Now that Edwards has completely tanked, who will rise to third place?

Who is the new third place?
Biden Dodd Gravel Kucinich or Richardson?

Still voting for him. Oh. You think people are paying attention to these "debates."

I don't think they will fall below 3rd.

I think Biden will be the "Kerry" of 2008, and come out of no where in the Iowa caucus. I also think Richardson has a shot, but damn, his personality is weird and speaking is crummy. He is too self-deprecating and too pandering. I think its pretty much going to be Clinton/Clark or Clinton/Richardson.

:dem:

Go Joe!

But if he did, it'd be Kucinich (I hope).

:dem:

Great job supporting Clinton there, pal. :eyes:

but Biden seems to be attracting a lot of notice. I don't know what he's polling though.

Now that Clark's out, that is! :D

several of us are looking closely Biden lol.

I think Joe Biden is a logical successor in the sense that he has the most to offer America in this election. That should be what it's all about.

it makes sense that we'd gravitate to the same type of candidate though. You're right, Joe has the most to offer, and I hope he gets the chance.

..which may sound funny since he's somewhat of an "old school" public servant. But I think that's what makes him appealing, his command of the vital issues and his ability to articulate his positions to ordinary people. You can see him do this on Meet the Press nearly every other week: "Look, Tim, the reason...." (In a way I saw this in Chris Dodd, too, especially in his comments on public education).

I think a lot of us would say that the second tier candidates are more qualified the the first tier.


Americans, I think, want someone who can balance progressive ideals with pragmatic expertise, and someone who gets out of their own way in doing this.



An Edwards-Biden ticket?

Media is having a field day declaring winners and losers, weekly. They love it when they can make big news out of little news. They can barely make waves when discussing the pitiful repubs.

You gotta know they, the media, hate it when they have to even acknowledge any candidate but the top tier 3. Biden should have all kinds of press, he was so cool during the last debate, actually he has done really well during all the debates, with his 4 to 6 min. of air time.

Edwards hasn't tanked at all. I think once the REAL "polls" are taken he will do quite well.

Just because M$M wants us to believe HRC is the annoited one, doesn't mean she will be.

Unless she has buddies at Diebold that is......

After the holidays, I think things will shake up considerably.

But if it does, Biden.

the media likes using the number 3... it would look wierd if there were only two front-runners. What's Edwards polling at? 7%?

:toast:

The 2003 Edwards was at least interesting. This 2007 version seems a poor parody.

And if Bill had never became president, Hillary would be...where?

You think Hillary would have been the presidential frontrunner for a major party without Bill?

I think she would be president by now. Marrying Bill meant she had to put her political career on hold for 8+ years.

Look, her legislative and career track record is ethically suspect, and come on now, let's be frank--you honestly think that Hilary would be a factor had it not been for Bill Clinton's presidency?

I disagree with D. Brooks a lot of the time, but I do agree with his hope that Americans should move beyond the Bush-Clinton "psychodrama". It's not good for democracy. It's like were stuck in 1991, and the world has moved on.

where would Hillary be? Just the spouse of a disgraced president.Funny how when Clinton wanted the best lawyer in the country, he went to Edwards! And Edwards is the best trial lawyer in the nation and his peers say so. Hillary, not so much.She represented corporations!

Edwards was little more than a paper shuffler.

he has been so named by his peers.He has never been just a "paper shuffler" at anything.I suggest you review his legal career. And it is a fact not urbam legand that Bill Clinton asked for his help.Look it up.

"Best trial lawyer"? Criminal defense attorney's are trial lawyers as well.

I'll admit, he was good at getting people money..... but 'best in the nation' -- hardly.

Besides the 'impeachment' outcome had already been settled before he opened his mouth.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:zn8L4ZhEoYcJ:www.csmonitor.com/2004/0707/p01s02-uspo.html+John+Edwards+Clinton+Impeachment+legal+team&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=42&gl=us



Finishing his sixth year as a senator, Edwards's political record isn't long. At the very start of his term, he was pressed into service as one of President Clinton's three Senate defenders during impeachment. Edwards also managed the floor debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights, legislation that eventually bogged down, but his performance won him praise from the Republican Senator McCain, who noted the North Carolinian's ability to make the complex understandable.





http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/05/from_mill_town_to_the_national_stage_boston_globe/?page=10



The Senate seat led Edwards to give up the law, yet it turned out that he had another towering trial ahead of him. He arrived in Washington in January 1999 at the height of Clinton impeachment fever, and just three weeks into his term he was tapped for the high-profile assignment of helping oversee Senate depositions.

Edwards drew the most recognition for a question he and Wisconsin Senator Herb Kohl put to Republican impeachment manager Lindsey Graham: Is Clinton's conduct a matter about which reasonable people can differ?Continued

``Absolutely,'' Graham replied, according to the Congressional Record.


``Now if the prosecution concedes that reasonable people can differ about this,'' Edwards continued, ``how can we not have reasonable doubt? These things all lead me to the conclusion that however reprehensible the President's conduct is, I have to vote to acquit on both articles of impeachment.''

Personally, Edwards was baffled by Clinton's affair with a young woman just several years older than his daughter Cate. But he stood by him publicly. ``I thought what he did was wrong, and that he clearly knew that,'' Edwards says.

Edwards earned bipartisan praise for evenhandedness in the trial, and Democratic power brokers began buzzing about a new leader in the party - smart, telegenic, and a political talent. In the run-up to the 2000 congressional elections, some new candidates were describing themselves as ``the next John Edwards,'' Duffy of the Cook

"Funny how when Clinton wanted the best lawyer in the country, he went to Edwards!"

Edwards was NOT on the Clinton Dream Team and did NOT "represent" President Clinton in the wingnut witch hunt/impeachment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/clinton_under_fire/profiles/259798.stm

:rofl:

Edwards was indeed part of Clintons Defense team.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:zn8L4ZhEoYcJ:www.csmonitor.com/2004/0707/p01s02-uspo.html+John+Edwards+Clinton+Impeachment+legal+team&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=42&gl=us



Finishing his sixth year as a senator, Edwards's political record isn't long. At the very start of his term, he was pressed into service as one of President Clinton's three Senate defenders during impeachment. Edwards also managed the floor debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights, legislation that eventually bogged down, but his performance won him praise from the Republican Senator McCain, who noted the North Carolinian's ability to make the complex understandable.





http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/05/from_mill_town_to_the_national_stage_boston_globe/?page=10



The Senate seat led Edwards to give up the law, yet it turned out that he had another towering trial ahead of him. He arrived in Washington in January 1999 at the height of Clinton impeachment fever, and just three weeks into his term he was tapped for the high-profile assignment of helping oversee Senate depositions.

Edwards drew the most recognition for a question he and Wisconsin Senator Herb Kohl put to Republican impeachment manager Lindsey Graham: Is Clinton's conduct a matter about which reasonable people can differ?Continued

``Absolutely,'' Graham replied, according to the Congressional Record.

``Now if the prosecution concedes that reasonable people can differ about this,'' Edwards continued, ``how can we not have reasonable doubt? These things all lead me to the conclusion that however reprehensible the President's conduct is, I have to vote to acquit on both articles of impeachment.''
Personally, Edwards was baffled by Clinton's affair with a young woman just several years older than his daughter Cate. But he stood by him publicly. ``I thought what he did was wrong, and that he clearly knew that,'' Edwards says.

Edwards earned bipartisan praise for evenhandedness in the trial, and Democratic power brokers began buzzing about a new leader in the party - smart, telegenic, and a political talent. In the run-up to the 2000 congressional elections, some new candidates were describing themselves as ``the next John Edwards,'' Duffy of the Cook

your post is very telling.

"If Edwards hadn't saved Clinton's sorry butt by representing him in the Impeachment proceedings where would Hillary be? Just the spouse of a disgraced president."

I take it from this statement, you would have rathered Clinton be impeached and thrown out of office like the rabid republicans did?

That post is saved and I will throw that in his or her face whenever I can.

from an intern and gotten caught and lied about it he wouldn't have been in trouble.That being said, it was nothing to be impeached over. ity was a private matter.But it was Clintons sorry butt that was in a sling over it!

to be thrown out of office but he was "impeached" BTW and he did deserve that.He brought it on himself by the sheer stupidity of his actions.He lied about a sexual act with an intern.Granted, that was not what Starr should have been investigating but Clinton "knew' they were out to get him and he still engaged in reckless immoral behavior. And he made all of us suffer the consequences.And he would have been in even deeper trouble if Edwards did not argue reasonable doubt.

:thumbsup:

He had his chance to prove his worth. It was pathetic. I can't believe people actually support this guy.

The other thing was that Kerry got Edwards to be his running mate because he was supposed to be the "personality" part of the ticket. We all saw how much personality Johnny added...zilcho. We quickly found out that Edwards is a good schmoozing talker and that's about it. Man did he disappear during that election. I still can't believe how easily Cheney walked all over him in the debate. Just awful.

Oh... wait...
Never mind.

He can offer you a great deal on a used car!

of, well, terrorism. It was a HARD election to win with the right wing spin machine in full gear and most of the country at the time supporting the war.

Things are different now and the republicans are wildly unpopular.

when thinking of Edwards. I saw that debate and was so very disappointed in him.

he hardly ever spoke. I liked him before he started opening his mouth. Once he started speaking, I found him annoying.

for third spot. I think Richardson or Kucinich will also end up ahead of Edwards before it's all over.

Best poll of the day, btw.

:dem:

Did you give up on her? I haven't decided who to support yet.

He was already in the pits. He barely polls any higher than the second tier candidates.

Are you TRYING to turn people off of Hillary? ;-)

You need it. Or is your hate the only correct hate?

I hate Hillary haters.

Even though the behavior in question is exactly the same.

If your goal is to be the next Illinoisprogressive then "Mission Accomplished"!

I hate Hillary haters.

I prefer a new poll that says "Now that the premise of the original post has tanked, who will argue that Edwards is not still one of the Big 3?"

"..Competition in the Hawkeye State is tick tight -- a virtual dead heat among Clinton, John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama in the most recent New York Times/CBS poll..."

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/7-0&fp=473ed27741e85177&ei=xzY-R7CXL4ua-AGN85j2Dg&url=http%3A//tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/poll_hillary_leads_in_michigan_rudy_and_romney_running_close.php&cid=1123662023&sig2=1GGZSocDyFbuSgIThjLyWg

i thought this place was supposed to be for Democrats and not the place for rw attacks?

now if it was a graphic of St. John and had a caption about hair, well all hell would break loose.

I have to admit it: why do some people get to post pure unadulterated rw crap here on DU? I thought THAT kink of post was verboten?

things are kept pretty loose here for the primaries, and I like that, but some things are downright offensive IMO. I wouldn't second guess the mods though. They've had their hands full trying to clear out the disrupters.

Welcome to DU btw, it's always nice to see rational people sign on :)

When you're here long enough to know who's who, you'll know who's making the freeper attacks. LOL!!

Guess who?

You win!

Great comment!

hmmmmmf.

But that's just me.

Link to new Iowa poll: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3724709&mesg_id=3724709

You knew that, didn't you?

Why is your questionable "assumption" worth more than his fairly recent poll?

Living in the past is really a sad state. Please cheer up.

a source of evidence? Could you be any more vague and presumptive?

See the thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=3049517#3049523

So of course, he's not going to have anything responsible to say about Edwards.

Ambulance chasers are universally despised for good reason.
All lawyers should be minimum wage civil servants.

The slimeballs at FreakRepublic would be so proud of you.

;-)

Most cases end when the client runs out of funds. Great system you defend.

She made quite a bit representing corporations for the Rose Law Firm.

With free puppies and cake for all!!
:sarcasm:
Your ignorance, your self delusion, that anyone not so thoroughly enamored with that person as you are somehow makes them a "freeper" is simply sad. Please, call a friend.

:eyes:

as evidenced by your postings.

Lot of people want a chance to vote for him in the primaries. If my first picks don't make it, I could live with Edwards.

Biden's looking good, but I wonder how many people are familiar with his record. I need to read up on his domestic positions myself.

... just wait til Edwards cleans her clock in Iowa, then I guess you will be hard to find around these parts.

The Iowa Independent put out their analysis of who would win Iowa if the caucuses were held today and guess who would win?? THAT'S RIGHT -----> EDWARDS !!!

Don't be trying to confuse the Edwards-hating OP with facts or analysis!

"Personally, I predict that Obama will squeeze out a close victory in Iowa. I also feel that if Edwards were to win that he most likely doesn't have the money to stay competitive in the other early states, even if an Iowa victory were to give him a major boost."

(I wonder if Edwardians are just befuddled, or are just bewildered? Perhaps, both?)

Biden's really rising above the petty mudslinging, and Kucinich has a very strong base.

Even though I think Richardson would make an outstanding President, I think he's ready to run for VP.

as some here or in the media are saying he did. I didn't see him "tank"
I actually thought he did pretty well, better than Obama, imo.

Edwards's tanking has been an ongoing slide into the mud for some time, though.

other DEMS, mainly Clinton, and give us his vision of where the country will head in an Edwards' administration. I still think he did fine though. The "planted line" fell flat but I thought he was very strong in other areas, like that corporate America segment.

Unless he takes his act onto Sunday mornings after he drops out.

attacking other DEMS, especially Edwards and Obama, DU would be an informative place again. You do your candidate no favors with thoughtless posts.

I'd like to think you have, considering the proportions.
:dem:

Someone bashes your candidate, so you bash back twice as hard?

Can you see what this place would become if everyone did that? I want DU to hone its attacks on Republicans, not Democrats. I can get Dem-bashing at FR.

To answer your question, sure, I'll defend any candidate against unfair attacks, whenever I see them. But I see far more threads critical of the candidates I like than the one or two candidates you do. That's partly because I click on threads with my favored candidates' names in the title, and partly because we're all more sensitive to attacks on our favored candidates. We see attacks on the ones we don't like as merely factual, and attacks on the ones we do as unfair or non-factual. But when they actually lack facts, that's when it's appropriate to step in and object.

Examining this problem presents us with the solution. If each of us would make it their responsibility to change the tone, this place would be a lot more useful.

Next time you see someone bash your candidate and you feel like bashing back, try this. Start a thread listing the top things you like about your candidate. Do it without mentioning another candidate, even by implication. See how many positive responses you get. More importantly, see how many converts you get by your example. New supporters *will* help your candidate, especially with all the resources here.

I promise to kick your thread if I see it. I might even recommend it. But please do it.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

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

I am sick of this. I don't know what they mean to gain by doing this crap.

Which she HASN'T yet, as I so dutifully point out to these shameless shills.

This is capitulation. To surrender our party to the Hillarys, Froms, Carvilles and Liebermans of the world is a disservice to working people, the poor, unions, the military and the sick everywhere in America. When did people give up on STANDING for something?

The intellectual cockroaches sure do come out of the woodwork.

These two and their snarky posts just suck the happy out of me. Its why I dont like Hillary, its not her or her politics, its her fucking supporters here!
Snarky, holier-than-all-get-out, sick of them.

Thank you, Methuen. This kicks off a good weekend!

:toast:

And Flamebait! It needs to be locked.

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

Or just an attept to get tombstoned on purpose?

people use "Hillary" avatars and they post againt Hillary. If we are opposed to somebody, is that what we are supposed to do? Use the avatar of the person we hate and that will nullify the hatred?

I don't get it. I really don't.

Scores of anti-Clinton polls go up and are celebrated and honored by the Usuals, but this one single poll reflecting Edwards horrid debate performances gets posted and the Usuals go freakin' nuts. What an odd place, at times, DU is.

Bill's up to two!! :D

find another tune. you're like the guy at the party with the lampshade on. thinking that your schtick is going over well. get a grip and a life and some smarts.

this is so friggin tiring and ridiculous.

in fact, life is too short...meet my friend the ignore choice. ciao.

And once you do that in this game, there's no place left to go but down.

but if he has I would put Biden in third (first, in my mind).

What a silly ass question.....

kick and recommend

Good framing, you can go back to HRC campaign headquarters.

Because I'm about to call you a troll.

..the best chance to fall the farthest.

You know, it's dishonest to just make stuff up about a candidate, as desperate as you may be.

although he and Biden are far behind Edwards...

http://www.pollster.com/08-US2-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

This poll shows that Edwards has in fact tanked in Iowa;
http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

Apparently it happened a while ago. Should be interesting to see the numbers next week, after this last debate. I did however notice a subtle uptick in the Biden stats.....

Couldn't get more 'subtle' than that. Biden changed from also-ran status to also-ran status +2 points.

just repeat them often enough, and you put it, "some dimwits start to believe it"

I could go on all day, the haters have fabricated too many smears to mention.

That chit it just sad...

that I won't answer.

Biden's recent performances are getting good reviews!

Really shows a severe disconnect with reality.

Most DU polls have DK ahead, no matter what the question! :D

He's still in play in Iowa, which is all he's ever had, so there's not a real change in his basic positioning. After Iowa, we'll know.

dodd is a non-entity, kucinich seems to be getting
uncharacteristically nasty all of the sudden (or
perhaps that last debate was a fluke), richardson
only looks good on paper; on the campaign trail he
is spectacularly bad, and a gravel campaign event
wouldn't sell out my garage.

or maybe a better way of putting it is that the
weakness at the bottom of the field is the only
reason that edwards is third to begin with.

You're in for a big surprise....

iowa certainly surprised me in 2004.

You're really worried about Edwards spoiling the Hillary coronation, aren't you?

..this one. Biden will move up into the top tier. I don't think that MSM can keep him down.

-Paige