Edwards: Dems Need Him to Face McCain

[Hissyspit]

Source: Associated Press

Edwards: Dems Need Him to Face McCain
By JIM DAVENPORT – 1 hour ago

WINNSBORO, S.C. (AP) — A day after getting his "butt kicked" in the Nevada caucuses, presidential candidate John Edwards said Sunday that he's the only Democrat who can successfully take on Republican John McCain.

McCain won Saturday's South Carolina GOP primary and Edwards, a former North Carolina senator looking to make the Democratic contest here a three-way race, told reporters that a campaign finance advocate like himself is needed to counter McCain on that issue.

"This is a guy who has made central to his political life campaign finance reform. It seems to me we ought to be putting up somebody up against him who's never taken money from special interest packs or Washington lobbyists," said Edwards, who's trailed Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama in polls. "Between the three of us, that's me."

- snip -

Edwards said McCain "is starting to look like the Republican nominee and I think it's important for us to have somebody to run against McCain who can beat him and the national polls show that I'm the one who beats John McCain in the general election."

Read more: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jwgiJMcFlCdEDBqejIqHjdksiMcwD8U9T7601

[maddiejoan]

1. Cos he did so well against Cheney?

:shrug:

[Wednesdays]

29. Yeah, JE is polling such high negative numbers vs. Cheney now...

:rofl:

[maddiejoan]

33. In the debates, sweetie

remember the debates?

so laugh your ass off --but Edwards doesn't deliver in elections --does he.

[olddad56]

113. How can you say that?

He was Kerry's running mate. Are you thinking that the reason that we got stuck with 4 more years of of Bush was because people believed Cheney's bullshit in the 2004 debates? Maybe that is why, but I don't think so. Edwards is right, Obama or Clinton can't beat McCain. That is why they have raised so much corporate money. The corporations want a dem they can beat.

[Duncan]

114. Yeah I remember.

I remember thinking Edwards kicked Cheney's ass. And I remember getting angry when some idiot talking head said it was a close call afterwards.

[dchill]

122. Ditto.

[lisainmilo]

39. I think so....:shrug: Here it is. READ THIS!

Here is the link for the timeline:http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/11/20/us/politics/20071120_EDWARDS_TIMELINE.html#


Here is the article with the debate from 2004. JRE has learned the truth about the Iraq war and challenges Cheney.

In a strikingly personal and bitter debate, Vice President Dick Cheney defended the Bush administration's record on Iraq on Tuesday night as ''exactly the right thing to do'' and asserted that Senators John Kerry and John Edwards bent with the political winds on national security.

Mr. Edwards fired back with a wide-ranging assault on the administration's honesty and competence in foreign and domestic policy. ''One thing that's very clear is that a long résumé does not equal good judgment,'' Mr. Edwards declared, in one of many sharp exchanges that spoke to the closeness of the race and the differences between the two tickets.

Mr. Cheney was defiantly unapologetic about the course of the conflict in Iraq, defending the Administration against the charge that it had failed to provide enough troops to stabilize Iraq, as the former top American official in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, said in a speech on Monday. Mr. Cheney said he would recommend the same course in Iraq if he had it to do over again, adding, ''The world is safer today because Saddam Hussein is in jail, his government's no longer in power, and we did exactly the right thing"



Mr. Edwards immediately shot back, ''Mr. Vice President, you are still not being straight with the American people.'' He repeatedly charged that Mr. Cheney had conflated the threat from Mr. Hussein with Al Qaeda, and argued that the United States needed a ''fresh start'' and new leadership if it was to succeed in Iraq

Cheney then changes the subject so <snip>

With so much at stake, both men unleashed their sharpest attacks, each describing his opponent -- seated just inches away -- with withering contempt. Referring to Halliburton, Mr. Edwards said, ''The facts are, the vice president's company, that he was CEO of, that did business with sworn enemies of the United States, paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false financial information.'' That company, Mr. Edwards added, ended up with a $7.5 billion no-bid contract for work in Iraq

.


<snip>

Mr. Edwards countered, ''What John Kerry said, and it's just as clear as day to anybody who was listening, He said, 'We will find terrorists where they are and kill them before they ever do harm to the American people.''

Mr. Edwards pointed out that Mr. Kerry had explicitly said he would never give any other nation a veto over American national security decisions. But he said the American people and the rest of the world deserved to know the full truth about why the United States was going to war.

''It is critical that we be credible,'' Mr. Edwards said. ''They need to know that the credibility of the United States is always good.''

<snip>

Mr. Cheney said that Iraq had been an appropriate target after the Sept. 11 attacks because of its ''established relationship with Al Qaeda'' and that Iraq had been the ''nexus'' that could provide terrorists with access to nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. But Mr. Edwards, in his first response, challenged Mr. Cheney's credibility, saying: ''Mr. Vice President, you are still not being straight with the American people.'' Senator Edwards charged that Mr. Cheney and President Bush "continue to tell people things are going well in Iraq,'' an assertion he said was obviously false to the American people who can see otherwise everyday on television.

Mr. Edwards also accused Mr. Cheney of falsely lining the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and Iraq. ''There is no connection between attacks of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. You said there is some connection; there is not.

<snip>

When Ms. Ifill asked if a Kerry-Edwards administration would have acted differently when confronted with the threat of Saddam Hussein, Mr. Edwards said that Saddam Hussein ''needed to be confronted'' but that .United Nations weapons inspectors should have been given more time. He said the American invasion of March 200 had distracted attention fom Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, who were responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.

''We had Osama bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora,'' he said. "We had the finest military in the world on the ground.' Mr. Edwards stumbled once, though, and began to refer to Osama Bin Laden as Saddam Hussein."Listen carefully to what the vice president is saying,'' said Mr. Edwards, "because there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of September 11, period. The 9/11 commission has said it's true, Colin Powell has said it's true, but the Vice President has suggested there is. But there's not." Asked whether the administration moved to quickly to leave the fight in Afghanistan, Mr. Cheney said the administration has "never let up on Osama Bin Laden from Day One. We'll continue to aggressively pursue him and I'm confident we'll get him.

HE TRIED TO TELL US THEN, STILL WE DON'T SEEM TO BE LISTENING> His words are OUR WORDS!
4 years after this debate still no Osama bin Laden! Must we keep him at large to continue the blood monies??? I wonder.
I wonder why the American public didn't listen to JRE then....He was telling the truth, do we want to continue supporting the corporations running this war? I wonder. I believe if John Mc Cain wins the republican nomination, which I believe he will, JRE is the only candidate who can be him. I believe if Mc Cain is elected, we can expect more + 100 x's of 2000-2006 including the draft. Nothing, absolutely nothing will make me happier if I have to eat these words, I don't believe I will be though! *bookmark*


Link from NY times article:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E4DC163BF935A35753C1A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

[dchill]

123. Thank you.

[Gloria]

124. Yup, I remeber, too...but the SPIN machine has Gored Edwards in that debate...

And our cowardly Democratic "leaders" have never rallied to that point, either time!

I think Lewis Black knows what we know...that Democrats are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, because they really don't want to break up their little DC club!

[dchill]

126. Most observers declared a the debate a draw...

but,

"...the MSNBC team of pundits, led by "Hardball" host Chris Matthews, immediately declared the debate a knockout for Cheney."

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/10/06/veepmedia/

There was a LOT of Kool-Aid around. As usual.

[never_get_over_it]

135. Well apparently those debates in 2004 did little

to affect the election since the freak-in-chief's performance was beyond frightening. I had a friend who only saw the last Presidential debate and she said good God that Bush was AWFUL - and I said the was his GOOD DEBATE if you thought that was awful you should have seen the first two

as for Edwards Cheney debate all I remember was Cheney lying his ass off - stating he had NEVER said Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11 and man I think Cheney he had said that very thing earlier that day. He also lied when he said he had never met John Edwards until just before the debate -

John Edwards performance in the 2004 debate had no impact on the race at all - more likely voter suppression and voting machines had far more to do with the results....

[stravu9]

2. Run, John,Run!

love the guy!

[grytpype]

3. Sadly, he's right.

Clinton v. McCain?

Obama v. McCain?

I would worry about that, big time.

We can only hope Mormon Mitt is the nominee.

[jasmine621]

10. With Hillary's stand and actions on the war, she can face McCain.

The Dems need to beging to dismantle the myth that the "surge" was a huge success. People, including out soldiers, are being killed everyday over there, still...and in places that we boast are now safe because of the surge. The Iraqis did one hell of a job killing each other off and ethnically cleansing their own neighborhoods. Add that to the number dead and those who fled, and you have what actually has made the "surge" look successful.

But here is something that no surge will take care of. Al quaeda has said that they are pleased with the way things are going in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Their intent is to bleed the US from within and outside. They intend to make our occupation in Iraq cost us our economic life blood as well as destroy our military readiness. They did it to the Soviet Union. More than anything else, Gorby has said that Afghanistan ultimately brought down the Soviet Union. The US will not fare any better. We will susffer long and hard if someone doesn't see the light and get us out of the region.

[Myrina]

28. Hillary "The surge has worked" --- is that who you're referring to?

Yeah, right, she can face McCain - they're practically twins in terms of policies and voting records. :eyes:


:puke:

[lisainmilo]

40. If you watch any republican C-span. the pugs are already all over Hillary!

She will lose to McCain!

[niceypoo]

45. McCaine is a basket case who has said many times he will continue the war

He stated that it could last, "one million years" and it would be OK with him. He will never get elected.

[coalition_unwilling]

130. McInsane said on Meet the Press with Tim Russert that he would

be happy if were in Iraq for "10 years, 100 years, 1000 years." My jaw nearly hit the floor at that nakedly imperialist statement, not to mention the obvious frisson with those who advocated another 1,000-year Reich.

[pauldg0]

70. Obama too..........

...I heard it on CNN...

GO JOHN

[stravu9]

97. John is the ONLY ONE WHO CAN WIN!

Say it again , once more with FEELING!

[DemCam]

136. But she can handle them.

Everything including the kitchen sink has been thrown at here
and she's still standin' 6'4" instead of 5'6".

[niceypoo]

43. Give concrete examples

McCaine is a basket case.

[OzarkDem]

48. Campaign finance reform

is the issue Edwards is referring to. McCain has a much better record than either of the current Dem front runners.

[alllyingwhores]

31. Damn straight he's right-that's why the corporate whores are trying to make certain it's ClintObama!

Most recent CNN poll--Top 3 Democratic candidates vs. the straight talkin suck-up:

Edwards 52% vs McCain 44%
Obama 48% vs McCain 48%
Clinton 48% vs McCain 50%


Source: http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/12/11/tue6amp

[midnight]

53. Your post bares repeating, hope you don't mind.

Edwards 52% vs McCain 44%
Obama 48% vs McCain 48%
Clinton 48% vs McCain 50%


Source: http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/12/11/tue6amp

[DarthDem]

75. Silly

Tired of hearing about this one national poll. The election is not a national popular vote, as Al Gore knows. What 2004 blue states does McCain win? And we should assume he wins Ohio, Florida, Arkansas, and all the other "swing" states? Really? Think about that for a sec.

[cali]

81. Polls before Iowa? Meaningless. n/t

[King Coal]

86. Oh. Really? And why in the world of Cali for Hillary is that?

:rofl:What a mess some people can make.

[peacock]

100. McCain will be the nominee

We need JRE!

[coalition_unwilling]

127. Personally, I'm hoping for Hucka-Jesus myself, if only for

the entertainment value he promises to bring. Scratch Hucka-Jesus' smarmy exterior and you'll find a man who believes that dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark. (I kid you not.) That kind of belief system has got to be good for at least a few laughs.

[msongs]

4. he certainly cannot take on HillaryObama the corporate twins and win nt

[Demeter]

6. That's An Internal, Party Problem---Looking at a National Election, Edwards Is Right

Neither Hillary nor Obama can take McCain.

McCain is the Ronald Reagan of the GOP--he's spent a lot of time getting his persona out there. We know him for his Congressional record, but most people know only that he's a war hero, a military veteran, grandfatherly, not female, not black, and gently handled by the press.

Hillary has been brutalized by the press, and will be yet again brutalized if she is the nominee. Obama hasn't been around long enough to have "brand-name" status, and novelty is not enough to win, nor is Oprah a sufficient endorsement.

John Edwards is McCain without the stench of GOP, and with the populist pull.

[Gloria]

125. And let's see who McCain would pick as VP....he's old, what whacko

will be waiting in the wings?? Someone to appeal to that "evangelical base"?????

[Catchawave]

5. Oh yeah! A Pay Per View event.....!

I am so there :)

[Neshanic]

7. The man is right. He is the only one that would beat McCain.

[bjobotts]

21. Bullshit. Stop spreading lies. No plan to end war, permanent tax cuts for rich

No healthcare plan, no energy plan...give me a break. No repub will win the WH. It would be like voting for Bush again. Either you want this repbulican obstructionist disaster to end or you don't. So what do you think the American voters want. Either you're voting for the party who put solar panels on the WH or for the party that tore them off.
Whoever wins the dem nomination will be the next president...period.

McCain is still a fucking republican.

[alllyingwhores]

34. THE REPUKES WIN EITHER WAY...

Hillary's a bought and paid for corporatists repuke light...and Obama, who's also bought and paid for, can't wait to jump across the aisle and suck up to the repukes Pelosi style.

[peacock]

102. Not if you support Edwards!

http://johnedwards.com/

Donate what ever you can. Time is also money.

[frogcycle]

69. keep telling yourself that n/t

[alllyingwhores]

139. Actually...it's little more effective if you simply look at who's sponsoring them...

...who's in their respective organizations...and oh yeah, their actual records in the last couple of years.

...and finally, I'm not telling myself anything...go ahead and vote for the same old shit...and we'll all experience more of...the same old shit.

[peacock]

101. He´ll win against Obama or Clinton

He will and any Democrat who did not support Edwrads will be sorry.

[Duncan]

115. I hope you are right.

But I will be surprised if Hillary beat ANY republican with all the anti-Hillary sentiment on both the right and the left. I will support Hillary if she gets the nomination, but sadly there are some on the left who won't.

[coalition_unwilling]

131. Hillary said she was 'mis-led' about the case for war against Iraq. Were

you 'mis-led'???? If not, don't you want a president who isn't either a) such a dupe for being so willingly mis-led or b) such a liar for saying she was mis-led, when she acutally made a crass political calculation that has led to the death, wounding or displacement of 7+ million Iraqis? (Translated proportionately to the U.S., those figures would mean some 45 million Americans killed, wounded or displaced.)

[sb5697]

8. Relying on those polls again.....doesn't sound like the smartest

thing considering how inaccurate they have been.

[onehandle]

9. No shit! Edwards would clean his clock!

Go John!

[Plucketeer]

11. Edwards spells pain

for John McCain. :banghead:

[UpInArms]

12. Go, Johnny, Go!

[iamjoy]

55. Reminds Me A Little Of John Barrowman

That's Captain Jack Harkness from Doctor Who and Torchwood.

[UpInArms]

140. I do miss the Tardis

[spooky3]

13. I wish he had emphasized this previously.

We all know that the polls aren't perfectly reliable but they have been pretty consistent in showing Edwards does best against most of the Republicans. I think a lot of non-DU Dems are very concerned about electability but they are not aware of the match up data.

[OzarkDem]

50. He has

everyone gets so caught up in the frenzy over the current front runners they ignore the many, many issues Edwards has brought up. He can't be blamed for it.

[More Than A Feeling]

14. This is the best card he has yet to play, and hell, it just might work.

I hope it does. Edwards is the strongest on the economy, which is McCain's greatest weakness.

In retrospect, if the Republican race had continued to be confused (with Huck winning in SC), Edwards would have run out of time to make this argument.

[balantz]

15. If things get scarier, or more involved on the war/terror front this spring

then McCain will have a lot of public support.

John needs to push the polling fact hard.

[Gloria]

128. Yes, I've been thinking that there will be an "incident" that will propel McCain in the general!!

What fools...to be fooled AGAIN!!

[balantz]

132. The neocons will find it very easy to manufacture something to prop up McCain.

Obama, in my opinion, will not survive politically against such a scenario. I fear Clinton won't be electable either, even if only just for the fact that the right dislikes her and would prefer a war hero to see us through another war situation.

[Zorra]

16. He's our last hope at a sure bet to win the Presidency.

Senators Clinton and Obama might (but I doubt it) win in a really tight contest, znd IMO, nominating them is not worth that much of a risk of losing the general election when Edwards would win for sure.

[Yael]

17. Delighted to K&R this beautiful piece.

[Demobrat]

18. So IOW Edwards should be the nom because he's electable?

Damn, where have I heard that one before?

[bjobotts]

19. Romney will be the nominee. No repub will win the WH. Just another vote for Bush

[Sarah Ibarruri]

20. Edwards is right. And he's the only one speaking openly on the problems in the U.S.

Thank God he's doing it! The media's preferred Dem candidates sure aren't!

[unapatriciated]

22. K&R

go John go

[stravu9]

23. WE LOVE JOHN!!

JOHN EDWARDS FOREVER!!

[mzmolly]

24. It's about time! Go JOHN!!!

:toast:

[disndat]

25. Nevermind the primaries

John Edwards is the only one who could change the direction from the mess we are in, as POTUS.

[JDPriestly]

26. Kicked and recommended.

Edwards is so right.

[mdmc]

27. Any of the dems can beat Mac

and if America picks the Mac, that won't be the end of the world either.

[peacock]

103. Afraid you´re wrong, not ANY Dem

can beat any Repug, but JRE can beat them all.

[mdmc]

133. Agreed

JE, BO, and HRC will be able to win. My man DK would lose, but it would be worth it.

[and-justice-for-all]

30. This Country needs EDWARDS, period! nt

[pauldg0]

32. Couldn' t the Dems start a original Democratic Party....

........Say the "New Democratic Party" or the
"Real Democratic Party" or
"First Democratic Party" or again, even the
"Original Democratic Party" so John could run on their core values for the average worker.

Right now it's the "Republican Democratic Party"

They; the brainwashed and/or planted candidates, have infiltrated and are destroying the core values of what I always thought was the Democratic party.

Sorry, but I have been on this earth for 60-years and that is how I have seen it. I used to be a Republican! If it's going to be like this, then I guess I will and people like me should go back and compare Hillary or Obama against the other Republican candidates that are currently running.

I JUST WON'T DO THAT....I WAS ALL SET TO VOTE FOR JOHN EDWARDS.....I'M A UNEMPLOYED ENGINEER AND WANT MY JOB BACK !!!

THERE ARE MILLIONS OF JOBS LIKE MINE THAT ARE LEAVING THIS COUNTRY !!

[AzDar]

35. K & R....

:kick:

[Name removed]

36. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FrenchieCat]

37. Why? What does Edwards have the others don't?

I'm trying to figure this out. Please help me. :shrug:

[pauldg0]

38. You haven't listened to Edwards once...

I bet you!!!

[FrenchieCat]

49. Yes, I have. I 've listened to him many times.....as he rails on a litany of

what's wrong in America.

Problem is most of his speeches focus on what's wrong, and he barely if ever gets to the solutions beyond him fighting for us...which is very depressing. When he could have fought, he didn't. So why should I believe him now? He had his chance, and he didn't do the 54 years of fighting for me for the 6 years that he could have.

[stickernation]

60. you're kidding right ?

Edwards on his website is a policy WONK. He's got plans for all kinds of changes, coupled with accounting as to how he'll make it happen. Edwards' focus on what's wrong is a function of the size of all that is wrong.

[Binka]

76. Oh Dear God I Must Put You On Ignore. I Have Never Liked You Anyway.

Bye bye my dear :hi:

[LizW]

87. Best post EVER!!!

:rofl:

:toast: to Binka

[stickernation]

116. well i still like frenchiecat

frenchiecat REALLY doesn't like EDWARDS,
and frenchiecat REALLY likes OBAMA.

which is OK by me, as if Obama's the nominee, he needs articulate and passionate supporters.

frenchiecat also has a very articulate debate style, i think cynicism towards Edwards should be aired out, and frenchiecat keeps the debate going. i'm OK with frenchiecat, and if Obama wins the nomination frenchiecat will be an excellent resource for those of us who would want to support him post-convention.

-s

[peacock]

105. He has all of the solutions

and deatailed plans, which Obama does not. Plus whatever plans Obama has are not progressive. We need progress not just change.

[For PaisAn]

68. Hi FrenchiCat

If you put any weight in those polls then there's really nothing to figure out. If Edwards is the only one who beats all the repukes then that's simply a fact to seriously consider. The Democratic voters in this country have to decide, can we live with another 4 or 8 years of Republican rule?! Do we vote for our preferred Dem or do we vote for the ONE candidate who can get rid of these mutants. At least that's how I look at it.

I sure wish Clark were running, sigh.


:-(

[peacock]

106. I´m lucky; can do both in one

fell swoop! I´m for JRE.

[peacock]

104. He´s progressive. He´s a southerner.

[rayofreason]

41. To face McCain...

...Edwards first has to win the nomination. With 4% in Nevada, that does not look too likely.

[stickernation]

62. i'm relaxed about it.

it seems clear that either obama or clinton will pummel the other unconscious and that once there's a one on one debate between john and the survivor it'll be clear that that survivor is totally outclassed and the remaining states will see the light.

iowa ! nevada ! new hampshire ! ooo, it's OVER ! (NOT!)

this thing isn't over yet - it hasn't even started !!!

[peacock]

108. Precisely!

[peacock]

107. "What happens in Las Vegas, stays in Las Vegas"

JRE after Nevada.

[MissDeeds]

42. K&R n/t

:kick:

[Mosaic]

44. Edwards will be king maker

The next president will be Hillary. Romney will win the delegate count and will lose in the general. That's my prediction, I'd rather see Barack but things are trending towards HC. It will be close for Obama and McCain but no cigar.

[OzarkDem]

46. Campaign finance reform = bad issue for Obama or Clinton

Edwards makes a very good case that if the GOP chooses McCain, he will bring up the issue of campaign finance reform, an issue most voters know hurts them and diminishes their voice in government.

[FrenchieCat]

51. Edwards taking matching funds when no one else hasn't makes him

noncompetetive....and so, he cannot beat McCain, let alone anyone else. McCain was "FOR" campaign reform, so Edwards giving McCain a lecture on Campaign finance reform would look like the student speechifying the teacher; in other words, he would look ridiculous.

[OzarkDem]

52. Matching funds is the issue

and the fact that Edwards is playing by the rules makes him the better candidate.

[FrenchieCat]

54. But Edwards is only playing by the rules out of neccessity.....

and considering that it is not a level playing field, that was actually a dumb decision.

The rules aren't that one "HAS" to take matching funds....the rules is that you can accept them if you need them. He needed them, but that doesn't make him more moral on the issue than others. His problem is that he had already spoken on the issue in this same election cycle, and at the time, he seemed to understand that playing on an uneven playing field makes on noncompetetive, not moral.

[stickernation]

63. Try the other side !

So how is OBAMA going to parry McCain's inevitable attack ? Any ideas ?

-s

[onehandle]

65. It sure gets your goat that Edwards is so popular at DU. nt

[Gloria]

129. Yup, ironically, McCain will be the agent of CHANGE! I was thinking

the same thing if Huckabee won....they'd bury the wacko stuff and his POPULIST message would carry the day over our corporate duo.

What a f*cking nightmare!@!

[OzarkDem]

47. self delete - dupe

[Phoonzang]

56. We do need him. Except it looks like Dems have decided

to throw away the Presidency for the 2nd time. I hope when we've lost again and McCain is president, no one blames it on voter fraud. We had our change to pick a nominee who could win (I think either Edwards or Obama could have done it) but chose defeat.

Who knows, maybe Romney will somehow pull it off and win the nomination, but that seems unlikely.

[stickernation]

64. Edwards 2012 !

Well if McCain is President, John will be our nominee in 2012.

-s

[Phoonzang]

80. Right now that's little consolation....but...I mean...

It's not too late right? *sigh*

[peacock]

109. Not sure we can survive that

scenario. WE need JRE now!

[Joe Bacon]

57. Yeah we need Mister 5% to face McPain!

Edwards should see the handwriting on the wall and quit.

[Catchawave]

61. Uhmmmm...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QA0MMUSJqM

In your dreams :D

[stickernation]

58. i just saw him on bob scheiffer

bob turns out to be a biased hunk of crap in that interview, who knew ? he seemed like a nice old man but his questions were so bitterly negative I just was like, "schmuck".

at any rate, JOHN EDWARDS STILL ROCKS. it made me proud to watch him, proud to support him. I'm with him all the way - this is the best candidate I could ever imagine. his energy gives ME energy and he is a lightning rod of hope that my point of view still has SOMEONE out there that's fighting on my behalf and in the name of those who America is leaving behind.

I've never been more certain that his candidacy is significant. I don't care if he wins or loses, I am with JOHN EDWARDS ALL THE WAY TO THE CONVENTION.

-s

[balantz]

72. I find nothing nice about that old dried up piece of right-wing snot.

But I'm sure someone cares about him, like maybe his mother.

[peacock]

110. I am too

[tomreedtoon]

59. Edwards, why not debate McCain...NOW????

Yes, you're not your party's candidate. You're not even liked by most of the party. So why not prove how good you could be AS the candidate? You've been trying to differentiate yourself against Clinton and Obama. Why not come out attacking McCain?

That's right. Because the Republicans are not hesitating to attack Clinton or Obama. You know they're doing it, making them the Democratic default candidates. Why not expand your standard stump speech to attack McCain's projected Hundred Year's War Against the Islamofascists?

Hell, if you do a good enough job, and get McCain to attack you back, you might attract enough attention to win a primary or two. And you would show up the Fembot and the Student Council Candidate as the weak weenies everybody knows in their hearts they are.

C'mon. At this point, with no money and only nostalgia from a few Democrats on your side, what've you got to lose?

[stickernation]

118. great idea

i think that would be awesome.

[tomreedtoon]

141. Edwards did good in Monday's debate...now he should strike!

He could come up with seven good reasons not to vote for the seven Republican candidates and tick them off, one by one. That would put him far ahead of Clinton and Obama, who are still too busy attacking each other. It would make him seem like (as one person called him) The Only Adult In The Room.

Sadly, the candidates and their staffs never listen to common-sense proposals like this one.

[johncoby2]

66. John, give it a rest.

[stickernation]

119. your avatar says it all !!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[femrap]

67. K and r

Edwards is my number one choice....ANTI-CORPORATE GREED is a message that is music to my ears.

[paparush]

88. Here! Here!

Music to my ears too!

Keep beating that populist drum John, and you will awaken a slumbering MONSTER that can rip this country back from the hands of Corporations and oil men.

[femrap]

90. Maybe with all of this talk of

Recession and massive stock market declines, John's message will get more of an audience!

[coalition_unwilling]

134. Maybe when the Mahdi army ends its cease fire in February 2008, Kucinich's

message will get more of an audience.

[ginchinchili]

71. Actually, Biden was the only candidate who could definitely beat McCain,

but Democrats are more interested in showing the world that their Party is willing to nominate a woman or an African American, even if they aren't really qualified and even if they don't win. We'll show 'em.

[Yuugal]

73. K&R

[ursi]

74. but, but, but ...Hillary's base doesn't think so!

[CanyonWren]

77. I'm for Edwards, but he is grappling

This just makes him look desperate, IMO. The polls are showing high support for Obama, unfortunately. The best thing is for Edwards to accept it and run with his head high, not to spin the situation into something that isn't true.

[MrSlayer]

78. He's right.

Too bad the voters do not recognize it. We're throwing the dice instead of going with the sure thing. It's stupid.

[2hip]

79. The goal is to capture the WH and the issue is electability

Nominating Clinton or Obama as our candidate will coalesce and energize the sexist/racist/Clinton-hating GOP base even more than in 2000 and 2004. If regaining the WH is our ultimate goal, are these truly the candidates we want to put forward?




              Edwards '08 tees!

[cali]

82. All I get from this is desperation

He's not even a strong candidate in the primaries. He'd be a weak one in the general. Glad he's been in it, hope he stays as long as he wants, but he's not going to be the nominee, and all things factored in, that's probably for the best.

[humbled_opinion]

83. I agree...

In any event I see Hillary as completely unelectable in the general she will onlt get 46 percent of the vote. Obama, depending on how he hones his message could get 49-52 but Edwards will pull 51+ consistantly...

Shame really that the DLC has not educated the voters on these important issues... SO we lose the WH again to Mcain in 08...

[FreeStateDemocrat]

84. Wrong John, it is far better to lose with a corporate controlled minority candidate.

[Orsino]

85. Any of the Dem candidates could dance all over McCain in a debate. n/t

[redqueen]

89. I wouldn't bet on that. (nt)

[Orsino]

91. I'll bet on it.

McCain's a slug, and any of the Dems could make mincemeat out of Senator "I Wish I Understood Economics."

Now, as to how quickly the MSM could get away with declaring McCain the winner...that remains to be seen.

[redqueen]

92. Yes, I know you feel confident of that

due to the words in your post which I responded to.

I disagree. Strongly.

[Orsino]

93. Any particular Dems you think McCain could defeat? n/t

[redqueen]

94. Obama.

I think he does poorly in debates.

[CanyonWren]

137. Me too

His performance in the Nevada debate was particularly grating. He's a brilliant guy, I hope that if he decides to run again he gets some solid coaching on how to debate correctly--now he just sounds like a trial lawyer appealing to a dim jury. I love him, though. He's the one setting the populist agenda with both the Dem and GOP candidates.

[CanyonWren]

138. Thought you meant Edwards does poorly in debates

woops. I think Obama does very well in debates, and Clinton too. Edwards needs help.

[redqueen]

142. Did you see this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3150181

:D

[peacock]

111. Clinton and Obama

[BigDDem]

95. So, Mr. 4% is the only one who can beat McCain?

Right! :rofl:

[redqueen]

96. Would you like for people to start calling Obama "Mr. Pander to Homophobes"?

Or Clinton "Ms. Clinton Dynasty"?

[BigDDem]

98. Would you like for people to start calling Obama "Mr. Pander to Homophobes"?

Yes.

[redqueen]

99. *sigh*

[Alizaryn]

112. As an Obama supporter I ask myself

daily whether there will be a way that Obama and Edwards can team up eventually. I respect and like Edwards and would vote for him if he won the nomination. I dream of the two of them as a team.

[Honeycombe8]

117. I like Edwards, too. But....Edwards as V.P. was tried before, unsuccessfully.

We all know that it wasn't Edwards who lost the election, but still, it doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence that he'd add to the ticket.

Add that to the fact that he voted for the IW and the Patriot Act, and I don't think there's a strong enough moral position on the major issues for him to be considered a strong V.P. candidate.

There would be others who would be better.

[stickernation]

121. not sure there will be a choice :)

and that's a good thing, because after all...

...it's Edwards' policy slate you essentially want, but you favor Obama for the actual Presidency. OK, I can live with that.

After this election, and particularly Clinton's persuasion into the "i represent change" camp, I hope we can put "experience" to bed a little bit. "Experience" creating what exactly? The current mess we're in? Obama does represent a new face to his supporters, and I hope they recognize that Edwards embodies change too - that he has, indeed, changed a lot himself, which Edwards-dissers continually bring up as a liability but I see as AWESOME, welcome to our side buddy!!! at any rate.

If you are an Obama supporter and you are determined to change Washington and undo the fractal damage of * and his mafia, I encourage you to think highly of John Edwards as a running mate for Obama.

The two of them look like a law firm together. I would like America to hire this law firm - I wouldn't mind that at all. If Edwards himself is not going to be the nominee, let me say that nobody is trying HARDER in the Obama VP field. To believe that Edwards' inevitable cache of delegates will be worthless at the convention is a stretch at this point - Hillary Clinton is going to present a formidable obstacle to Obama's needed 50%. It probably would be a good idea for Obama supporters to consider how a bridge might be built between our two candidates, as it seems to me that Edwards is the likely pick by either side as the VP nominee.

Edwards writes his own speeches. He works a crowd incredibly well. He is passionate and focused and eight years as VP in Obama's Presidency would leave him in 2016 much stronger than Gore-2000. He creates a link to the South, which we could utterly TRANSFORM. The Repugnicans there are OUT OF IDEAS - Edwards would help the Democratic Party attack the Repugnican's main base of support and over time it would WORK. (Especially given the image of racial unity coming from the Oval Office with the two of them working together.) WE COULD SHUT OUT THE REPUGNICANS FOR 16 YEARS.

Most critically, the two of them work well together. The critiques levied at Obama by Edwards are easily put to rest by Edwards himself - "I have spoken to Obama, and there is no doubt in my mind that he hates the hell out of Ronald Wilson Motherfucking Reagan too." There would be no need for underhanded tactics, and as two expert lawyers, I doubt they could be swiftboated. When on trial, even a lawyer should get a lawyer - nobody should have to represent themselves when in jeopardy. Obama, if the nominee, is signing up to be JUDGED. He needs a lawyer to fight his battles with him, and nobody represents FIGHT like JOHN EDWARDS.

Indeed, as VP Edwards would be free to focus on the domestic agenda that he articulates so well. Obama would probably excel in foreign policy; it is something to hope that a President Obama would be a magnet for the goodwill of the world, and Edwards is just the person to back him up. Not to mention, Edwards would be President Pro Tem of the Senate and be able to work with Senator Clinton to back up the Obama agenda. Finally, Edwards would help Obama counter lobbyist energy and special interest influence; these are pet issues for Edwards and he could be counted on to sound the alarm at their shenanegans.

It's not true that Edwards supporters will automatically come to Obama. It would be better for Edwards to concentrate his supporters until the convention and then throw his support behind Obama in exchange for the VP slot. I encourage Obama supporters to get excited about this. It is a can't-lose proposition - I doubt that Clinton could beat the two of them if they were to sync up. Edwards eliminates many Obama negatives and does not saddle him with "experience", which as I said doesn't count for too much in an executive (let's get the experience in the Cabinet of course... dare to dream!) And does anyone seriously believe that Obama/Edwards could lose to any combination of those Repugnican clowns ? Ha.

Look at how influential Cheney has been on *'s Presidency. A precedent has therefore been set. The VP position is powerful like never before. I think it would be a fine place for my candidate to gain strength and experience, and as such I don't see a problem with this outcome. In essence, by supporting Edwards, I am supporting a candidate that I want very close to the seat of power. He would REPRESENT me, and that would be a profound change - I would feel REPRESENTED BY THE WHITE HOUSE. Imagine that! And Obama being brown like me, well that's awesome too.

As for Clinton supporters, good luck to you and may the best campaign win ! I'm still voting for Edwards :)

[stickernation]

120. i think that is the correct spirit.

when i come across Biden or Kucinich supporters I feel the same thing, and I feel common cause with many Obama supporters.