In all this talk about '08 candidates, why so little mention of Edwards?

[Montauk6]

Not that I'm a big Edwards fan, but I find it interesting that his name doesn't seem bandied about as much, if at all. I mean, I've heard LIEBERMAN mentioned more. What's the story?

And what makes it even more fascinating is how Edwards, at the same time, doesn't seem to attract a lot of negative comments.

Give me feedback, folks.

[mattclearing]

1. Maybe because he'll have been out of office for four years?

Not much of a platform to work with.

[AllyCat]

2. DLC senator with less than a term of experience

I never felt that he said ANYTHING in his speeches. It was all positiveness and cheerleading. But I never got a sense of what he wanted to do. The whole "son of a mill worker" routine just drove me nuts: his dad was middle managment at the mill, not the blue collar, workaday guy Edwards tried to portray him to be.

[Montauk6]

5. That's an interesting point, AllyCat, but isn't Gore one of the "pioneers"

of the DLC, yet he garners a LOT of support these days. Granted, he's been scoring a lot of anti-DLC points lately; backing Dr. Dean's candidacy, big example.

[Mabus]

27. Back in 2000 the DLC had a lot more say in the DNC

b/c of McAuliffe and the Clintons. Picking Lieberman as his running mate not only helped get/keep the moderate Democratic vote but it was an appeasement to the McAuliffe-led DNC. Things have changed since then, Dean was choosen by the people of the Democratic Party (and in many ways by Gore as the standard bearer of the party) not by those controlled by the DLC.

[Montauk6]

29. But, Mabus, wouldn't Gore in and of himself have been a sufficient

appeasement?

[Mabus]

32. Gore began distanting himself from the DLC before it was cool.

Gore had turned on Clinton. Clinton didn't stump for Gore at his request. As you'll recall his campaign theme was "The people not the powerful" which was anathema to McAuliffe's courting of the corporations and selling out the Democratic party to curry favor with the DLC. As a result when the DNC/DLC's help was needed, especially during the recount, they weren't there. Gore began distanting himself from the DLC before it was cool and he paid for it. So did all of us because my own party didn't stand up for its candidate.

That's how I see it. You can disagree if you want.

[Montauk6]

35. No no, I don't dipute this but I always thought that Gore was more DLC

than Big Dog, it sounds from your explanation that it may have been the other way around. EITHER WAY, I'd always assumed Gore was currying favor with the righties by moving away from Clinton.

[Mabus]

36. I guess that's one way of looking at it but I don't agree

Has it ever occurred to you that Gore may have been offended that Clinton wasn't honest with him? And that his distancing himself from Clinton was something that Gore decided to do on his own and not as part of a political maneuver? Based on the strong ideologies the Gore has expressed in his writings, his books and as a Senator I would assume that he has strong moral values and was personally offended when Clinton lied to him about an issue that the RW tried to use to hurt the Democratic party and the divide the America people.

[AllyCat]

49. And until recently, I didn't support Gore either.

A major reason I did NOT vote for him in 2000 was because of his illegal campaign money that came from China. Lately, he's been saying some things I've thought were astute and should be pulled into the DNC way of thinking.

[nvliberal]

23. Sure, sure.

He said a LOT more than any of the other candidates put together, and that's why the Republicans feared him.

It's too bad most on DU don't see things the way the opposition can see them.

[Montauk6]

28. I wouldn't give too much credence to the op, nvliberal

For example, Nyet Gingrich called Howard Dean the MOST LIBERAL candidate ever to run for president during a fingerquote debate fingerquote with DLC Leader Al From.

[AllyCat]

50. When the primaries were in full swing, most Republicans polled

said they thought Edwards should be the Dem nominee. That told me one thing: they thought he'd be easy to beat. I know a lot of people here liked/liked him, but I am just not one of those people. That said, he would have been infinitely better than the current cabal.

[electropop]

3. Because he voted for the war.

Americans (especially Dems) won't be interested in anybody who helped get us into this mess. We are looking to run a Democrat this time.

[Montauk6]

6. Again, electropop, that's a great point, EXCEPT

Didn't Kerry and HR Clinton also vote for the war? Indeed, hasn't the latter even resisted "bring them home, NOW!" protestations?

[electropop]

11. Good point.

People are talking a lot about Clinton, and she has the same serious liability. I for one would never support pro-war or DLC people in the primary. Once that's done, however, the Dem gets my support, whoever the Dem may be.

[robbedvoter]

9. And the Patriot act - his two accomplishments he bragged about

to his home constituency.


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

MATTHEWS: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how you would have been different in president if you had been in office the last four years as president. Would you have gone to Afghanistan?

EDWARDS: I would.

MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq

[electropop]

13. Would you have pushed for Social Security destruction?

I would

Would you have hired Brownie for FEMA?

Edwards would need to act like a Democrat to get through the primaries.

[stray cat]

4. I like Edwards platform: value work over estates

I think he is busy doing his thing and building a platform if he decides to run. Given how many of the middle class will be struggling by the end of the Bush term and all the corruption and big business favoritism. I think Edwards will be in a perfect position.

[okieinpain]

7. because edwards sux's maybe.

[BlueStater]

8. I'm not quite sure what you're talking about

I've seen Edwards' name mentioned plenty of times in potential '08 candidates. And I haven't seen Lieberman mentioned once.

[Montauk6]

14. Unfortunately, BlueSlater, I don't have cites

but I'm sure I've seen more mention (and it could be an effed up POV on my part, no doubt) of Lieberman, albeit accompanied by great, snarling derision.

[wyldwolf]

20. I haven't seen Lieberman's name mentioned as an 08 candidate at all...

[eallen]

10. Edwards is a lightweight.

And his past as a personal injury lawyer will be hard for many voters to overcome. That's not entirely fair. But it's a real concern, nonetheless.

[Montauk6]

15. Of course, eallen, those that made those taunts are now finding themselves

in need of said trial lawyers: Limbaugh, Rove, DeLay, Frist, etc.

[eallen]

42. Very true! I wonder if Rush still badmouths the ACLU.

[nvliberal]

25. Sure, sure.

You don't get to be a "lightweight" by being one of the top lawyers in the United States.

Actually representing "the little guy" against the giant corporations is extremely appealing to people. That's why the corporate media tried to sack Edwards early on.

[Pithy Cherub]

38. Edwards voted for the IWR which enabled the military industrial

complex to run amok. The people Edwards is supposedly championing are the ones he grieviously let down by enabling corporations to get rich off of the tax payers..

[Skwmom]

44. You don't nee to be a heavyweight to be a successful personal injury

attorney.

[mike_c]

12. notwithstanding the defense of the DLC and the IWR vote...

...advanced above, I would not vote for John Edwards-- or support an Edwards candidacy-- for both of those reasons.

[Montauk6]

16. I'm with you there, mike_c, but I started to warm up to him when he

took the fight to Cheney in that debate; that was one of the great consolation prizes out of that entire morass known as Election '04.

[wyldwolf]

17. huh? Among registered voters, he's the #2 choice for the nomination

http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm

So this "lightweight, DLC, IWR-votin', trial lawyer" is running second to Hillary.

Yeah, I know. "2008 is a long time off" and "I won't vote for him regardless" and "name recognition.. blah, blah, blah..." But when are some of the non-DLC candidates going appear on the national radar?

[Montauk6]

19. FOX NEWS POLL, wyldwolf???

Remember, these "geniuses" (gag, snort, cough) said that * would whip Big Dog if the two were the '04 candidates. I'm just sayin...

[wyldwolf]

22. how about a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll further down the page..

..which shows essentially the same percentage?

[Montauk6]

24. BTW, and permission granted to call me an ignorant boob...

Who the HECK is Mark Warner???

[BlueStater]

31. Governor of Virginia

You ignorant boob :).

[Montauk6]

34. Speaking of which,

whatever happened to m'man Doug Wilder?

[Pithy Cherub]

37. Warner dissed Wilder when Wilder became mayor of Richmond.

:eyes:

[Montauk6]

41. self-delete

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. Because he disappeared completely as a VP nominee in 04.

[nvliberal]

26. No, it's because it's three years

before the next election.

[nvliberal]

21. They ignored him in 2004.

And that includes the media, even after Edwards became Kerry's running mate.

Don't worry: He'll be right up at the front of the pack in 2008, if he runs.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. He made himself easily ignorable.

The man smiles so much that I wonder if he has a central nervous system. I like his "Two Americas" concept, but he doesn't really execute it all that well. Plus, I think we should be focusing more on states like yours and less on the Southeast. On a Presidential level, they're a lost cause.

[Lena inRI]

33. He was nothing but PR fluff. . .

ya know, image-maker before man of substance. . .he couldn't fudge experience or cram for quality broad-based education in 2004 as he hoodwinked the DLC/DNC powers-that-be to run him as VP.

What makes you think he's any more experienced/educated for the 2008 Presidency?

Guess the Dems thought that if Rove could sell nitwitBush so easily, Edwards was as easy a sell. . .well, the images have all cracked by now. . .game over.

We, the people, need some really REAL candidates, exceptional at cleaning up all the mess that will be left by Bushworld. . .Edwards is no where near that league of leadership. . .IMHO

:thumbsdown:

[PeaceProgProsp]

39. Not even Obama is popular on DU. The more likely a candidate is to win,

the less DU rallies around that candidate, and the more you hear complete misrepresentations about the candidate. (The DLC was not a fan of Edwards, for instance -- they divereged greatly on the issue of globalization and trade.)

OK, it might be an exaggeration to say that a candidate's DU popularity is directly inverse to the candidates actual popularity and actual progressiveness, but I think it is fair to say that the candidate that is first on DU will later be last.

[Skwmom]

45. The DLC was not a fan of Edwards?

I guess it's not only the Republicans that try to rewrite history. Of course Edwards biggest fans are the Republican strategists. They'd love to run against the personal injury attorney in 08.

[1932]

48. A quick google:

The Edwards modus operandi has earned him predictable enemies, of course. His history of suing CEOs and their companies rather than coddling them has led to White House attempts to demonize him as the poster boy for America's trial lawyers, the group whose very existence is an affront to self-righteous corporate Republicans. The North Carolinian's identification as a symbol of the resistance to "tort reform" (a euphemism for restricting lawsuits against big business), as well as his populist stance against unlimited free trade, has raised the ire of the US Chamber of Commerce; its president and CEO, Thomas J. Donohue, asserts that the Edwards selection may force the staunchly Republican Chamber to abandon its "traditional neutrality" in presidential politics and endorse the GOP.

{snip}

Since 1992, when the Clinton forces captured the party and made it Republican lite, the Democrats have been mired in a soulless and futile centrism. Al Gore's rhetorically populist campaign of 2000 dragged them some distance back to their bedrock values, but his platform didn't match his rhetoric, and the Lieberman choice for vice president exposed the lingering influence of the corporate-friendly Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) over party policy and ideology. Though the selection of Edwards was a definite setback for DLC hopes, and though establishmentarians like Al Gore have embraced their inner populists and become DLC apostates, the organization's conservative members retain an inordinate amount of sway over Democratic fortunes. Throughout the extended post-primary season, current standard-bearer John Kerry has shown distressing signs of becoming their kind of guy. If so, he may prove to be merely a transitional figure on the road to a progressive future and not a major catalyst for change.

http://www.populist.com/04.15.oleary.html

Who knows who this guy is, however.

I'll keep googling.

[FrenchieCat]

40. It was one thing for politicians have voted for the IWR as skeptics.....

and feeling that their backs were to the wall, and quite another to have been so totally fooled, even as Edwards sat on the "Senate Intelligence Committee", alongside Bob Graham who voted NAY..... as to use Bush's own Geopolitical rational and Bush's own words as to why this was a good thing...

Below, Edwards makes his feelings quite clear (now he's "studying what to do about poverty--I suggest that not spending 300 billion in Iraq would have been a good start, IMO :shrug: )

Gives bush an "out" by stating on the Senate floor that this was about National Security and not Politics! Oh brother! :eyes:

As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It’s about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability — a capability that could be less than a year away.

I believe that Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.
John Edwards' statement on the floor of the senate 9/12/02 prior to the vote

The first sentence below sounds very....mmmmm....PNAC or Bushlike??

Congress must also make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East.
snip
Iraq is a grave and growing threat. Hussein has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people.

Iraq's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and it poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam Hussein's arsenal and would stop at nothing to use it against us. America must act, and Congress must make clear to Hussein that he faces a united nation.
http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_09/alia/a2091910.htm
John Edwards Op Ed in the WAPO dated 9/17/02

PS: Please note, that the last sentence does not read "United Nations"...but "a united nation", which would have been the US of A. :patriot:

[Awsi Dooger]

43. Because our handicapping royally sucks, that's why

Seems like I'm emphasizing that in thread after thread, like nominating Brown over Hackett and insisting on masochistic negative ads.

Edwards had by far the best chance to oust an incumbent in 2004. A few of us here realized that as early as two years prior, long before the strategic and safe (i.e. ignorant) annointment of Kerry as most electable began to steamroll.

It's too early to properly handicap 2008. But Edwards is a rare talent and anyone who doesn't think his message and themes would generate likeability and crossover support is not exactly someone I want picking stocks or sporting events for me.

[1932]

46. Hey, what's your take on Brown v Hacket, BTW?

I do agree with your impression of DU. For people who love politics enough to spend their spare time blogging about it, it's interesting that more people don't pick up on lessons that could be learned from the most basic of observations -- and these are lessons that keep repeating themselves over and over again.

I think there's probably a very active, well-funded, organized, agressive industry that makes sure people don't recognize the obvious lessons of politics and campaigns, and not enough people are willing to ask questions, think criticially and recognize that fact, and they would rather jerk their knee in response to every stimulus, even when the doctor swinging that hammer is obviously not on their sides.

[BootinUp]

47. Edwards

won't even be in the picture in '08. Place your bets.

[Vox_Reason]

51. I wouldn't take that bet.

You're underestimating John Edwards. There's no question in my mind that he will be in the 2008 mix.

I'd like to see a Gore/Clark ticket, but I have a lot of time for John Edwards. What he's doing right now at UNC with his poverty center is right on target, and he has a lot more name recognition now than he did in the runup to 2004.

[NCarolinawoman]

52. Doesn't his stance on the war and his lack

of attention to the victims of Hurricane Isabel in Eastern N.C. bother you?

I certainly voted for him against that scoundrel Fairclothe; but I wish JE had waited to run for President after he had gotten a full first term as Senator under his belt. He never told us of his intentions. I just started seeing him showing up in Iowa and NH, and I thought, "What's going on here?"

I also got ticked off when he didn't show up to vote against off-shore oil drilling. We have such a beautiful coastline, and we don't need the oil companies there. I really wanted him to fight that, even if the odds were against a win.

[AllyCat]

53. Welcome to DU NC woman...and I agree...

where was he in the vote against overtime pay for American workers? Where was JE in the vote against the first $87 billion for Iraq? Where was he for the Medicare spending bill....

"Not Voting" according to public Congressional websites as he was too busy being out on the road stumping. He should have stayed and done his job, or at least shown up for some important votes where we really needed a progressive voice...unless he wasn't progressive...yeah, that could be.