"He's the only one who can win!" - one of my professors

I was a little bit late to class this afternoon because my daughter called from Missouri to tell her mom that she was on stage with John Edwards. So I apologized for being late. I said that the wind blew me off course (we are having gusts up to 60 mph) and told them about my phone call. At the break (its a 3hour graduate history class on the 1914 -1932 no less) the professor says to me.

I didn't want to get political in class, but what can we do to help hime? HE"S THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN WIN! And then went on a long rant about Bush's approval rating being so low, etc. and how if the Dem's nominate either one of the other two that they will lose the general. "Obama is qualified to be maybe Governor of Illinois," (this is not me talking, so don't flame me) and how all the Republican's hate Hillary and they are just chomping at the bit for us to nominate her. She just went on and on. :bounce:

She sees the truth. Edwards is the only candidate who can win in November.

x(

he can't even win a primary.

> Problem is he can't even win a primary.

The *REAL* problem is that our primary process isn't
designed to nominate a winning General Election
candidate; it's designed to pick the "most popular
Democrat among Democrats". As we've proven in many
elections, that person is often unable to then go
on and win a General Election (or even all the votes
of "Democratic" voters!).

It's quite possible that everybody's *SECOND* choice
for "Ms./Mr. Popularity" might be a far better General
Election candidate; that certainly seems to be the
case this year where almost any of us would vote for
John Edwards but we're highly polarized as to whether
or not we'd vote for Hillary or Barack. But because
John is only many people's second choice, he can't
possibly be nominated.

And until we start using a more-intelligent nominating
process (such as nationwide instant-runoff voting),
we'll keep beating our heads against this particular
brick wall.

Tesha

primary states feel differently...

John has articulated a clear, concise outline for how he would guide America through the very rough times we are facing...

I think people want some kind Messianic figure to lead them to the promised land...

Still, Obama is a decent second choice as far as I am concerned...

I was delighted.

For years, people have said how Hillary would have no chance at winning elections. People thought she would lose the Senate race for New York. And people thought she would easily lose in a Democratic primary to people like John Edwards.

Start a One Corps group if there is not one in your area, if there is, join it. It's more than just our candidate, it's about advancing the Progressive Agenda.

You can't win the general without winning the primaries. You have to be able to do the first to do the second. I'm only too ready to support him if he can win the primaries, but he hasn't shown he can, and it's a big blow to the argument that "he's the only one who can win" the GE if he can't win the primaries.

Politics can be a strange business sometimes and it's hard to know with certainty what will happen ten months from now. IMO any major Democrat should win, but there are just too many variables to consider too be absolutely sure.

And they each have a viable strategy and message to do it. It's just a matter of which message connects the best and what kind of leadership style we want to have. With turnout the way it's been, I feel pretty confident that the nominee will indeed be the strongest candidate.

Glad to hear positive conversations about supporting John out there.
:kick: :bounce:

... it's not the quality of the candidate that matters, it's the quality of the campaign. Edwards is a great man, but has run a honest, fair, and resonsible campaign. Therefore, he has won no states. Clinton has run a fairly sleazy campaign, and Obama has done the same (though not in my opinion as sleazy as Clinton's). They have both won states. Edwards, like Kucinich, Dodd, and Richardson, is too reasonable and decent a person to get elected. Clinton will be most vicious if she gets the nomination, but Obama is no slouch in that regard. Again, it's not the quality of the candidate, it's the quality of the campaign.

not in what you said, but in what you meant. In my mind, "sleazy" does not go with "quality" "Effective" maybe, but not quality. Effective a/k/a/ Rove and Attwater.
But then I am a fuzzy headed idealist. :sarcasm:

would throw out such bilge. And the bias he has is completely inappropriate- largely because he's flat wrong. John Edwards is obviously not the only one who can win. Tell your professor he should do some actual research.

to denigrate a person who is not even part of the conversation? SHE is a very intelligent woman who is a quality professor. For insight into my use of the word "quality," see my previous post.

Your professor is obviously well informed and intelligent - the best kind! :)

I think that this would be obvious to all Democrats, were they not so swept up in irrelevant and distracting things.

Strange, but all of the people in lockstep with party leadership, consultants, funders, and power-brokers, and who argued against someone like Kucinich as not "electable" and as "impractical" are now arguing the opposite side on those issues.

Some Democrats are more interested in their faction keeping control over the party than they are in gaining control of the country. They are more interested in being "right" - even if we lose - then they are in getting results. They want to allow the right wing propaganda to define us, and want us to play the "liberal" role and “annoy the fundies” at the expense of getting the job done in the real world. They are willing to reach out to the powerful Republican leadership and their corporate sponsors, but not to the everyday people.

Being "right" is the consolation prize in politics, but we fall for it time and again - unless it is Kucinich, then all of a sudden we get "practical." We are always "practical" when it comes to destroying our own, but never when it comes to beating the right wingers. There are Democrats who are more interested in beating the left than they are in beating the right.

It is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

I bet if he stopped right now and ran against Dole for the Senate he would lose

"the powers that be" are making sure he never gets far enough along to do it. :-(