When you hear Edwards speak ... think about how he would match up with the Repub Candidate

As I posted in another thread, Edwards is the best we have 'speaking on the stump.'

We need someone who is going to stand up to the attacks, lies and innuendo of the Republican Nominee in the General Election.

Edwards WILL take them on, WILL not back down, and WILL provide a clear choice for voters in the General Election --and the polls show that he would beat any of the Repub Candidates he would go up against.

We need to realize that the importance of this election cannot be overstated. Literally we all have everything riding on this election regardless of our race, gender, and other demographic characteristics which our opponents will use to try and divide us.

That which binds us together is much greater than the differences which divide us. WE are Americans first, and we need to act in the interests of ALL Americans FIRST --not those who control the wealth, power, and media in this country.

To accomplish that we need to put forth OUR BEST --- JOHN EDWARDS.

Granted, the fact that he's right and they're idiots would help a lot.

:thumbsup:

than he is doing against the dems?

(not a slam, really wondering...)

Pair an excellent quick-on-his-feet populist against a "give more breaks to the corporations" war mongerer and see what happens.

the "give more breaks to the corporations" war mongerer gives himself a populist spin for the cameras?

McCain or Huckabee might be able to superficially convince, Romney is too much of an ass to pull it off.

:woohoo:

Clinton and Obama stumble around enough that it's obvious they're searching for the right words, or they're thinking really hard while they answer. Edwards just speaks, and no doubt is doing the same thing in his mind, but it's not as obvious.

Which makes him come across as more sure of himself, more of an authority, and he can make his point with less effort.

Edwards has a lot of court experience on how to speak, being mindful of body language, etc., and he can use that against the GOP candidate when the time comes.

Edwards is very good in connecting with people.

The Debate formats have been very ineffective in allowing Edwards enough time and opportunity to demonstrate those skills.

AS the number of candidates has shrunk, you see who is 'winning' the debates. THe focus groups are breaking for Edwards in a big way.

ANd you will also notice that Clinton and Obama are 'borrowing' many of Edwards' words, phrases, topics and issues that he was using over a year ago.

Just watched him in Nevada. He is definitely the best.

he seems to be the ONE with the least amount of statements to defend, explain to the uneducated or otherwise confuse voters. What DOES need to be defended are things like his progressive, substantive positions and proposals couched often in simple black and white down to earth terms.

Which would you prefer to be defending during the campaign? The latest depressing gaffe or DLC burbling over the heads of voters or OUR issues and real change? Doesn't it strike anyone that he does not need propping and defense on distracting, side issues that the big "unifier" candidates seem disappointingly prone to? Start out with the clear message as the total campaign package and you go from there. Go to general philosophy and vagueness and you get interpretative mires of words spinning down into a pointless maelstrom. Vague words that the GOP can match in this unnecessary "neutral" territory and suffer no such public beatings adjudicated by the corporate media. If Hillary wins the nomination almost certainly we will have three(count them, 3 with Bloomberg) corporate leaning, bi-partisan, vague sounding and rather unexciting campaigns favoring vagueness and genuine Dem stomping. The meme of inexperience(read national campaign inexperience first) is a hoop that the lecturing Obama reaffirms in reality if not as yet discouraging his supporters. As he a bit grandly takes all the heat upon himself and not a progressive agenda.

I'd rather my candidate stand or fall on a cause not on campaign performance careening into wedge issues. Obama carries on speculatively about presidents of big change- avoiding FDR- who in fact stood for agendas not on their own personage even though they had powerful personae to make their message felt. Reagan of the two was sneakier in hiding the details, not the principles. Where ARE the principles of change today if not progressive, if not a sea change within the party as much as its mere numbers? Where will be the details of any big change whatsoever except not banging our heads against the wall for bi-partisan gridlock and somewhat mitigated horrors?

This is the strongest clearest candidacy presentation. Point out to me how the risk of candidates caught in Rove rejoicing controversy over race and Reagan with less than overwhelming support from the "historical first" base is better than someone whose progressive stands make the GOP wail and gnash their teeth as the main battle line?
Oh yeah, money and media spin. I forgot.

Huckabee would be a laugh.

when challenged. McCain's temper is uncertain at best. Romney acts all huffy and keeps reiterating his position no matter how lame-brained, like if he says it louder and more forcefully it'll all sound sensible. Huckabee starts looking mean when he's challenged; his 'nice-guy' persona just sloughs off. Edwards stays focused, passionate, and flexible. He can attack from 4 directions at once -- he's a ninja samurai politician. The more I see him, the more I like him.

We're going to end up with one of the two people who are vulnerable to Republicans and actually have a good chance of losing an unlosable election. Edwards is being shut out of the media for good reason. The corporatists who run this country do not want him to get any traction. The last thing they want is someone who will shake things up.