Edwards supporter makes the case for Obama.

I support John Edwards and will vote for him in my state's primary on February 5. However, I'd like to make the case for Obama as our party's nominee. Quite simply, one must not underestimate the value of a candidate who spews banal platitudes. The honesty and detail-oriented nature of many liberals often works against them (think Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern, and even Stevenson). Many people are turned off by the righteous anger and the meticulous plans of a true liberal. Ronald Reagan was a true conservative, but he was elected by spewing the same kind of mindless nonsense for which some of us criticize Obama. While I'd personally like to see some real, red meat in Obama's rhetoric, I must admit that the average American could care less. The average American wants hope, change, and peace on earth.

If Obama can pull 70% of the popular vote in the general election by delivering nothing but promises of hope and change, more power to him, because with that kind of vote, we'll have the 60 votes in the Senate that we need to pass through whatever liberal legislation we want. Then, even if Obama is a moderate (and he's probably not), and even if he has been bought off by the insurance industry, Congress can just dare him to veto single-payer health care for all Americans. Do you think he'll veto?

Just consider, if you will, that Obama's coattails are likely to be much longer than that of any other candidate ... if he wins.

:dem:

-Laelth

No one is getting 70% of the popular vote. I would say that Edwards has much longer coattails than Obama.

Thanks for the reply and the vote of confidence.

:dem:

-Laelth

That is all.

Hillary's negatives are too high. She can't get over around 53% of the vote.

Edwards negatives are high, just not as high as Hillary's.

Obama, on the other hand, is a blank slate in the minds of most Americans. His negatives are comparatively low. If he can keep winning by not emphasizing or even discussing policy positions, he could be elected by a wider margin than either Hillary or Edwards.

imho ...

-Laelth

His negatives may not rise much because he refuses to talk solid policy like your typical, liberal policy wonk. Obama's rhetoric is upbeat, positive, even banal. I'm simply suggesting that what he's doing might be very wise and very useful to the party in the long run.

Perhaps.

-Laelth

any way in hell Edwards is going to let Hillary walk away with the nomination and lose the GE for us. Because that's exactly what would happen. Feb 5th is going to shake things up.

I don't believe for a second that Hillary can win in the general election--not if Rupert Murdoch is donating money to her. I'm firmly in the "anybody but Hillary" camp. But after Obama's strong showing in Iowa, I've had to come to terms with the idea that he may be our nominee.

Perhaps I'm just trying to turn lemons into lemonade. ;)

btw ... I think Obama, absent a "Dean scream" media event, will clean house in the South on Super Tuesday. The pent-up frustration of minority voters should not be underestimated.

:toast:

-Laelth

People are more inclined to believe the negative than they are the positive.

I worked for Alan Cranston in 1986, when he trounced Ed Zschau. Nobody knew much about Zchau, but by the time that our campaign was finished, you wouldn't want Zschau living in the same county as you much less would you want to vote for him.

Unknown has it's own serious negatives.

Thanks for that. Obama strikes me as having a lot of teflon, for a Democrat, but you may be right. He may be as vulnerable as Edwards and Clinton ... or, perhaps not.

:shrug:

-Laelth

but down.

and does far more than spout banal platitudes- just as Edwards, I trust, does more than spout the same old stories about Veterans and the uninsured. Obama was many times more specific about policies tonight than Edwards.

But Obama is so upbeat about it and so unlike John Edwards ... and, even when he's discussing policy, Obama keeps throwing in those words ... "hope" and "change" and he keeps talking about coming together and working with Republicans ... stuff that makes us liberals want to vomit.

And yet, I am suggesting, we might be well advised to get over our sense of unease with Obama and accept that his all-embracing attitude may be just what we need to solidify complete control of Congress. Angry liberals (as much as I love them) tend to scare off a lot of voters.

Thanks for the reply.

:patriot:

-Laelth

but even with 60% we could probably get 60 votes in the senate. heck, we may get that with only 52%. i see what the OP is saying. Obama has generated a lot of excitement among new voters.

for the record, i too will vote for JE.

Republican Saxby Chambliss is up for re-election. This is the guy who "miraculously" beat Max Cleland in 2002. Chambliss is likely to win, but with a huge, Obama-fired turn out, this seat could flip. Just a few more red state swings, and we will have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

-Laelth

She would be a disaster for us. Obama and Edwards would be better.

same here in SC.

Tonight is also scary to me because in a McCain v Clinton matchup in the GE, McCain wins bid time.

But I guess what does it really matter Insane Mc or HRC = more fucking war.

that Obama generated around the country when he won in Iowa. His biggest advantage, and the factor that can not be ignored, is his ability to produce massive voter turnout. Liberals can benefit from that even if Obama is not a liberal (and I suspect, deep down, he is).

:toast:

-Laelth

And, if Edwards drops out, and Gore doesn't jump in, I'll be voting Hillary.

now that would be interesting.

:toast:

-Laelth

but whatever works for you.

That's the honest, liberal policy wonk in me coming out. It turns people off. I know.

But, believe it or not, I really am arguing that Obama's banality might be just what we need to win and win big.

-Laelth

The insurance industry has deep pockets, they'll likely buy off most of the Dems who are elected to Congress.

Is there no hope for change?

:shrug:

-Laelth

Right on.

:applause:

The question, of course, is who's more likely to deliver it?

:dem:

-Laelth

together to stop Senator Clinton. I'm an Edwards supporter, but I've felt this way for a while. In this year, when we could elect just about anyone, why should we settle for a centrist, DLC-style, triangulated Democrat?

It will be a huge Democratic year in Congress regardless, but that's not due to coattails, it's just that folks think it's "time for a change."