Edwards’ Dilemma: The Most Popular Candidate in the U.S. Polls Only 12% of His Own Party’s Vote

Of all 19 declared 2008 presidential candidates, John Edwards has the highest favorability ratings, the highest favorable to unfavorable margin, and the best poll numbers in head to head match-ups against the opposition party. Yet against his Democratic Party opponents he consistently runs a very distant third, currently standing at a measly 12%, and ranging between 11% and 15% of the vote. The huge gap between his general election numbers and his poll numbers in the race for the Democratic Party nomination is truly remarkable and begs an explanation.

Before I go any further with this I have to admit to what could be construed as a liberal bias in this matter. I feel that at this time in our history our country is very much in need of a liberal President. Conservatives have been in power here for way too long, they are ruining our country, and I am sick and tired of Democrats running away from the liberal label rather than standing up and being proud to advocate a political philosophy that brought us the New Deal, Civil Rights, labor unions, Medicare and Medicaid, and virtually everything else that has brought our country closer to living up to the ideals professed in our Declaration of Independence – in particular the idea that people have an unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Consequently, I intend to vote for Dennis Kucinich if his candidacy is not dead by the Maryland Democratic primary date (and I may vote for him even if it is), for reasons that I explain here. However, at the same time I recognize that his candidacy is a long shot, so if he doesn’t make it, and if no currently undeclared candidates get into the race, I would very much like to see John Edwards win the Democratic nomination.

It’s not that I have much against the two Democratic frontrunners, and I would wholeheartedly support them if they win the nomination because they are far preferable to any of the Republican candidates. But I don’t believe that they are liberal enough for what our country needs now. I truly would like to see a woman president. But not this woman, as her hawkish words and actions make me feel uncomfortable, especially when compared against the mandate for ending the war in Iraq that American voters gave our elected representatives in November 2006.


A look at the general election poll numbers

First, let’s look at the favorable/unfavorable numbers for all declared candidates of both the Democratic and Republican parties (plus Fred Thompson) who don’t have a negative margin, according to the latest Rasmussen polls:

Edwards: +15 (54-39)
Giulani: +8 (50-42)
Obama: +6 (48-42)
McCain: +4 (48-44)
Richardson: +3 (35-32)
Clinton: +2 (50-48)
Thompson (Fred): Even (35-35)

Then, lets look at how the top three (none of the others do well) Democratic candidates do against the top four Republicans:

Edwards: +7 over Giuliani, +16 over Romney, +7 over McCain, +11 over Thompson
Obama: +1 over Giuliani, +9 over Romney, +6 over McCain, +7 over Thompson
Clinton: -1 against Giuliani, +4 over Romney, +2 over McCain, -1 against Thompson


Why the huge disparity between Edwards’ general election numbers and his Democratic nomination numbers?

Normally there is an important reason why a candidate may do a lot better running against the opposition party than within his/her own party: That phenomenon generally pertains to a candidate who runs towards the center, thereby increasing his/her appeal to the general electorate while decreasing his/her appeal within his/her own party.

But that is exactly the opposite of what Edwards is doing – and that is why this situation is so remarkable. One would normally expect that a Democratic candidate running to the left of most of the other Democratic candidates (as Edwards is) would do better in the race for the Democratic nomination than in the general election. So what explains this bizarre phenomenon?

I have to conclude that this has something to do with gender and race. Never before in the history of our nation has a woman or an African-American been a leading contender for the presidency. This is a totally new phenomenon, and it must go a long way towards explaining these bizarre poll numbers. More specifically, one of three things, or a combination of them must be in play: 1) There are a good number of Democratic voters who are excited about seeing a woman or black man elected president and are thus inclined to vote largely on that basis; 2) There are a good number of Republicans or independents who are inclined to vote against a woman or a black man simply because of gender or race; or 3) There may be a number of voters of both parties who perceive Senators Clinton and Obama to be more liberal than they really are, simply because of their gender and race.


Some thoughts on the political philosophies of the three leading Democratic candidates

First and foremost among reasons that I consider Edwards to be more liberal than Clinton or Obama is his morally courageous (in my opinion) stand on poverty. This is a defining issue of our time, especially as the gap between rich and poor expands, more and more families have been driven into poverty over the past six years, and economic crisis looms over our heads.

All politicians know that the poor do not constitute an important voting block, and that is why the subject of poverty has been almost taboo in American politics over the past several years or decades. Yet John Edwards took the lead in making fighting poverty a central issue of his campaign, and he has described a detailed plan for ending poverty in our country. And he has been very consistent in this, as fighting poverty was a major part of his 2004 campaign for the presidency as well. A few months ago I posted a comparison of the Democratic candidates’ stands on this issue, showing that Edwards, and Kucinich to a somewhat lesser extent, were far stronger on it than any of the other candidates – though I see that Obama has now added a detailed discussion on this issue to his website, and Clinton has added some related issues to her website.

On the Iraq War, too, Edwards has been a stronger advocate for withdrawal than Obama or Clinton. Regarding the recent Senate vote, he was an early and strong advocate for cutting off funding for the war. In contrast, Clinton has been much more reluctant to advocate withdrawal; Obama voted against a plan in June 2006 to withdraw our troops within 12 months, and on his website he advocates for the Baker-Hamilton plan, which is not really a plan for getting out of Iraq at all. I do blame Edwards for voting in 2002 to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq. However, he has repeatedly publicly recognized that as a mistake, and I am inclined to believe that he now honestly is a stronger anti-war candidate than Obama or Clinton – though I don’t trust him as much on that subject as I do Kucinich.

As for Senator Obama, his efforts to lean towards the center really irritate me, especially when he feels the need to unfairly (in my opinion) criticize the Democratic Party and liberals in general, as he did in his book, “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on reclaiming the American Dream”. I cite several examples in this post. Here are a couple excerpts to make my point:


Who the hell is he talking about (sigh)? In fairness to Obama, he did have a lot of very good things to say in his book, and perhaps statements like those I noted above are merely tactical political moves that don’t really portend a presidency where he’s afraid to make any real changes for fear of being called a liberal.

As for Senator Clinton, I find it remarkable how our corporate news media gushes over her these days. After the last debate, Chris Matthews couldn’t find enough compliments to lavish upon her. He turned to Keith Olbermann (one of the few independent minded persons left in TV journalism today) to ask for confirmation of his opinion on what a great job Hillary did, and Keith, after hesitating for a fraction of a second replied, “Yes, I thought that all the candidates did very well tonight”. And why does she get a free pass whenever she dodges a debate question by saying “I don’t answer hypotheticals”? How much do you want to bet that those free passes will stop pretty quickly if and when she gets the Democratic Party’s nomination?


Concluding thoughts and pleas

Elizabeth Edwards recently took a lot of flack for saying in an interview, “We can’t make John black, we can’t make him a woman”. Taken in context, that quote seems more benign and reasonable than it does out of context. But whether she was right or wrong for saying it, her comment was certainly borne out of frustration. The fact that, although her husband’s overall favorability ratings are higher than any other candidate, his favorability ratings among liberals lag behind those of Clinton and Obama, even though he’s the most liberal candidate in the race after Kucinich, is undoubtedly behind that frustration.

I’ll end this post with three pleas to the American electorate:

1) For those who believe that Dennis Kucinich would make the best president but who are disinclined to vote for him because you don’t think he’s electable: Don’t let our corporate news media define who’s electable and who’s not. The idea that Kucinich is not electable has become a self-fulfilling prophecy before the first vote has been cast. If everyone who favored him intended to vote for him irrespective of his perceived electability, perhaps opinion polls would be telling a very different story about him at this time.

2) For those who would disregard a candidate because he is not white or because she is a woman: Don’t give in to your fears and prejudices. Consider what a candidate stands for and what s/he has accomplished rather than the superficialities of race or gender in making your decision. Don’t let our country be the last one in the world to continue to insist on the ridiculous concept that only white men are acceptable or preferable as leaders.

3) For those who would be more inclined to vote for a candidate simply because she is a woman or not white: My advice to you is somewhat similar to the advice I gave above. Women and minorities in our country will not benefit simply because “one of their own” is elected president of our country. One needs only to consider Clarence Thomas to realize how misplaced and dangerous such a sentiment can be. Women and minorities in our country, like everyone else, will benefit most from electing the candidate who best represents their interests and the interests of our country, regardless of the race or gender of that candidate.

Goodness knows it's happened before....

... is internal control over the party. I strongly suspect that the same forces that hijacked the party apparatus of the GOP are at work within the Democratic Party. Any organization with a high percentage of 'loyalists' is subject to perversion.

The 2008 election is the Democrats' to lose. I don't recall ANY Presidential election in my lifetime that was preceded by events quite as favorable to the Democrats. That can be the very reason they eventually fail ... expecting that a perpetuation of the damage is favorable to their partisan interests. (That'd be like firefighters not reporting witnessing an arsonist.)

And I am beginning to get the impression, as are many DUers, that the Republicans are trying to set Clinton up to win the nomination, for the reason that she appears to be the weaker of the three top candidates in a general election.

Still, I'm hopeful that she will win if nominated, though I definitely believe that Edwards has a better chance.

think the country will turn against her. When I tell many of them I'm an Edwards supporter they just tell me that it WILL be Hillary!

I DON'T like being TOLD this type of stuff, but I DO THINK they are LOADED FOR BEAR! I'm sorry if this offends hillary supporters, but I really wish she had not decided to run. I KNOW she believes in herself, I do think she's intelligent and knowledgeable and can run a good campaign, but I also know what I'm hearing. Too many people WONDER why I don't support her, so I just tell them... "because YOU do!"

Why would I support a candidate that Repukes support?? Please forgive my rant, but I'm sick of hearing who MY NOMINEE will be! I do think it's because many of the "big dogs" in the Democratic Party are pushing this, but then LOOK what Harry Reid & Pelosi have done for us??

Think about the role Rahm Emmanuel is playing "behind the scenes" and doesn't it make you wonder a bit??

Edwards is getting a RAW, RAW deal and it really makes me fume!

Is that Republcians you're talking about?

Repukes and do have some of them as friends. It would be difficult NOT to have some of them as friends. I can't tell you how many times I've been "razzed" because I'm an OPENLY Active Democrat! Some have even suggested that I get too wound up and stressed out about it. I can't disagree with them because I do. Generally we DON'T talk politics and some have told me they are upset about The Idiot, but NONE have told they plan to switch parties.

Even at monthly Democratic meetings, any County Commissioner who comes to speak IS a Repuke! I've lived here for a very long time and don't know that very many Democrats have EVER been elected here!

Cruella, Katherine Harris WAS my Representative, and now it's Vern Buchanan... a race that was FULL of election fraud! And we were told last week that our machines once again are suspect for the November election! Seems there are "some glitches" as per our Supervisor of Elections. I suppose she just wants us to know up front that we shouldn't waste our time contesting the results again.

This post should be an OP ED in every newspaper in the US.

I will be linking this from my blog. Salient points.

there are those that come on DU and never put anything together, and that's fine, it's just the ones who's posts about a candidate are constantly NEGATIVE that grate me. This clearly shows that a majority of America likes John Edwards and would vote for him, according to the polling.

I like Clark more than John, but he's not running, is he. Go JOHN!

John Edwards is the most electable Democrat and the safest choice...Being a trial lawyer is a hurdle to overcome but not nearly as large a hurdle to overcome as being a white woman or African American man who wants to be president...

But he is running against Hillary Clinton who has the novelty of being the first woman to run for president with a "real" chance of winning and Barack Obama who is the first African American to run for president with a "real" chance of winning...


That being said Obama is my first choice, Edwards, my second, and Hillary my third....


I would add if any of the three is more "liberal" than the others it is not by much...

A lot of hearts were broken. I liked Edwards back then too. Now I'm kind of negative to neutral.

I'm just curious to know what turned you off, being a prospective JE supporter right now.

His rhetoric doesn't match his record.

I don't find him particularly liberal, trustworthy or possessive of leadership abilities, myself.

You didn't ask me, but I wanted to throw that in.

I guess you may have in mind his vote in 2002 to give Bush the authority to go to war. That bothers me too, and I would like to better understand what made him do it.

Other than that, it's hard for me to understand why someone would find him not particularly liberal.

His NCLB vote, his vote on the first bankruptcy bill, his vote on the PATRIOT Act, his vote on Yucca Mountain, his failures to represent a portion of his constituency after 9/11, his failures to, well, represent any of his constituency (they call him Senator Gone in NC), his failures to do anything for the working poor when he could as senator and his opinions on Iran and gay marriage.

I just don't find him particularly liberal.

NO! say it isn't so!

Being facetious, but seriously, I don't think there's a DU'er on here that doesn't know you don't find him trustworthy or, heck, lacking in even the ability to fold the bulletins for the local PTA meeting.

I think he can fold bulletins. I just don't think he could direct others on how to.

:P

:D

:shrug:

I have heard that on a number of occasions, and I have never heard otherwise, though I don't recall what the sources were (except that I probably got them through DU).

I want somebody who will fight if it becomes necessary to question the vote count.

the link, but I know I've read about it. He wanted to go on, but Kerry felt it was better not to. And I still like John Kerry very much, was waiting a long time for him to run and worked my heart out for both of them, so I'm not a Kerry basher!

In the first place, the top of the ticket has a lot more to do with the chances of winning than does the VP slot.

Secondly, I don't blame Kerry either. The corporate media did all they could to cause a Bush victory, and even then they had to "swift boat" Kerry and then use massive election fraud in order to win. They were fighting against heavy odds IMO.

meme that Edwards is a "distant third." They've touted this as a two-person race between Hillary and Obama. When Edwards gets mentioned at all, it's mostly to belittle him about his hair.

No wonder he's polling low. People who aren't paying attention want to go with the "winner." Thus, the high numbers for Hillary.

I'm supporting Edwards for one reason. I sincerely believe that other than Gore he's the most electable Dem candidate, and next year, losing isn't an option.

Edwards is the one.

As a supporter of Obama in his bid for the senate (I'm a native of Illinois and still own property there), it has always bothered me that the corporate press has handled him with kid gloves. And I have found his record in the Senate, given my hopes for having a liberal Democrat representing us, only passable, at best.

While either Clinton or Obama would be vast improvements over any of the Republicans running, I still worry that nationally they may be over-polling. I fear there are still many voters out there who will say they have nothing against a woman or an African American and then in the privacy of the voting booth vote against a candidate solely because of gender or race.

Both Clinton and Obama are running from the center. I think best way for a woman or African American to win the presidency would be from the populist left, convincing the exploited working Americans (who tend to vote Republican) to discard their prejudices for their own economic good and vote for the candidate who is looking out after their interests.

And let's face it, the DLC is not looking out after the interests of working Americans anymore than the Republicans are.

I also think there are plenty of other reasons that make him the best candidate. I would gladly take any of our candidates, but I do worry about the media pushing the other two so much -- I don't trust the media and feel like they're pushing them for a reason... because they don't think they will beat a repub. Also, with the electronic voting situation still not fixed, we have to win big, not take any chances with a close race. I'm going to have a full-blown ulcer before the election ever gets here...

I'm afraid I'll have one by then too. :(

The corporate media's choice is obviously either Clinton or Obama and not wanting to give Edwards any room to compete with them.

Polls can be distorted if there's enough sampling bias. If we don't have enough people looking at whether there is sampling bias (intentional or no), then that could also be what's fueling what appears to be good numbers for Clinton and Obama in the primary as well. The corporate media's objective now is to push someone like Edwards (or Gore for that matter) out of the picture. I think that's a big reason we don't see Gore in now. Either he's not running, which explains why he's not in, or he's waiting to the absolute last minute, which makes a lot of sense, to avoid this "marginalizing" that we see now directed at Edwards.

I have considered this possibility too, and I believe that it is possible that some amount of inaccuracy may be occurring in these polls.

However, I doubt that the distortion is massive, or massive enough to account for the large leads that Clinton and Obama have over Edwards. In the first place, those leads have been very consistent. In the second place, the Edwards campaign must be conducting their own polling, and I would think that if the distortions were large they would say something about it. In the third place, I don't see why polling organizations would distort Edwards' numbers to make him appear to be losing the Democratic contest by a wide margin, and at the same time show him beating all the Republicans. If their purpose is distorting the polls was to destroy the image of the Edwards campaign, they why wouldn't they do the same thing in their polling that compares Edwards vs. the Republican candidates?

... and that poll sampling isn't the sole explanation of what is happening. But that coupled together with other issues mentioned here in this thread perhaps make the race look that much more split than it really is. Kind of like the 2006 elections. The Republicans knew that they couldn't get away with distorting the results (whether they could or not with the voting machines, etc.) to have them keep the House and the Senate, but many have felt that they "limited" the damage from being much greater in terms of Democratic wins perhaps by voting machine manipulations and other Jim Crowe style voter intimidation schemes.

The same applies here. I think the key question to ask is which polls are more beholden to corporate backers who may have a vested interest in seeing Hillary or Obama win a nomination over Edwards. If the polls are close (and they still lead legitimately over Edwards), that still has people thinking a lot more that if they vote, they can make a difference and probably vote for Edwards. If the poll results are skewed even more downward, the thought is probably that much of the electorate can see that the margin is too high to really put much support into Edwards' campaign.

And I still also believe that many that would support Edwards, are still on the fence a bit waiting and hoping for Gore to get in the race (myself included), and that might be affecting these numbers, depending on how the poll questions are asked, etc.

you can manipulate poll numbers to mean anything you want them to mean. data like that can be manipulated to death. i don't believe a word of any poll.

I am backing Edwards and plan to work for him. I just hope he doesn't become discouraged. He is our best candidate and the best bet to win.

Of course, I am one of that 12% that supports Edwards before either Clinton or Obama. He's spreading a vitally needed progressive, populist message that even those who are traditionally Republican (those who have consistently voted against their own interests in recent elections) can actually get behind.

I have no doubt that Edwards could beat ANY of the Republican contenders, if given the chance. I'm not so sure about the others.

And, yeah, I would love to see a woman or minority President. Not thrilled about Hillary, though. I like Obama, but I don't think HE'S ready. Just my take on that.

In my novels I actually have a female Hispanic President. And she was one HELL of a President, even though she was leveraged into the office.

I actually prefer Edwards to Kucinich--not personally, necessarily, but because I think he has fewer vulnerabilities for the predators to target.

great post... you're preaching to the choir here, but great comments all around.

and the more I see of Edwards, the more I like him.

And totally off topic, we share a publisher! :hi:

when he was offered the job of AG. That the man is browm don't mean jack if he's a crook. That Hillary is a woman don't matter because she's not the best choice in terms of risk managment (risk of losing the presidency again, which we cannot risk-- the GOP being a menace to the entire world). Same with Obama, his color and politics aside, he's less risky than Hillary, but not a sure thing. Edwards virtually is!

We must blanket the early primary states with the facts and what's really at stake.
The health of this planet depends on it.

is necessarily the reason. I think that liberals who plan to vote for Democrats but aren't in the party could just be further left on average than party members.

If your talking about those who aren't in the Democratic Party, who are liberals, those would almost all be independents. But it's not just the liberal independents who vote in the general election, independents of all stripes would vote. And independents as a group always vote less intensely for the Democratic candidate and more for the Republican candidate than do Democrats, even in years when they lean heavily Democratic -- which means that as a group they're less liberal than Democrats. Therefore, all other things being equal I would think that as a group they would be more likely to vote for the more centrist candidate.

Excellent. :thumbsup:

about the poor.

John Dean being the crook from the Nixon administration, wrote 'Worse than Watergate' but is not really a liberal hero.

Sorry, but I have an inborn suspicion of Edwards. Every time I hear him speak, he is saying great things with sincerity. Next to Kucinich, he is the most liberal and populist candidate, as well as the one that would benefit me most.

That being said. Why didn't I have this impression of him in 2004? He was willing to give in to politics at that time.

Why does he insist on living in wealth? I know he has street cred as a humanitarian, but how much of that is politics and positioning?

Yeah, he's white and male. How real is the plight of the common American to this guy? Or, like decades of politicians before him, is he just adept at talking the talk?


Like I said, Edwards is my second or third choice following Kucinich and Obama. He is probably a great, true and sincere candidate. But it is hard to throw away my suspicions.

Whenever Edwards talks, there a lot of rhetoric with little substance. And whenever he does says what his plans are, even an amateur like me can see major problems in his logic.

I'm sure he lives quite comfortably. But he devotes a good portion of his life to fighting poverty:
http://www.law.unc.edu/povertycenter/default.aspx

I believe that's very important to him.

Or, you can have a liberal.

You can have a black president.

Or, you can have a liberal.

I like John Edwards but I don't have to build him up by tearing his opponents down...

Hillary and Obama are both bought and paid for.

No liberal there.

If you want to see that as "tearing down", then... whatever. Go for it, if the corporations are your thing.

They aren't "liberal".

That's the choice.

You mean the small donations he got as a community activist in Chicago before he ran for the legislature...

I didn't know the south side Chicago folks are the new Daddy Warbucks...

Thanks for enlightening me...

He sure sings the conservative tunes.

Its decent record but its hardly the liberal image he seeks to portray.

I also know he's MUCH MORE caring about us poor folk than any of the others.

Gore wasn't so great in 2000, either.

He changed. Gore of 2007 is very different than the Gore of 2000.

Edwards has been pushed to change, and is more "pushable" than the others, by far.

Now, would you care to be as honest and forthcoming about Obama's corporatism?

he has become a populist was his decision to make David Bonior his campaign manager.

When no other Dem would, he went there and campaigned for him!

BUT.... not only that, he clearly made a deal with Lamont, because when Lamont came out on stage to introduce Edwards, the first thing he said was he needed to apologize for not making poverty a priority in his campaign!

So, Edwards not only is speaking up loudly and clearly on our behalf, he's pushing other Dems, too!

After being so invisible for so long, that meant a lot to me!

He was also the first to call Ned Lamont to congratulate him on the primary win.

It said so much to me, on different levels.

But, convincing Lamont he MUST *strongly* address meant so much to me!

he was, IMO campaigning even then. He's never stopped campaigning, and that was a smart campaign move on his part. I like him ok, I believe he cares about poverty, but I really think you're mistaken about Obama. I believe Obama cares, as well. He lived it, to an extent.

I dislike seeing him compared to Hillary because he's not Hillary, or even close. He doesn't stick his finger in the wind to see which way it's going before he has an opinion. He does work well with the opposition party, which some see as a bad thing, but after this mis-administration, it's going to take someone who truly is a uniter to help put the country back together.

I think Obama has the potential to be a great leader, I don't see that so much in Edwards. Maybe I'm wrong, and I wouldn't be unhappy to find that out, but the comparison with Hillary is just not right. Maybe I'd change my mind if I see Rupert Murdoch, corporate America and Faux News spouting off about how great he is, how formidable he is, but I don't think that's going to happen.

Obama is a good man, and he is quite familiar with poverty, and with people who are suffering because of it. He may not have the rhetoric down, but if you examine what he's done with his life, you would know he cares.

Your point would be...?

"he is quite familiar with poverty"

sigh... once more... being "FAMILIAR" doesn't make someone become an advocate! I dont' see or hear him doing any advocating!

MANY poor people, once they fight their way out of poverty, forget their roots, and don't look back. He could very well be one of those.

He may be a "good man", I'm sure even Hillary is a "good woman", but, unlike most liberals, I'm sick to death of people dying in poverty in this country, and want to see someone with the SPINE to CHANGE THAT!

edited to say: I don't need to "examine his life".... that means it's hidden enough that it's highly unlikely he will push many barriers. Edwards, however, has made it abundantly clear, and backs it up with ACTION.

I'm SICK OF POOR PEOPLE DYING BECAUSE OF THE NON-ACTION OF "GOOD PEOPLE"!

graduating from Harvard law school, but he went back to work with the inner city poor in Chicago with a non-profit group AND that was BEFORE he was running for any political office. He has lived it and worked to help others.

campaign rhetoric, and campaign "action"? Politicians promise many things when they are campaigning, but don't always follow up on them. That's why I think it's a good idea to "examine" their lives. Particularly in Edward's case - he has had the luxury of being free to campaign for the last 3 years, because he didn't have to work at a job like the rest of us.

Obama has not forgotten his roots, he goes back to them often. Making assumptions based on a campaign isn't always the best way to choose - knowing something about their lives and what they've done in the past is always helpful IMO.

... not negotiating between the will of the people and contributing corporations! There's a real distinction. One is truly bipartisan and trying to find a solution that most of the American people can support. The other is in other words just trying to dress up as "bipartisanship" what would be more accurately be described as trying to rationalize bribery.

That does indeed provide additional argument for those who think that Edwards' stands are not sincere.

:hi:

Edwards' voting record isn't very liberal, yet he's praised because of his words over the past year or so. Since he's not in office, we can't see how he would vote now, but his past isn't too good.

Many of the other candidates have voting records more liberal than Edwards, including some that are called conservative on this board. It would be comical if it wasn't so ignorant.

Edwards had the 4th most liberal voting record in the Senate in 2003.

I don't mean to argue that something like this can be neatly summed up in a statistic like that, but that would certainly seem to argue against those who say that Edwards doesn't have a liberal voting record:

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=27792&printerfriendlyVers=1

bills to votes over the years on some of the issues that are the most important to me and also took the "On the Issues" test which cites each issue and I was actually surprised at what I saw with Edwards. I also met him (very, very briefly) when he spoke at Pensacola Naval station a few weeks before the '04 elections. Both he and Kerry were still supporting the "war" and he had co-sponsored the IWR while having access to more (I'm sure not all) information than most of the other members of Congress. I know it's politics and I know that he has apologized since then. I forgive him, but I can't forget because it had a deep impact on my family.

I was also very surprised by Bill Richardson as well. His rhetoric has been good, but when I saw some of his voting record and his support, etc. of certain issues and legislation over the years, he went way down for me.

No candidate is perfect, but I am tired of hearing how "liberal" Edwards is and how he's the only candidate for the poor, etc., etc. when ALL of them have very similar backgrounds.

As someone noted earlier, there is only one candidate that is consistantly to the far left and that is Kucinich. Gravel wants a flat tax so he has his own set of problems with that issue alone. And yes, I say to the "far left" because to most Americans that is what he would be considered. I'm not too far off from him myself, but in my opinion, DU is not a good measure of the general population of American voters.

And, I will fully support any Dem nominee for president. While I may have certain issues with some candidates, I also like all of them a lot and you will never see me start a negative thread on any candidate.

That's basically the way that I feel, except I am inclined to think that Edwards is the more liberal of the three. Though as I looked more closely into the NJ ratings I see that Edwards' liberal ratings were much lower (i.e. higher number) in years previous to 2003. Perhaps that's a matter of his being from NC, where you can't afford to be very liberal and still retain your seat. Perhaps he drifted leftwards during his term in the Senate, to the point where he figured that he was no longer a viable candidate in NC.

overlook Hillary's voting record & give her the benefit of the doubt but are unwilling to give that same benefit of the doubt to Edwards. A double standard, no?

Sure, Edwards voted for the war based on the "selective" info that * provided to the senate. We all know that * did not give them the vital info to make an informed decision. Edwards has apologized for his Iraq war vote ... many times. Hillary will not. She will not only not apologize, but has voted to keep funding the war. That...I cannot overlook.

Sure, Obama would not have voted for the war, but he sure has voted to keep funding it. That...I cannot overlook.

I cannot overlook these things & I can't see how anyone can overlook them.

Edwards is as centrist as Obama and Hillary.

Unless you are gullible enought to buy his marketing campaign and attempts to appear as "populist" for the Dem Primary, you'd KNOW he is not liberal or a populist.

Check Edwards' record. He's not that liberal.

... DUers happily quote Drudgico to tear down Edwards, hold Clinton to standards they hold no-one else to, and make shit up about Obama.

And similarly for every other* Democrat out there. No-one hates Democrats like a DUer.




*The only exception I can think of to this is Dennis Kucinich. It's too bad he's batshit insane, because it would be nice to have a Democrat that DUers *like* around.

Very witty.

Don't expect many other people will see what you just did there, unfortunately, but I appreciated it.

Poster points out that we DU'ers criticize all the Democratic candidates based on stupid crap, except Kucinich, who poster then proceeds to criticize for stupid crap.

I have to believe the irony was intentional, so I complimented the poster.

But, knowing how passionate people around here get about their candidates, I figured that people's Irony-o-meters probably wouldn't register it as such.

That's all.

Have a nice day!

It's pretty common that people will recognize actual bashing (vs. criticism) against mainstream candidates, but think nothing of 'criticizing' Kucinich for his height, his spiritual beliefs, his looks, etc. Guess I've grown kinda jaded on that topic.

Thanks for explaining, and you too! :hi:

As to your points, the other factor is that Edwards is a second-timer. He ran (with Kerry) and lost in 2004. The effort, in the opinion of many of us, was sub-par. We really really needed a strong effort in 2004. Does Edwards get to remake himself and try again? Apparently not.

I don’t believe Edwards can reasonably be faulted for losing in 2004.

In the first place, the top of the ticket has a lot more to do with the chances of winning than does the VP slot.

Secondly, I don't blame Kerry either. The corporate media did all they could to cause a Bush victory, and even then they had to "swift boat" Kerry and then use massive election fraud in order to win. They were fighting against heavy odds IMO.

Also, recall that FDR lost his first election while occupying the second spot on the ticket.

They way they have gone after Edwards is EXACTLY like the way Nixon targeted Muskie and Bush Sr. went after Hart.

Both of those elections were lost because the Dems allowed the GOP to mess with our primaries. In 1992, Bush Sr. tried to take down Bill Clinton, only he refused to back out when Gennifer Flowers came forward. The result was 8 years of relative prosperity in a sea of Republican presidential economic hardship.

We Dems owe it to the country to take back our primary. Do not let the corporate media tell us whom to run. Obama is a fine VP candidate but he does not have the experience to be president yet. Hillary would be ok. Edwards would be better.

that represents the great unwashed and now that attorney could be the most powerful person on the planet.....justice -will-be served

I'd rather see Gore or Clark in there but Edwards is my third choice. I like Kucinich a lot too but he's too much of a long shot.

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

First, that he, seemingly dishonestly, touted his ability to work for bi-partisan and progressive tax cuts.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/43


Second that he seems to be a centrist

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/5

okay I read the excerpt from the book and I have a few problems
Posted by hfojvt in General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007)
Sun May 21st 2006, 07:55 PM
First, I note that the article you referenced took the book excerpt and used it to bash progressives - those shrill lunatics of the left who so quickly accused Obama of selling out.

Obama, in this excerpt, seems to frame the issue in such a way that puts him in a DLC position as opposed to, say, a DU or leftist blogosphere position.

"Not only did we disagree, but we disagreed vehemently, with partisans on each side of the divide unrestrained in the vitriol they hurled at opponents."

DU, or progressives, in that summation are "partisans on the left" the other side of the coin of Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter. Granted, DU may have its share of bombastic name-callers, but in spite of the noise they make, I do not believe that represents the majority of DU. DU does not consist of "partisans ... unrestrained in ... vitriol" but, is, in general far more reasonable and fact based. In fact, most of the vitriol is a rational response to the audacity, perfidity and apparent freedom from accountability demonstrated by Republicans.

To pretend as if nothing is wrong seems to me to be "closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge, or you are not aware of the calibre of disaster" that the BFEE represents. Which is apparently where Obama is.


I worry too, though, that Kucinich could do within the Democratic party what Nader did nationwide - take enough votes away from Edwards to give the nomination to Hillary.

never stop playing the Nader canard. If you can't stand competition get the phuck out of democracy.

:thumbsup:

What else is there to say..... spinning wheels.....

Thanks for a nice bit of truthtelling.

For the last seven years, the Bush administration has been the problem, and it is simply a fact that Nader helped to put him there.

Too bad you didn't even have the guts to say it to the OP.

:rofl:

Keep up the fighting, man, it'll guarantee the demcrats win!

:crazy:

Sure, whatever, it's good for us to be divided and conquered.

you're saying that Obama has said some things that could provide fuel for the Republicans, depending on who they run against.

That's the problem I had with some of the things he said in his book. Criticisms against the liberal wing of the Democratic Party (or the "Democratic" wing, as Howard Dean would say), when those criticisms are unfair, as I believe they were, I find very upsetting.

I understand what you mean about Kunich's candidacy, but this is different than a 3rd party candidacy. To the extent that Kucinich actually gets delegates he could actually help to prevent a first ballot victory by the front runners, which could open up the convention to a better candidate. Anyhow, though it is possible that voting for him rather than Edwards could help Clinton win, I still think that his contribution to the dialogue warrents voting for him, unless his candidacy is dead by the time I get to vote.

Agree 1000%

Edwards approval/disapproval numbers are now 50/42 and his leads over Giuliani and Thompson have shrunk to 2 & 6 points respectively.

The latest numbers are 52/42, which still gives him the largest margin among all candidates.

More surprising still is his rise in the Democratic nomination contest to 16%, which is his largest number in a long time, possibly the largest for this presidential election as far as I know. Could indicate the beginning of a trend (I hope), or just a chance aberration.

Might as well vote for Seabiscuit.

Remember where Kerry was in the polls this time in 2003

I wouldn't expect to see any endorsements till autumn at the earliest.

That would explain how he can have such high favorability ratings while sitting back in third place in the primary polls. He is actually probably in the best spot of any candidate to win the primaries though (unless Gore gets in) because Clinton and Obama will tear each other to shreds while he stays largely unscathed. If he is the second choice of a good number of people his numbers are likely to rise dramatically when the primaries begin, plus given his popularity in Iowa he is likely to turn a lot of heads when the caucus results come in. Of the current contenders I think he may ultimately be the one to beat.

All this stuff about national polls is ridiculous. A waste of money.

Right now, most Americans are barely adjusted to school starting!
They won't even think about the primaries until Iowa, except those of us on this board.

Edwards stands a good chance in Iowa. Obama is also recently doing well.

All this hillary is inevitable crap will look downright wierd if she does not win Iowa. And Obama basically tied with her in NH, which is unbelievable. And Is ahead in SC.

Everything could change if Edwards wins Iowa.

Hillary should wish she is the underdog. She will have no excuses if she doesn't win the early contests.

candidate. He has it all and with a strong #2, obama or wes clark or (?) would easily win imo.

but I think Obama may be a smarter choice for Veep.

Even so I would really like to see Edwards and Feingold turn this country around.

It would be 'a new morning in America.'

than I can say for Hillary or Obama, at this point.

where he was crowned the nominee almost immediately.

Very nice analysis! A nice read.

And some of us dig John's hair (regardless of what he paid for it, so the media can back off)

welcome to DU! :hi:

in the Iowa polls, yet this is never mentioned in any MSM report.

You now, the Iowa where they have the first primary.

I'll bet that the results are the same in other states as well.

State polls generally reflect the national polls, and from the little I've seen, that appears to be the case here as well.

Edwards is leading in Iowa because he has campaigned intensively there for a long time. Unfortunately, he won't have that opportunity in most other states. On the other hand, the Iowa results are encouraging because if he wins there, it could set off a momentum change that substantially changes the landscape and propels him to the nomination.

I haven't seen the polls, but have heard the results.
If possible, can you supply some poll information.

I think Iowa is a big primary, for exactly the reason that you
stated. If Edwards wins there, the big MO swings in his direction.
The next primary after Iowa is the New Hampshire primary.
I'd like to know how he's polling there, since Clinton and Obama
have been campaigning there pretty heavily.
The third primary I think is Super Tuesday in Feb. of which CA.
is now a part. Clinton is not doing well here, because of her
recent centrist voting patern in the senate, and her stance on
the war.

I believe it's a dog race in CA. between Edwards and Obama.

Here's the latest results that I see:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/iowa-primary.html

Remarkably inconsistent, I would say.

Does that say something?
I agree that these pollsters are suppose to the best at their job,
yet neither poll was close to each other.
Very inconsistent.

The corporate media is pushing the other candidates because they don't want Edwards to be the contender. And the DNC is probably going to go along with it so we can lose again. Edwards has all the JFK qualities plus he can get the south. That probably scares the shit out of the MSM.

- I think the media spen a lot of time in 2003 promoting Dean the same way they're promoting and Obama v Clinton race now, and we're seeing the consequences. Just as Dean lead the polls throughout 2003, Hilary and Obama are first and second this year.

- I also think there was an (inaccurate) perception among democrats that Dean was the most liberal guy running in 2003, which Democrats took on board when favoring him over the others. I think EE is right and that Obama and Clinton are popular among Democrats because people (falsely, in Clinton's case) attribute to them, because of race and gender, a progressive political disposition.

Just kidding.

I think there are several factors in this odd stat, and I think most of them would go away by the time the general election gets here. First, Edwards ran in 04, so a lot of middle/independent voters think of him as mainstream. Second, he's not getting as much attention as Clinton and Obama, so his views aren't as well known. I think for many of these swing voters, the combination of one and two makes Edwards seem the most moderate, not the most liberal. Once his statements and opinions start hitting the airwaves in more force, his numbers will go down. That's a given in politics--a popular, lesser-known candidate always sags when his or her positions start getting wider attention.

But there are other reasons, having to do with the Democratic Party. Many of us just don't trust Edwards. We've seen him too long. In 04 he was a moderate/conservative candidate mocking us war protesters. Many of us haven't really gotten over those attacks. Many of us don't look at him as the liberal candidate, just as the candidate most likely say anything to get elected. He's campaigning now where he thinks (or thought) the Dems would rally around him. He seems slick and packaged and disingenuous, especially in the way he's turned against the Democrats who voted for the IWR. This is not widely remembered, sadly, but the IWR was not a vote for war (as Clinton and Kerry said plainly in their floor speeches, and as Wesley Clark implied the day before the IWR vote when he recommended voting for it), but a vote to curb Bush's rush to war, to put limits on the powers he was claiming he had. It didn't work, but Bush would have invaded with or without the IWR, and without it, he would have invaded sooner. There was no danger that the Republican Congress would actually forbid him from doing so, or to punish him if he just did it.

Edwards "apologized" in the most gimmicky way for the IWR vote, after having criticized us war protestors in 04. Clinton never attacked us, Obama and Kerry never attacked us. Edwards did. Many Democrats, especially those who were paying attention in 02 and 03, feel like Edwards has thrown them under the bus. He's tried to have it both ways. He voted for the IWR, campaigned on the Iraq invasion when it was popular, only turned against the invasion when his poll numbers plummeted, and now he's throwing those who voted for the IWR with the best of intentions under the bus.

That's why he's doing so poorly in the primaries. Many Dems see him as disingenuous, or at least, they have enough doubts about him to prefer another candidate over him.

Don't get me wrong--I basically like Edwards. His "Two Americas" meme works well, and I like most of his ideology, now that he's a peacenik instead of the most hawkish Democrat. I have doubts that he can get anything done, with his propensity to make enemies in Congress, but he's decent enough, and he's no more two-faced than any other politician. The fact that he seems two-faced says more about his lack of political experience than about his character--he's just not as smooth at it. But he's not a great liberal David trying to take down the conservative Goliath. Politically, he's about the same as Obama and Clinton, and he's trying to make nuanced differences seem like major ideological divides. And most Democrats aren't buying it. So he's trailing in the primaries, to the point where he's barely still considered a serious contender.

Now, though, when you ask those same Democrats who prefer someone else whether they'll vote for Edwards or a Republican, they will all say Edwards. We'd say Kucinich or Dodd, or Gravel or Squiggy the Wonder Worm over ANY Republicans. So Edwards will always do AT LEAST as well as any of the other Dems. But more importantly, much more importantly, when you ask most independent/swing voters who they like, they want a reason to say "Not Bush! Not another Republican!"

Some of those voters, though, have heard so much bashing of Clinton and Obama that they just can't bring themselves to poll for them. So they say "the Republican." The fact that Edwards wins their approval shows two things: First, they haven't heard as much Edwards bashing, so they haven't formed the negatives yet (haircuts and house size aside, since those were minor issues that many aren't even aware of). And two, they don't really want another Republican. They just aren't sold yet on Clinton or Obama.

In a general election, where all the slanders of the media and the Republicans (which are basically the same thing) are aimed at him, he loses every single one of those advantages. How will he fare then? I don't know, obviously, but I watched him lose a debate to Cheney because of inexperience. I watched him switch positions on Iraq almost literally overnight because his poll numbers were sagging. I don't have much confidence in his abilities to win.

In a general election, where the choice is between one or the other options, the entire dynamic changes. Can you honestly see any of our big three losing to anyone they have? Imagine them on a stage together: Clinton and Giuliani, Obama and Thompson. I don't care what the polls say now, when the choice is narrowed to two, the majority is simply not going to see Giuliani or Thompson as the better candidate. They will look old, tired and stale to anything and everything we have to offer. So I'm just not worried about the Rep v Dem matchup polls right now. A one-on-one race is a completely different dynamic.

I do agree with the OP on race and gender playing a role here, though. I don't believe it's enough to change the election outcome, but it's there, and that is some of the difference in numbers.

Sorry so long and rambling.

I don't recall Edwards mocking war protesters, or mocking any Dems for that matter. I thought his campaign for the 04 nomination was exceptionally clean, with no unfair attacks against other Dems, which is one major reason that I initially was impressed with him. Is it possible that you misinterpreted his "mocking" of war protesters?

I somewhat disagree with you on your interpretation of the IWR. I will grant that it wasn't technically a "vote for war", but it did add legitimacy to Bush's plans to invade, and I do consider it wrong to vote for it, and I do hold that against Edwards for doing so. Whether his apology is sincere or not is hard to say. My impression is that it was. I don't think that saying Bush would have invaded anyhow is an adequate defense for those Congresspersons who voted for the IWR. That vote made it easier for him, and it is at least possible that he might have considered the political costs too high if Congress was more firm about it.

I do hope you're right with respect to your optimism about the 08 general election. I would say that I'm cautiously optimistic, but no more than that, especially given the amount of votes that will be counted electronically using secret software.

Maybe it wasn't "mocking," but it was certainly critical. One of his memes, especially in the South in 2003, was that the anti-war demonstrators were bad for Democratic Party, and that we couldn't win by being weak on security. Many people in 03 compared Edwards' position to Lieberman's, and it wasn't clear whose was more pro-war. Edwards wasn't just saying "Support the troops" the way most Democrat politicos were, he was saying "We must disarm Hussein, we must use force." Google for his speech before the California Democratic Convention in March of 03, as the war was building. In November of 03, well into the primary, Edwards was still praising the invasion, even though WMDs had not been found.

On the IWR, Bush was going to invade. Period. That's the whole discussion, in five words. There was no doubt, no question. He ran for office supported by people who wanted him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. These same people had tried to convince Clinton to invade both nations in 98--Clinton refused. He surrounded himself with advisers who had been calling for these invasions. He planned them both long before 9-11, long before taking office. Some would argue that he ran specifically for that purpose. He had made speeches since late in 01 that we needed to overthrow Hussein. Over it all, he had declared that he had the authority to invade as Commander in Chief, and because of the resolutions requiring Iraq to disarm. He had his legal team draw up the arguments.

You have to understand that fact to understand the IWR. Bush was going to invade, and he was arguing that he did not need Congressional approval. You also have to understand that Congress was controlled by the Republicans, and there was no chance that they would pass a bill forbidding Bush from invading, or restricting him in any way stronger than the IWR did. It was a compromise bill with a party that held all the cards, so of course it was ugly.

The only chance the Democrats had to stop Bush from invading was to put restrictions on him, slow him down, and hope the mood of the nation or the world would eventually kill Bush's plans. If they had rejected the IWR, the invasion would have happened sooner. That cannot be repeated enough.

In spite of Hillary's 'disciplined campaign' and admirable toughness, I still suspect that it is Edwards who would have the best chance of winning the general election.
Considering that the media has been all about "Hillary or Obama!" for months, and that most media comments about Edwards have been frivolous at best, it's surprising Edwards is doing as well as he is.

The Rasmussen polls showing matchups against various Republicans are interesting, but I bet the data at the state level is even more interesting.

Could it be that every time he bloviates about ending the war, the fact that he sponsored IWR gets in the way and shows him a hypocrite?

I don't think that that marks him as a hypocrite, however. Don't you think that people can recognize a mistake and change their minds about something without being a hypocrite?

Anyhow, that doesn't explain why he does so much better against Republicans than he does against fellow Democrats -- compared to other Democrats running in the race.

of the bill, the active promotion of it was never acknowledged. All the candidate has said was "voting was a mistake" - which puts him on the same level with say, Hillary and most other candidates. When in effect he was more on Joementum's level at that moment. When he'll recognize THAT, I'll stop crying "hypocrite". On war.

is that of all the democrats I know, about half of whom are "centrist", not "left", none support Hillary, they all support Obama or Edwards, and several have switched from Obama to Edwards. I don't get the polls at all.

All of them would prefer Gore to the whole field. I know republicans who say they would vote for Gore.

I'd be willing to bet you that 10% of those polled in these polls see the name "Clinton" and think that Bill Clinton is running again. Another 5% think that "Bill" Clinton and "Hill"ary Clinton are the same person.

Don't put it past them. Leno showed this one picture of John Edwards to one lady, and she said that it was Al Gore. Don't underestimate the stupidity of some of those being polled.

to when he dropped out in 2004?

Don't remember the details, but I believe that he didn't have enough votes to get any delegates, so he gave them to Edwards. That's my recollection.

As for when he dropped out of the race altogether, I believe he stayed in it until the bitter end, or at least until the point where Kerry already had it locked up.

Obama is slowly imploding and those supporters will be going somewhere.....

I've given up on Gore and Clark.

i remember the same ugly calculations in the Edwards campaign said out loud in the 2004 primaries.

Now he talks a good game - no reason to trust him.

I posted this reply on one of your previous OP’s titled How Much Courage Does it Take to Send Somebody Else to War? (It is no longer available on DU)



I believe it was Mike Gravel that said in the last debates that, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own set of facts.”

What is the corporate news media doing, and how dead is the fairness doctrine? I assume you’re making such a point in this paragraph.



I didn’t watch the debates on TV I watched them online on MSN the next day, and I’m assuming what I saw is as you described, and I picked up on it immediately, and to tell you the truth it sickens me to no end, and I see it happening constantly…

There is no doubt about it; the corporate media is with out question politically and conservatively biased. And after the litmus test debate they jump on the conservative candidate’s band wagon. Go Hillary Go Hillary Go Hillary… Oh and by the way, let’s not mention the liberal views, the facts or how the audience seemed to overwhelmingly give applause too Dennis Kucinich…

What can I say, the first amendment is in the hands of special interest, a minority few, the corporate elite. And they are using it as a tool, not to be fair in reporting the facts or to inform the masses of other options or opinions, but rather to manipulate them into preserving the cancerous conservative values and status-quo that is devouring the hopes and dreams of humanity ever living in peace or finding the parity of justice…

Experience has shown the power and the influence of the corporate media, and I think you hit the nail on the head with this quote How much do you want to bet that those free passes will stop pretty quickly if and when she gets the Democratic Party’s nomination? Do you really think that the main stream media would stoop as low as too promote two democratic candidates too victory in the primaries, with the hopes of possibly fanning the flames of imbedded prejudice leading up to the general election.

I know the puppet masters most likely have their favorite choice and would like to see the greater evil, and another neo-con in office. But I also believe they know that the decision is still, for the time being, left up to We the People. I am also quite sure that they realize how upset We the People are with the Republican Party and the direction this country is going, they also realize that there is a distinct possibility that a Democrat will be elected President in 2008. Therefore it is imperative that if they can not stop the latter from happening by using their media influence, they will at least end up with the lesser of the two evils, and someone who will not stand in their way or rock the boat…

Either way if by chance Hillary or another conservative Democrat or neo-con wins the White House, our democracy will not heal, the first amendment will not be restored, criminal investigations against the evil Bush / Cheney regime and their corporate buddies will end because; like the Kennedy assassinations, Watergate and Nixon’s pardon, Iran Contra etc. We will be told once again that the country has already suffered too much under Bush and it is time to heal. But we will not heal without the justice of prosecuting and bringing too justice these barbaric criminal traitors that are hell bent on destroying our constitutional government and replacing it with a fascist minority rule, hell bent for a World Empire…

If on the other hand the American people can see beyond the corporate media fraud and elect Dennis Kucinich; we will begin I hope, the up hill battle of removing the cancer that has been dragging us down to the point of collapse. But I sometimes wonder if it’s too late. Could America have a President in this late hour, that would be able to defend us against the ruling elite, their corporate influences and private mercenaries, or will we be faced with the realization that the President of the United States has been reduced too nothing more than a powerless union steward of we the powerless people.

All I know is that there will be some very rich, evil and powerful people to contend with, if someone decides to take on the task of turning this country around and pointing it in a direction ware an informed majority rules… I could only speculate but I can imagine we would be in for some interesting times…

I too wonder if it's too late. The working answer has to be NO, because once we concede that it's too late we are reduced to doing nothing. So my philosophy on the matter is that as long as there are people who care about these things it is not too late.

But you are certainly right in saying:


It will be quite a task indeed -- but it's been done before.

And as long as there is people like your self articulating the subtle facts of what confronts us, people will be moved from the obscurity as to how they are being played.

Remember this? “A chronology of snippets, secrete hidden truths revealed, a perspective of light and feeling of hope to pierce the dark shameless evil, reviled by all yet seen by few.”
Larry Ogg

:hi:

Hilary and Obama are both un-electable. It's time for this party to pull the plug on these two novelty candidates and get behind a candidate that is actually qualified to be president. Hilary and Obama are a dead end street. This election is too important to let it be hijacked by big money donors with no common sense. Neither H nor O has any reasonable stand on health care, the environment or the war. Edwards does. H&O are all fluff and phoniness and they are polarizing because of that. Edwards is for real, and it shows...

I plan on sending him some more. I don't want to feel that I didn't do everything I could to keep him in there. I'm still hoping for Gore - but since we haven't heard a word from him - I'm losing hope.

I'm also going to sign up for his campaign. I had been working on the Clark effort.