Is John Edwards our unity candidate?

Putting aside the fact that if I could press a button and make Joe Biden President, I would...

I'm also very content and excited by the prospect of Edwards winning the nomination.

We obviously have a lot of people in our party (a bit exaggerated here at DU, but there nevertheless) who don't like Hillary Clinton.

There is also a very sizable group that doesn't like or trust Barack Obama or have concerns with his readiness to be President.

John Edwards seems to be the first or second choice for a lot of people. And perhaps more importantly, he doesn't arouse nearly the ire and animosity that Clinton and Obama do.

He is dyed in the wool populist campaigner, a fighter for the little guy, a breath of fresh air after eight long years of government by, for and of the corporations.

His wife, Elizabeth is a jewel. A national treasure amongst national treasures. She is greatly loved and admired by many Americans. She is beloved in the gay community, in almost icon status. She is a rock star, a complement to his campaign with greater empathy and simplicity than Bill Clinton and greater warmth than Michelle Obama.

And then there's the question of electability. Clinton is despised in the South and by the rightwing machine, Obama is a wild card, whose greatest appeal is to the young, who every cycle are going to come out in record numbers and vote - and every cycle don't.

Edwards has great appeal in the South and the Midwest. He is a winning, charming, optimistic candidate. There are not too many Democrats who have problems with John Edwards. Progressives feel comfortable with him, and even if he moves to the center, which he will during the general, the Democratic base will remain loyal and committed.

Perhaps the answer to our dilemma has been there all along. Right in front of our eyes.

Perhaps the one man who can bring us all together to face down the enemy and take our country back is the one man who won't try for unity with the Republicans, but will take the fight right to their doorstep. No holds barred.

Perhaps Iowa will be the beginning of a long, inexorable, exhilarating march to the nomination.

And, just perhaps, it is President John Edwards who will be lifting our hearts and making us catch our throats and fight back tears of joy come January 20, 2009.

Only in front of Kucinich.

I really do not like anything about Edwards, and I am very pleased that it appears I will never be forced to vote for him again.

Translated: I don't give a fuck about the working poor.

His platform is what the Democratic Party's platform should be but isn't. He likely is the most left wing of all the candidates there, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

But I hope somebody here can support a Democratic candidate other than our own without being labeled a bad guy...

I am working poor and I think Edwards is full of shit and a panderer.

He's a politician; like all the others...I don't think any of them are saints...I think (all) of them would lead this nation in a kinder, smarter, and wiser direction...

I see no real difference between any of the "top 3", though it amazes me that there's talk of a "top 3" when not a single vote has been cast.

Moe Edwards, Larry Obama, Shemp Biden, and Curly Clinton are all corporate stooges.

Look at their helath care "proposals" All of them want to keep the pimps running the insurance rackets in the game.

Only Kucinich stands up for Single Payer. Kucinich is the only one who has a backbone to tell the pimps to go to hell.

Kucinich is the REAL Democrat. Curly, Shemp, Larry and Moe are Democrats Loving Corporations.

So, unless you are extremely wealthy, he is your champion.

I mean to have Edwards and Kucinich as your two least favorites? Shit, if that's true then you're everything that's wrong with our party.

for saying that FatDave. As someone who has Kooch on the top of my list and Edwards a close second, i agree with you wholeheartedly.



peace on the new year... whatcha doin for your thousandth?

:)

:applause: Maybe that person needs a Republican Party Registration form emailed to them.

There is a third way, and its the only permanent path to governance.

You know, so the democrats can go back to standing for something? Lieberman no longer has a D after his name, and I consider that a good start.

We could just put up our centrist candidates, and leave the far left with no other viable choices.

Sounds like a far better plan to me.

Its a permanent path to governance, and a well documented one at that. Its what the corporations will have once they've solidified thier hold over both parties.

AND I like your talking points bingo!

Until the last couple of days, Obama was my second choice. Now, I'm just not sure. There are several other good candidates. Obama has disappointed me. He does not seem to be staying on focus at a time when he should.

But I'll stick with Senator Clinton.

if DK is your last choice then you must be as non-progressive as possible and still be a Democrat.

I am curious are you satisfied with Sen Clinton's stand on torture?

bring tears of joy to my family.....

I'd love to see Elizabeth and their children in the White House.

I can't wait for another president with no foreign policy experience who panders to whatever group of people seem to have his ear at the moment only to change his mind two days later after the polls find him tanking. :sarcasm:

:eyes:

John Kerry announced this morning that he won't endorse Edwards.

Edwards doesn't even inspire unity within his own ticket.

Where did you hear it? That's news.

Sorry WesDem. I looked on google news, but I can't find anything.

Thanks, Jai.

The last I heard was Kerry saying the week before Christmas that he did not know if he would endorse or not. I think they might be referring to a Washington Post article on all the top Democrats that said it was not clear who Kerry preferred - but it wasn't Edwards. This was simply rumor based, though it seems very likely to be accurate as Kerry has not been as supportive of Edwards as of some of the others - though he has not said a single negative word. It might be inferred by the unflattering things the Edwards have said that the Kerrys were too classy to respond to. (If they thought an endorsement likely they wouldn't have done this.

It doesn't.

I'm not surprised by JK's sentiment, but I never thought he'd announce it! Good for Kerry!

This said, I guess they are probably right, but Kerry has said nothing and the article is a inside the beltway thinking about the fact that many important Democrats did not endorse (even if most never do).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/29/AR2007122901344.html

I must have mis-heard. Or heard what I wanted to. That happens sometimes.

I wondered why it wasn't bigger news. I remember when Gore endorsed Dean and not Lieberman. It was a fairly big deal. Probably would have been even bigger is Lieberman had been a top tier candidate.

had to say BRAVO!! You really summed it ALL up! What a great post, loved every word and really really do feel the very same way!!

Thank you for giving him praise and especially ELIZABETH... of ALL the women, I sincerely believe she is such an asset to John and I can't think of a more gracious and wonderful FIRST LADY!

second your "BRAVO!" Let the sore losers lick their wounds and groan. We've alrady got the permanent governance mentioned here. That's what John will lead us out of!

:kick:

But I think John Edwards will be a uniter....GWB has left a legacy as the divider in this country....That is what the promotion of fear and hate does!

he's led us down a path to RUIN! And I don't say this lightly, he had help with "some" of THE DEMOCRATS!! Feinstein comes to mind for me! And also one of my Senators here, BILL NELSON!!

I realize the "war" vote is a serious bone of contention, and even IF Obama wasn't there to vote and states he was against the war, I have often wondered what he REALLY would have done?? He's very moderate and he has gone along to fund it without speaking out. Don't get me wrong, I have no animus toward him, it's just something that has crossed my mind for a long time.

I feel Obama wants UNITY, but for me I just don't think "this" time out is best for him!

I think Edwards has gotten some real FIRE IN HIS BELLY, and is going for broke! He's laying it all on the line regardless of where he was in 2004 and before. I know I'm not the same person I was back then... even though I KNEW I never supported going to IRAQ!! I DON'T like war period!!

I wasn't around when Truman dropped those bombs, but looking back It's ALWAYS bothered me. My fist campaign was stumping for McGovern, in Florida and it was then I learned "how to lose!" What HE stood for then most CERTAINLY has changed and my respect for him has seriously changed, as it has for Robert Kennedy, Jr. Makes me wonder WHY, even though I have some thoughts of my own about it. Still, they and others have really let me down and lost my respect.

I just wish wish wish he hadn't taken matching funds.

Wes Clark would have been; he's spent a lot of time discussing the issues relevant to bringing us together, in the spirit of the founders. Sorry to mention an irrelevant, guys, but that's the truth.

Joe Biden may very well be such a uniter; importantly, his life story is very appealing and I'm not referring to tragedy, but his family/upbringing/economic class, and his general optimistic approach to the task at hand.

I'm getting ready, again, to write in, which I've done my whole life; I've never voted for an actual presidential candidate.

Now I'm feeling sorry for myself! Time for sleep, I think!

and that will be exploited here as well as in the MSM (and the Republicans) right down to the wire.

For now it's all about the HRC and Obama horserace. Wait and see if racism and sexism don't rear their ugly heads (gloves off), should either of them be nominated.

For me, I mistrust HRC and Obama more than any except a Repuglican. I like Dodd, Biden and Kucinich (not necessarily in that order). But I also like Edwards. I LOVE his wife and the brave stance she has taken. I admire HIM for having such a wife. And Edwards is sounding a call that resonates well. If he can live up to 1/2 of it I'll be pretty damned pleased.

His record in no way matches his rhetoric.

Do you ever post anything other than something to say how bad Edwards is? I don't follow DU much anymore, but I know you loathe Edwards- yet I have no idea who you actually support. :shrug:


Just curious. I personally still don't have a candidate, though I'm ok with Edwards. In truth I guess I'm ok with any of ours but Clinton.

Maybe it's because I just don't buy into the Edwards rhetoric, but I would certainly think Richardson or Gravel would come second. I know Gravel has some weird ideas, but they're certainly progressive in at least one sense of the word. Richardson's idea to make native affairs a top cabinet-level priority is very important to me. It's the one thing that no other candidate has said that I think they all should - the only reason not to get behind that idea, I think, is racism (or possibly simply being uninformed, or worse, callous indifference).

no matter what his or her other positions may be.

I don't like that "progressive" seems to be a new code-word for "liberal" which was abandoned because it had become a right-wing smear. I'm all for people really being progressive, as in setting forth new ideas and working for change. While I think Gravel's tax ideas are horrible, they certainly are "progressive" in this latter sense of the word. I just see Edwards as being largely status-quo Democratic party, which I don't like - I don't see anything progressive about that.

What you are characterizing as progressive is really just trial and error, change for change's sake policymaking. Not progressive in the least, whether speaking in the vernacular or using the economic term of art.

All the candidates are fairly status quo, otherwise they'd be running as Socialists or Anarchists. Personally, I hope to live to see the day we have a viable Socialist candidate for Pres, but I think I'll have to live in France for that to happen.

I know what you're saying about a progressive tax, and I'm all for it - I think it should be a party-wide platform. Explained in simple terms (because it is simple!) a real progressive tax could be very popular - doing away with tax brackets completely. The more money you make, the more you pay in taxes, but with the poor paying nothing, the middle class paying very little, and the wealthy paying an awful lot. And do away with this "alternative minimum" tax while they're at it - if there weren't so many weird loopholes an alternative minimum wouldn't be needed.

As for a socialist party, I don't know if I would get behind it. I'd rather just see the Democratic party move back from the right to be the party of labor and farmers they once were. It seems to me that the Dems are now both the liberal and the conservative party, while the Republicans are the christian, war-mongering, free-trade, big government party. I like the idea of fiscal conservancy and small government, and think Dems should point out that those are their qualities, not the repubs. Now, that being said, I think we should make single-payer universal healthcare top priority, have free education through the college level, etc. I'm not so sure that I'd want our government actually owning industry, just setting and enforcing effective laws to see that industry doesn't get out of hand.

...but I'll get behind whatever Dem candidate gets the nom. I'd PREFER that it be Edwards.

He's approachable. Moderates and even some right-wingers who have some respect for the system will see that. Perhaps his greatest strength is that he's able to be a good listener and coalition-builder while also being a solid leader. He has a well-fed ego, so he'll be able to lose a few along the way while still focusing on the big ones, instead of needing to prove something with every piddly little step of the way.

Besides the many other uglinesses that make up his personality, this is George W. Bush's greatest failing as a human being: his endless failures that have made him need to win and prove (or actually, disprove) something at every point. People like that are destructive; they're the scrappy guys who're always picking fights and who need to dominate at every turn. Spiritually, John Edwards is the polar opposite of a George W. Bush, and he's an emotionally healthy human being. He also works like a dog, is endlessly curious, can admit a mistake and considers himself to be a true beneficiary of his community and is imbued with a desire to give back.

Glad to hear you feel this way.

I have to admit that John's focus, his tenacity when all the odds were against him and the polls had him down against Clinton and Obama, that fighting spirit coupled with his sense of optimism makes me think he's the best candidate to oppose the GOP. I'm not in his corner, but I think his recent rise in Iowa as the final decisions are made is reflective of my sentiments about him as well.

You, PurityOfEssence, have been a stand-up advocate for his cause through thick and thin and, for that, you have my respect. And your candidate is winning me over.

Michigan hasn't gone to a Republican since Reagan/Bush I, but I can see them going that way if Edwards is the nominee - it would depend on who the Republicans put forth as their own of course.

with you about Mich going red......not gonna happen. I live in a bleeding red neighborhood of people who actually vote and every damn one of them likes John Edwards. They think as many do here, he is a hard worker and that he reminds the older ones of the Kennedy years (not that all those were good, but I digress).

Bottom line, they won't vote for HRC on their last breath. They don't want Obama as he is, well, he just is. (I can read between the lines just as you can being from north of Detroit)

Edwards appeals to people. Pure, plain and simple and if folks don't like it here on DU, well, that's their right (at least until jr revokes it).

The more he gets heard, the more people like him. Period.

And as far as Kerry not endorsing Edwards...fabulous news to me. Kerry has his dick up HRC's a** anyhow. Kerry had the chance to be prez and fight for it - however, he caved. I don't need a Pres who won't fight for what was obviously and inherently his.

Michigan is a solid Dem state in many ways, but I think Edwards is a lot of what people didn't like about Clinton (Bill, that is), with only some of what they liked. McCain was/is really popular among a lot of people in Michigan (as is Paul now), and, while I don't like it, I think some people would vote for one of those two above Edwards - maybe I'm wrong. I think of all the states, DK could do really well in Michigan if given a voice.

Did Edwards steal your lollipop or something?

I don't think I ever see you post other than to bash Edwards. It seems personal.

And the bashing you do seems thinly supported, if it's supported at all.

You post as if merely declaring these things you say make them true - no real attempt to persuade or convince. It's just "I'm ag'nst 'im" and "He's a crook" leaving any rational reader asking "Why?" and "What'd he do?".

So: "Why?"

I post about lots of other things here, but you probably just come across the Edwards ones. Edwards just gets my goat... just tonight there was a post about how his healthcare plan is second best... I don't care about second best! A lot of the support for him seems to be based on political calculation, and that really gets me. I dislike all of the senators (except Gravel) who are running now, but Edwards comes up the most often on DU, so I enter the discussion (I've found there's not much point in discussing Clinton here.... and I'm just hoping to ignore her and she'll go away). There are things he voted for in the senate that make my skin crawl (Patriot Act, for instance), and I don't like some of the hawkish things he's said in this campaign. I'm not saying he's a horrible person or he's going straight to hell, but I do not want him to be the Democratic nominee. Healthcare is important to me, and I want all Democrats to get behind HR 676 or a similar plan. I also want the war over - now. I no all of these dem folks claim to be anti war now, but they weren't when it mattered, and thousands are dead for it. That is something that I can not forget or forgive. I'm going to suck it up and vote for the guy in the general if he's the nominee, because he's still head and shoulders above any Republican, but I won't be proud of it.

Wellstone used to refer to as the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party).

....this is now my mantra.BTW - great post.

Obama get to far away without asking them to help him in a cabinet position.

He always has. I will vote for him in the GE, but I hope I don't have to. He is the last Democrat on my list.

While Edwards gets to claim he is the white knight fighting for clean elections. I do not equate a group like that with an ongoing organization like Move On.org or a Labor Union. It is political money astro turf at its worst. It didn't exist 6 months ago and it won't exist 6 months from now.

if it wasn't for a certain Donnie McClurkin fan, and his moonie followers.

Hmmmmmm.

Seems like the only way Clinton could get the nomination with little contest is if the anti-Hillary vote was split. (IMHO)

One thing is for sure about Edwards (AFAIK):

You won't see him pal-ing around with LIEberman. That's a step in the right direction.

Go Edwards!

When you eliminate the buzzwords that have negative connotations for some uninformed people, even though they shouldn't (progressive, populist, etc.), his message speaks to the HUGE majority of the American people. What is it? The top 1% controls 98% of the wealth or something like that?

He's not anti-corporate, he's against corporatocracy, and 98% of the American people are disgusted with the CEO bonuses, Enrons, Halliburtons, lobbyists, blah, blah.

If he gets a chance, this message will resonate with the American people. BIG TIME.

(for you detractors: no, he's not perfect, but his message speaks to the masses and many of us believe his commitment to this message)

I'd much rather have a candidate who isn't super-wealthy than one who is but pays lip-service to understanding those who aren't.

The way our system is set up now, you can't even get in there without being wealthy.

I can see how aspects of his life and candidacy bother some people - just as there's something to bother everyone about every candidate - but that aspect doesn't bother me.

I'd rather a candidate focus his/her attention on MY interests than mega corporations' interests, regardless of their personal bank account.

There are others too. Howard Dean wasn't extravagantly wealthy, but more well off than my family's ever been. Same with the Clintons. It seems to me like being extremely wealthy has changed the Clintons - maybe I'm wrong, since I sure don't know them personally. I think something's wrong when the only people who can run for political office are the wealthy - I just don't think they understand what it is to be middle class, let alone poor.

So being super-wealthy does not mean you are selfish.

FDR put policies in place that made the country what it is today (well, a lot of that is being eroded), and I'm not hearing any ideas as drastic as his from any of today's candidates - I wish I did. Still, I'd rather have a candidate who I feel truly understands what it is to be poor or even middle class in america today than one who thinks or pretends to understand.

very hard work and long, long hours preparing his cases. Obama is not an extraordinarily wealthy man. I don't believe that Biden or Dodd are either.

The Clintons' wealth worries me a bit. I remember when Clinton was in the White House and the gossip had it that the real reason that the Republicans pursued the lawsuit against him was to try to break him financially. If I recall correctly, Clinton was not very wealthy at all when he left office. Now, the Clintons wrote books and were paid for that. But, they live well, travel a lot and spend a lot of money. Clinton no doubt has a generous pension. He has also made a lot of money charging the moon and the stars for speeches. And to earn fees like that, he is not speaking to the local PTA in Hometown, Illinois or Idaho. He earns the big fees speaking to corporate America. That concerns me. I assume that Hillary does not have to list all the sources of income of her husband during the year. Am I wrong about that? Seems to me a lot of "donations" that the Clintons don't want to talk about could be hidden from the public in speaking and book compensation as well as in donations to Clinton's library as has been mentioned.

I think Hillary Clinton is a politician and very good at talking in circles (and some times talking circles around others), but I don't really think she's a complete phony and a liar. I imagine that her priorities have changed a great deal in the last 20 years, because her daily life has, and that's reflected in her policy choices - I don't think it's because she's cold-hearted or evil, as some people do. I just think all of these rich people are out of touch with what's going on RIGHT NOW. I know Edwards wasn't always super wealthy, but I really don't think he, Obama, or Clinton (probably none of these folks, maybe not even Kucinich or Gravel, who are perhaps the two lowest money earning candidates) know what it's like to have to worry about paying for student loans or worrying about how to pay for your kids to go to college, being able to afford health insurance, what to do if you don't have sick days left (or don't have them at all), need to find someone to cover a shift at a job - all of these things. I would just love to have a politician who does understand these things.... seems completely unlikely, but it shouldn't be.

If we required all candidates to limit spending in campaigns, we would have a wider selection of candidates with new ideas. But it would take a Constitutional Amendment to do that.

One thing that ought to change is this insane idea that money = speech. Blows my mind, along with corporation = person.

He came from a lower middle class, loaded trucks at night to get through North Carolina State and the The University of North Carolina Law School, let me tell you one thing every republican you talk too is for Obama...every or almost every one, doesn't that tell you a few things.

He'd drive me and my family so far away from the Democratic Party the Greens might be viable.

It's getting tiring. I respect your right to your opinion, but geesh. Wes ain't gonna run..get over it. Move on with your life.

In trying to rebuild the Democratic presence in DC, your incessant negativity would be a detriment.

Maybe you don't like him, but I have to wonder what sort of democrat you are if Edwards is sooooo repugnant to you.

He had his fucking ass kicked last race and decided to be smart and not run this time. It'll be funny if Edwards wins the nomination and you won't be able to spew your filth here anymore.

I know you have some stupid ass personal vendetta against him because of you son or something but it's time to move on!

not our "unity" candidate, rather our "vanity" candidate. If you're a progressive and consider yourself a Real Democrat, then from my reckoning your only logical choice is the only "Real Democrat" in the running...that candidate of course is Kucinich. The others are all right leaning DNC cronies who represent the moderate Republicans WAY better than they will ever represent a true Democrat. It amazes me how so many folks are willing to totally overlook Edwards voting record and comfort themselves in the assumption that he's undergone a "moral epiphany". As a resident of NC who has experienced him as a legislator I can assure you his apparent change of heart on the issues was nothing more than a calculated "campaign epiphany" and not a result of any "moral" struggle with past positions. You want truth, justice and a return to the American way? Vote Kucinich "."

Kucinich is also a great candidate, but can he win? If he doesn't win, then Korporate Amerika will conveniently write off the progressive stance as a "far left" minority stance.

Edwards arguably has a shot. And if he wins, then his platform can be claimed to be a MANDATE of the people. And I believe a well structured anti-corporatocracy campaign can be bipartisan in appeal, not just us on the left. It may turn off the so-called "centrists" who are beholden to corporatist rule, but the PEOPLE will gather around it!

And if he does later turn his back on this platform after elected, then you can criticize him for it, but we will still have a "mandate" that we can hold him and other politicians accountable for. That's a lot bigger. If you compromise your values and don't elect someone who truly reflects your values in your stance then you have NO mandate! NONE! And the corporatists can go on stealing more and more control of this government until the tipping point of fascism is hit.

Edwards in my book is the only real avenue we have of fighting through the corporate control of our government at this point, whether or not he's trustworthy.

This election is about a war to have American values be reclaimed as progressive values, and to make sure that our leadership understands that! Edwards as president is step one for me.

election, so I will vote for the candidate that I TRUST holds the values that most closely represent my own. That candidate would be Kucinich and so he will receive my vote in the upcoming Primary Elections.

If you can't vote for Kucinich, then who will you vote for? If you don't trust anyone else, THEN you should vote for the mandate! That is what you can get as an Iowan voting in this election. That person would be Edwards in most precincts, or taking the chance on an uncommitted delegate not voting for someone who you BOTH don't trust AND don't like their platform!

so the caucus doesn't really affect me.

Edwards has run in two elections and lost one. To my knowledge, Kucinich has only lost one election many years ago and won an awful lot (something like 7?).

done a good enough job of educating rural people to recognize their own interests.) The Republicans have been winning based on rural votes. Edwards can draw rural votes. He can probably out-draw any of the republican candidates when it comes to rural votes. And that is where Democrats need to pick up votes.

Bill Clinton could pick up rural votes, but I don't think Hillary could. Edwards has great ideas for revitalizing rural America, ideas that will work. Edwards knows the problems of rural people. That is why he appears to be running pretty strong in Iowa.

Yes, he will be a great unity candidate for all ordinary Americans.

My grandparents were farmers and die-hard FDR-era Democrats (my grandfather fought in Europe in WWII), and most of their kids (my mom, certainly) are too, but you're right that Republicans have been wining rural votes, but the reasons are complex. Just thinking of the farmers in my family, I can't see them warming up to Edwards - definitely not the rural non-farmers of my family. I think a lot of these people see the two big parties as being largely the same, but the R's as more christian, which they see as good. I don't think they'd be against a left-wing urban Democrat if the differences were made clear to them, which would be the case with a strong populist like Kucinich. Where my brother lives in rural Michigan, he says there are loads of Ron Paul supporters. I don't think a lot of them would vote for Edwards/Clinton/Obama over another Republican, but I think they would vote for a Democrat like DK if Paul isn't (and he probably won't be) the Republicans' nominee. This is of course just anecdotal evidence from a small part of the country, but I don't see why it wouldn't be the same elsewhere.

Makes a whole lot of sense to me. Especially since it is the opposite of what is being crammed down our throats about "character."

The candidates themselves are mortal beings. Too many champions from our side have been violently eliminated. Their ideas remain.

Until he and Elizabeth started talking of the possibility of a Kucinich/ Paul ticket.

Big, big, big mistake.

I hope at this point that when he cashes in his chips he looks to the field and realizes Edwards is speaking his language.

reasonably open people:

Would President Edwards be willing to scrap his problematic health care plan in favor of HR 676?

Does he really believe that mandating individuals to purchase private insurance, with the federal government acting as a collection agency for non-payment, is the best way to go, or is he willing to back up his verbal support for all of us real working people by backing a health care plan that benefits US?

I ask this because, while I'm impressed with his seeming shift, and I admire his ability to debate, and to argue his points, I'm still not sure how authentic his "progressive" credentials are.

Kucinich has my vote in the primary. I don't have to question his commitment to progressive ideals. I'd like to think that Edwards is sincere, and be able to rally around him in the general.

Is Edwards willing to reach out to us, to work with us, if we elect him? Health care seems the most obvious place to start. As president, he won't be authoring a bill. He'll be dealing with what Congress sends him. Would he indicate approval of HR 676, and rally Democrats to support it?

That's the kind of action it would take to signal "unity" to me. A demonstration that the left won't be pandered to in the primary, and left behind in the GE, or when in office.

If he commits to fighting for that as his first priority when taking office, and he can get congress to pass something meaningful, then that starts opening up the possibilities to shift gears with many other issues such as health care, the Iraq War, global warming, outsourcing, etc., if K-Street lobbyists can be effectively muzzled.

For now I suspect he's tightrope dancing on this health care insurance plan, knowing that he doesn't have corporate lobbyists muzzled just yet.

If he won't accept public financing for his campaign, what are the chances he'll support a national health care program?

The campaign finance issue will certainly come up before the health care issue would. That's a good thing to watch.

:thumbsup:

The health care issue is simply, outside of war, at the top of my personal list.

an example for other politicians. I would like to see him win just to prove that you don't have to pay the corporate donors' game. That would please me very much.

"Would President Edwards be willing to scrap his problematic health care plan in favor of HR 676?"

I think so, and I certainly hope so.

"Does he really believe that mandating individuals to purchase private insurance..."

Again, good point and I am going to lobby as hard as I can within the Edwards campaign against any mandated insurance program.

"I'm still not sure how authentic his "progressive" credentials are."

Understood. I would caution against using "credentials" as a key litmus test, however.

"Kucinich has my vote in the primary. I don't have to question his commitment to progressive ideals. I'd like to think that Edwards is sincere, and be able to rally around him in the general."

Absolutely reasonable and admirable. As far as I am concerned, as an Edwards supporter, do not abandon Kucinich and do not stop pushing for his platform.

"Is Edwards willing to reach out to us, to work with us, if we elect him? Health care seems the most obvious place to start. As president, he won't be authoring a bill. He'll be dealing with what Congress sends him. Would he indicate approval of HR 676, and rally Democrats to support it?"

That is the hope, and that is what we all need to strongly advocate for. One of the reasons that I support Edwards is not because he is "better than Dennis" or even perfectly aligns with my views. What I see is the possibility of many new Democrats in Congress who will agree with Dennis as a result of a strong FDR New Deal type of campaign by Edwards.

Let’s put hundreds of people like Dennis Kucinich into political offices all over the country. Let’s rally behind the campaign and the themes that are most likely to accomplish that. I believe that will be the Edwards campaign, but so long as we are all shooting for that same goal we are pulling the same direction and are allies.

Your post is the type I like to see.

It addresses another post on a point by point basis and doesn't merely assert or accuse.

Bravo!

I wish more were like that.

"John Edwards seems to be the first or second choice for a lot of people. And perhaps more importantly, he doesn't arouse nearly the ire and animosity that Clinton and Obama do."

There is quite a bit of proof out there that shows OBAMA is the most unifying candidate, is most popular among voting Repubs., and is very close to Edwards in 2nd choice support. Not to mention he has the money to fight back against RW attacks between Feb. and August.

at the very same time he's throwing GLBT Democratic voters under the bus.

I think most progressives and most real Democrats (with the exception of bigots in South Carolina and elsewhere) would prefer a Democratic candidate who advocates unity with the GLBT Democrats and attacks the Republicans. Not vice versa.

and he DOES advocate unity with GLBT Dems. But you know that already. You know his record and you know of the things he's said about the GLBT community. And like I said, he has much more appeal to Repubs. than Edwards.

for what he did in South Carolina, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Until then... no dice.

for irrelevant reasons is setting some of us on edge about him. I liked him better before he lost his focus on the positive.

Who do YOU support?

a few spots with me in the past couple of weeks. I don't have a candidate yet, because it won't matter since our nominee will be selected by the time of the Texas primary. If you care enough, you can search my posts and you'll see that I've been fairly level headed about all of them but Clinton. I admit I could not vote for her and would just write in an actual progressive.

Nevertheless, Obama has gone far too negative on the last few weeks. I liked him well enough and had been able to look past the religiosity used in his campaign, but lately I like him less and less.

For what it's worth anyway.

Obama's statements about Edwards' 527s are ridiculous. Edwards does not control the 527s any more than he controls what I print out on my computer and hand out when I table for him. I have the right, under the Constitution, the First Amendment right to say what I think about the candidates and to campaign for them on my own. As long as Edwards is not directing my actions, it is my First Amendment right. Same is true for Obama. If xxx corporation decides to give all of its employees ads for Obama, no one can really object. The corporation has the First Amendment right to say what it thinks. Obama is supposed to be a constitutional lawyer. Good Heavens! The 527s have to follow certain rules. But they cannot be silenced. Nor can Edwards tell them what to do. If he did, now, that would be a campaign rules violation, I believe.

Just wondering.

I think she did it at a gay pride event too. Being aggressively pro-gay gives her greater warmth than Michelle in my book.

To translate your post: "let's you and him fight"


Seriously - what sort of use is your question compared to the disention and nasty quotes it's likely to produce.

I'm still pining for Al Gore and am having a hard time accepting that he's not running. As I inspected every candidate and kept them all under my microscope, I gravitated toward Joe Biden because of his performance in the debates, but he's still not getting much traction in the polls and hasn't put together a real national campaign, so it might be too late for him.

I think that Iowa is going to be very important in the Democratic race and more so than in the GOP contest.

I read your OP and I found your comments to echo my thoughts.

I want to win in 2008. John Edwards would carry the purple states and some red states, too. That's an electoral victory.

I also really like this populist, anti-corporate message coming from a credible aspirant to the White House. He's singing my song.

I also am really taken by Elizabeth Edwards and her great intellect, her sense of humanity and her well of grace.

Finally, I admire how John just keeps fighting -- even when he's been down in the polls and the media had made it a two-person race for the last half of the year between Hillary and Barack. John never gave up and kept his sense of optimism.

More and more, I could be persuaded to support JE. And all of the persuasion is coming from Edwards.

Your OP is on the mark in my eyes.

lemonade out of lemons. And that is what we are going to need over the next eight years because Bush is going to leave a lot of lemons all over the place at the White House.

I can't wait for November.

If Edwards wins, I'll never feel like he's MY president, just "the" president.

Is useless to me until you back it up with facts or logic - some sort of persuasion, some sort of argument, SOMETHING!

Merely declaring that Edwards is going to drive you away from the party isn't going to cut it. In fact if you're representative of who he'll drive away I have only one thing to say:

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Not to mention his total turn around on the Iraq War and many other opinions that seemed to have changed significantly since 04. Then there is his experience as a one term senator.
I always get the feeling Edward's wants to be president for the wrong reasons.

He is at the bottom of my list of candidates. I would vote for him only if I had no other choice of Democrats in the general election.

Did I say he'd drive me away from the party? I just don't think he'd represent me as president.... doesn't mean I don't like other Democrats. If Dean, Gore, Conyers and Kucinich leave the party, I'm out too, but until then I'm going to think I have a home with the Dems.... a home with a lot of guests.

kucinich second with around 25-30% support here on DU, biden and the obama.

clinton ranked in the single digits in both polls.

so even though he does not seem to reach the 50% threshold, he does have very deep and wide support on DU.

IMO he has the best message and the best chance to win the general election.

...i support john edwards as my first choice as of now, biden is my second.

what corporate America (and David Broder) have to say about it.

:dem:

Don't just say "my wish will come true!"

Why?

Why Edwards?

What persuaded you?

What is the reasoning, the logic you're using to come to such a conclusion?

Everybody else wants to "compromise".

The points you made about Obama and Hillary are valid. However, I am not convinced Edwards would be the BEST. I would jump for joy if he got elected. But I believe he, like Obama and like Hillary, has his own electability problems in the general election, not the least of which is his taking federal funds for the campaign. I like everything he says, but my gut feeling about him is that he will be viewed as "slick" by the voters.

Biden is really the only Democrat who has that much experience. He was a Senator before Hillary's husband was out of school. He has a charming personality, is a good speaker, has foreign policy credentials.

I'm sorry, folks, but I do not share the wishful thinking that the Democratic nominee is automatically going to win. And defeat would be unthikable.

I believe Biden is the one candidate with virtually 100% lock on electability.

So unite behind a sure winner who has a pretty good record to boot!

domestic votes of Kucinich or Edwards and morph them into one candidate. If only. :)

Seriously, I would like Biden a lot more than I already do if I didn't feel like he was a wholly owned sub of MBNA and Citibank. And that's coming from someone who actually admires him!

#2 is Edwards.


As much as I'd like to see Dennis president, it looks woeful. :(
Face it, in this day and age of lookism, propaganda and just-plain-bullshit, Lincoln himself would stand no chance.

And why? Oh WHY does our first female candidate who really stands a chance, happen to be a former Republican, Goldwater girl, triangulating Ultra-Hawk??!
Is that what a female presidential hopeful has to be?
Please tell me it's not so.

Obama isn't really much better than Hillary, IMO. Both their campaigns are equally as nasty. But more importantly, he needs more experience, and time to develop his own, true convictions. To me, what he has now simply sounds well-rehearsed versions, selected and copied from others; and I swear I see triangulation there too. And what Foreign Policy?
He needs seasoning and to come into his own. In time.

Dodd has said and done some great things and some not-so-great things. Unbalanced.


Please note -- these are only my opinions and feelings about our Democratic Party hopefuls. Something which I am entitled to, as you are entitled to yours. And I won't trash you for your loyalties, your right to your own opinion.
Therefore, I'm not going to argue with anyone if I've upset them by their perception of 'dis'ing' their favored candidate. Insulting, arguing and freaking out isn't going to convince anyone to come around to their side -- as many must believe, as much drama and abuse towards fellow Democrats I've witnessed on these boards.


Anyways, after rooting for DK I can only hope John Edwards gets the nomination... the rest of the Dem. lineup, for me, will be very difficult to digest,
and to vote for.

Edwards is our best bet in the general election. I just sent him another small donation.

Get behind him and help him win ! OUR NEW MAN FOR THE PEOPLE !!!

:shrug:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3832347

So I'd say yes. He seems to be surging in all the real-world polls too.

..I'd definitely say that Edwards is a very unifying candidate.

Turns out if you speak up for the people, the people listen. How about that? Whoda thunk?

That will really hurt his chances and hurt him during the presumptive nominee period if he is indeed the presumptive nominee.

Perhaps there will be time to undue the damage after that, when Edwards will be able to compete with the Repug candidate's spending. Running out of funds right before the election would be fatal, but just running out before the convention might not be. Considering he's the most liberal of the front-runners, I'm willing to risk it.

He doesn't have to spend as much money convincing the same amount of people to love him. He's like a great micro brew or local wine that disappears off the shelves in a free word-of-mouth campaign. Hillary is a flat glass of corporate piss water and even 100 million spent on ads wont help.

And he will have hit legally imposed spending caps by the time he is the presumptive nominee. The DNC and 527's will have to pick up the slack and that's not going to be easy. Possible, but not easy.

Historically incumbent presidents have used the fact that their challenger has met the spending limits securing the nomination to try and define them during the summer months because the incumbent doesn't have to spend money fending off primary opponents. Clinton did this very effectively with Dole putting Dole at a huge disadvantage in the fall.

of course not, never. yet he can sell snow to Eskimos.

Edward is - and to prove it, I,m sure he will gladly accept your waisted vote -
Please Fill in Blank________________ of yours, or use there ast name (C/B/G/K/O/R) X Here___

Thanks

that made as much sense as voting for Edwards. none

For me, I don't like his ideas on health care.

I honestly didn't know who I was going to support for sure ... Kucinich Biden or Edwards.

Now I'm firmly ensconced in the Edwards bandwagon.

At this point, a lot of my fellow precinct committeemen are backing Obama, for an obvious reason ('favorite son'), but not one of them would be in the least unhappy to see Sen. Edwards win the nomination. It seems as though he's almost everyone's 'second choice', if their preferred candidate doesn't get the nod.

from ALL democrats and a large chunk of the indies. There are just too few strong negatives. The almost infinitismal number of jackasses(read naderites and such ilk) might bitch and moan and might not even vote, but on the whole I think if nominated he would bring this party together, and more importantly he would win the general. It is why I keep rooting for the guy, it is absolutely imperitive that a NON republican is elected and that is going to take a very special person.

I am not saying that Clinton or Edwards could not be elected in the general, but they are not the 'glue' and intelligence, and experience etc that is needed to win. Obama is a nice enough guy and I looked long and hard earlier this year, but he has serious flaws that will be exploited in the general and I believe it is possible that a Mccain could beat hime, that would be an unmitigated disastor, I am simply not willing to gamble on the American electorates good sense, they have shown none in the past and only a damned fool would be hopeful of a change in that now.

just my opinion.

radical twirly-eyed nutcup supporters of Clinton Obama and Edwards might as well save your fingers, on this issue my mind is set until circumstances external to some blog on the internet force a re-evaluation of my opinions.

I have to say I'm developing a strong dislike for HRC people here ---
as I have forthe DLC --- and DLC'ers here --
But the Biden people where I've read their posts . . . they're OK ---
so makes me think a bit more of Biden.

and goes on to win the nomination, it will be a time of pure joy for those of us who've always seen in him a great future president. No matter which republican he'd end up running against, he'd win.

let him stand aside and ask his supporters to vote for Edwards, as a way of stopping the DLC wing from controlling the party? And possibly run with him as VP? Doesn't he say he stands for change? Can't really get change when the DLC has the opposition divided, can you?

(Not holding my breath, though.)

shows me his serious lack of judgement