer!

This was evidenced for me in the So. Carolina "debate" when Sen. Edwards answered a straightforward question with "I feel your pain!!"

That is standard snake oil and I'm not buying.

There are a couple of defining reasons why I am pro Edwards.

First, IMO, there are and have been exactly three pro-worker candidates in this campaign. Dick Gephardt, Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards.

Now, despite (fairly) recent switch on abortion, I totally think Kucinich is great and I trust that he would appoint pro choice judges. One problem, because the media defined him as unelectable early on, he is in fact unelectable. In a better world Dennis would probably be my candidate of choice.

Dick Gephardt - here again was a terrificly pro-worker candidate - but - because the media defined him as a washed up Bob Dole he in fact became a washed up Bob Dole and left the race. Also, I don't think he is quite as quick with the thought process or as insperational as either Dennis or JRE.

So - that leaves one candidate - John Edwards.

While I think John Kerry has a decent record on jobs and the minimum wage - I know he has never lived a middle class life - I can't believe that he will ever really truely get it. Yes I am prejuciced towards the very rich, especially inherited wealth, can't help it. As for Clark - I think he brings other things to the table (maybe he could cut the defence budget, military gravitas) but his remark about it being ok to let some jobs go overseas, we would create more - too DLC for my taste.

So for me it's all about who will look out for the working man - who gets what poverty is - who gets the jobs issue. Feeling our pain - I think that's where it's at for me.
Also - I think a president should be inspirational and Edwards (along with Kucinich) is the inspirational, forward thinking, candidate.

As for national security and foreign policy - first - I trust John Edwards' innate intelligence - the more I see of him the more I realize he is very smart and a real perfectionist - he doesn't make mistakes - Kerry does and has (especially not obliterating Dean very early while the cameras were still on Kerry - big mistake). Clinton also made mistakes - went off message and had zipper problems - I don't see Edwards making mistakes - incredibly flawless. Edwards campaign has been very smart and I don't ever see him giving answers that can really create any traps, especially a General Election trap.

Second, I think Kerry and Clark have hidden problems on the security issues which will surface in the GE and end up making them actually worse candidates on Security - whereas Edwards can appoint an early shadow cabinet and campaign with them - solving the perception that he doesn't have the credentials while not being called out on their past foibles. As for Kerry's potential problems - by the time the Bush gang is done with him his protesting Vietnam will make him look unamerican - and his international prep school background and foreign born wife will be used to make him seem like a "durn foreigner" (think of the "looks French" meme). Bush will wave more flags and nationalism will win the day. Edwards is as American as apple pie - Bush can't do anything with this. Clark - his waffley answers on Iraq will bite him hard, plus his lack of skill as a campaigner will become a huge problem - and it is already clear that the Bushies are going to lable him as a little crazy, off his rocker. Edwards - they can try to paint him as a light weight but if he doesn't act like a lightweight and goes wonky in the General Election - and he is capable of this they won't succeed. He will do this in the GE - the time isn't right yet - he has to win the primary first.

Also - the reason I think his foreign policy statements have been narrower is not a lack of wonkiness - is a campaign tactic for the primary - first focus on the domestic which is his strength and his campaign theme, second, avoid the landmine of pro or anti war positions, the marker laid out by Dean, which is only a primary and not a General Election, issue thereby not allienating any Democrats. Basically Edwards has consistently laid out the framework for winning against Bush rather than allowing the Bush gang or any primary opponents to frame the issues in a way that is not advantageous. This is smart campaigning.

In order to win we need a smart campaigner, a smart politician, and I think Edwards fills that bill more than any other candidate.

I'm still for Howard, but if Howard doesn't make it... Well, just sayin', ya know? :)