Edwards just announced.

On the Today Show.

He is running.

Who is with him?

Just interested in what other Duers think.

But then, neither does Vilsack or Kucinich.

It's still way too early, but if it came down to Edwards v. Hillary, I'd have a real hard time choosing.

Fortunately, there should be some other choices... and I like either Gore or Obama more than than the currently announced and most likely to announce.

not sure that is a word. But I am from NC; I live in FL...I love that we have someone with a brain finally from NC....Sheesh, it will take years to live down Jesse Helms..... Edwards? I think he could win. You know what is so conflicting to me? I think he can win because he is good looking. Don't get me wrong, I think he is a good guy...but how sad is that where I am thinking, "Oh good, a handsome Democrat might win". ?

I like Hillary and Gore and Kerry.

But hey, I'm just sayin' How shallow is that? Oh, and I am a gay woman, so go figure that one out.

I need to go dunk my head or something. But meantime, I am kind of excited about this. I think he could win.

I want a Democrat in that house.

Jesse Helms (or rather, riding around in a golf cart while Jesse and a bunch of other people played golf).

I never really understood Southern racism (how pervasive and how sometimes subtle it can be) until that trip. If I hadn't been obligated to be on my best behavior (my ex-father in law invited me along) I'm sure I would have said some ugly things and stomped off. Asshat. How that man became a Senator... well, I'm glad I didn't live in NC.

that I bet everyone would like to hear. I know I would.

Pervasive and subtle: what an excellent description. You really hit the nail on the head there.

But like I said I am very conflicted...I just want us to win.

Maybe that is kind of sad that I am actually willing to support someone I would not normally support, just because I want the Dems back in the White House. Dunno, glad I am here on DU where you people can talk some sense to me.

He was even more for the war than Bush* and now says he isn't. He has lost a lot of credibility IMO.

Very good point. But so many of our Dems were spineless in that debacle...?

"He was even more for the war than Bush* and now says he isn't."

That's simply a stunningly stupid lie.

Sad to see, really.

getting out of politics if Elizabeth's health worsened. Does anyone know if he's made a statement on this? I like him and would support him. I worry about Elizabeth, though. The stress of a presidential campaign might take a toll on her health although I'm sure they've discussed it.

That crossed my mind too.

Have not checked your profile, but I'm betting you're a woman. As am I.

I got to meet him a few months ago at a fund-raiser, he's a friend of a guy I volunteered for who was running for Congress, Andy Hurst. He's the real deal. And yes, he's even more handsome in person, but shorter than I had realized.

When he walked into the fund raiser three of us were working the table taking money handing out name tags, etc. He didn't scan the room for important people (there were some in that room too as it was a very high powered K St. law firm that Andy works for). He went right to the table and shook hands with us first.

He gave a brilliant speech that day about international poverty and how the Republican administration had adversely affected not just this country, but the whole world.

I love that his main theme is poverty, and that he came up from nothing. So I pretty much decided back in October that I was going to work for him.

I am looking for info and I feel, just from my gut, that he is one of the good ones.

I don't have that feeling too often.

His parents were solidly middle class when the middle class were more powerful. He wasn't the son of a single parent or a parent with many children and little money to make ends meet.

That's something he's tried to perpetuate, but his father was a mill MANAGER and later a consultant. They weren't poor. They were solidly middle class.

There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but let's not go around believing he was destitute. OK?

Goes to show...one cannot believe the MSM.

Those mills are really awful places though. Been there and seen that.

from the middle class - I think that's admirable as well, but I don't think Edwards should downplay his family's wealth, either.

I am interested in listening to what he has to say as well as a few other Dem candidates. It's plenty early and the bigger the field on both sides the better in my opinion. Let the process sort things out and let the candidates sell themselves and their ideas to the voters. I also like Kucinich, Obama, right now and want to hear from Wes Clark as well. There is plenty of time.

Sometimes I don't think they should announce so early...ya know?

As a trial attorney myself who specializes in medical malpractice, I just can't get behind Edwards. I've known plenty of smooth-talking lawyers and they are generally decent and smart people. But I don't see greatness in them, and I don't see greatness in Edwards. He made a killing as a trial attorney and parlayed that into a senate seat, which was very uneventful. Then he went to work on Wall Street. Seriously -- what does this guy have to offer? Other than his "two americas" speech, what is there? I don't see him as experienced or having the gravitas to hold the office of president.

You know you are right about that and I worry with that aspect. But, I'm thinking he can win with the right running mate.

What an empty suit that sumbitch turned out to be!
:sarcasm:

And thanks!

O8)

years, I hardly think that comparison is valid.

I don't think Lincoln was in it to make tons of money - it wasn't a profession that led to that in the 1800s. Sure, good lawyers were comfortable, but they didn't rake in a third of millions.

Please.

audacity to make money at it.

Shame on him.

:eyes:

that is kind of bullshit.

Plenty of tragedy in his life despite the money.

You know something? I stated an opinion on Edwards that a number of people obviously disagreed with. Fine by me. But at least have the decency to address the actual issue, and not engage in snide sarcastic comments.

First there was the Lincoln analogy. I guess the argument is that because Lincoln was an attorney, and a good president, then I cannot question Edwards' credentials. The inherent logical deficiencies in this argument are so obvious as to not need comment.

Then there was the suggestion that I said Edwards is evil because he made a lot of money as a trial attorney. I never said that. I'm a trial attorney myself and consider myself a decent socially aware person. And I have no problem with earning a lot of money.

The question I raised about Edwards was this: What does he have to offer as president? All I see is a successful trial attorney who made a lot of money, and who had an uneventful term as a senator. Nothing wrong or evil about his history or past. He seems like a decent guy. I just don't see what makes him stand out as presidential material. If anyone wants to discuss this issue, please feel free. I like open and honest discussion. I'm not a big fan of ad hominem attacks.

but I was actually responding to another poster. I certainly did not mean to seem snide or sarcastic to you.

I started that thread to engage discussion and I thank you for your response, which is a good one. I am totally unconvinced about ANY candidate at this point...and that is why I like hearing what other DUers have to say.

Again, my apologies if you took a post the wrong way. I really try not to be snarky or sarcastic and I don't like those who are that way.

Just now saw your post and that is why I'm responding so late.
:hi:

the only one who really champions the disadvantaged in this country.

(no joke here) when he was talking to Matt...I think he was in N.O. He is indeed rich, but I don't believe he started that way.

too early to commit in my book anyway. His statement about thinking he thought there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq troubles me in that it sounds like he has bought into the bullshit. What we are doing there is wrong no matter what and the Dem candidate needs to say that IMO. I knew it was all a lie and I'm just an ole dumbass, but I knew

I don't really know who to support.

This thread is making me think a lot.

A good thing.


Thanks everyone for responding.

I've come to understand things concerning our government much better since I found this place and decided to participate. A much better median than newspapers, books or tv to stay informed and not just staying informed but learning to boot. All I do know for sure concerning the Democratic field is I sure want to see several of them in cabinet positions after '08. We have many good deserving Democrat's that I can trust enough to want to work with. People who understand the stakes

:hi:

Now there will be a second candidate who voted for the Iraq War. And both Patriot Acts. And a draconian "bankruptcy reform" act.

Marvelous.

But who do we think can win? I am truly frightened by the great Merkin populace that will not vote for anything other than a white male.

but last night, on the local and national news, both news readers said Edwards was running for President *AGAIN*. That's wrong - he was running as the Vice Presidential candidate, not as the Presidential candidate. It just seems to give the wrong signal by saying "he's running again".

If he was to become the nominee, he would be running for the first time as the nominee.

I had *totally* forgotten that! Thanks for reminding me.

Many others come before him in my list.

His announcement was the most anticlimatic thing that will happen, except for Hillary announcing, may be. He has been running for the last 2 years, and his announcement had been pre-announced two weeks ago.

but he didn't do well at all in the debate with Cheney.

I'll see who else runs. I do like him but I want to see someone really strong get the Dem. nomination. I'm not sure if he's the person. I want him to be, but I'm not sure.

You said what I am thinking. I want a strong candidate. Might not be the one I want, but I want a strong candidate who can win.

He's a decent, caring man. Yes, he voted for the IWR, but he's since admitted that he was wrong. Let's see that come from the current occupier of the White House.

I'd rather have a true compassionate person, one that is not bound by mistakes made in the past, sitting behind the Oval Office desk than someone who pretends to care and is as stubborn as a mule.

Temperament goes a long way toward the making of a good president.

That's really all that matters. Is it plausable deniability on getting a clue? Was he one of the early mislead?

Every candidate on our side that got caught with this is unelectable.

But it is a very good point. I am still so pissed off about the way the Dems just rallied behind Bushco after 9/11. I can't forget it.

According to ? Polls that gauge public opinion or what?

Good question, because that post 9/11 furor pretty much caught everyone up in it. Even Rosie! Lol.

that cannot craft the perfect excuse. Just saying that our presidential "candidates" agreed on excuse better be good, because it will be on television ads all of the election cycle, as will be the others that got caught on that train that left the station too fast for them to think. That is our problem. The Kerry explaination, or some variant of it used by our "candidates" will be boiled down by the opponents that will make them either fools or craven opportunists.