John Edwards is back—with a retooled résumé and a lot of love for Iowans

[IDemo]

By Jonathan Darman
Newsweek

July 17, 2006 issue - It's friday night in iowa and an old politician is trying some new tricks. John Edwards is back—back, with the familiar deep drawl, dark tan and honeyed hair. Gone, though, are the old catchphrases—"two Americas" and "hope is on the way." In their place: a long meditation on America's moral obligation to confront the plight of its poor. "Thirty-seven million of our people, worried about feeding and clothing their children," he said to his audience. "Aren't we better than that?" It's not the stuff of great sound bites, but it's part of Edwards's new political plan: a presidential campaign with fighting poverty as a central plank. It's a risky strategy in today's Democratic Party—Edwards may be the most viable national candidate since Bobby Kennedy to tie his destiny to a fight for the destitute. "Yeah, I heard all that stuff: 'Who cares?' or 'It's a dead end'," Edwards tells NEWSWEEK. "Well, it's what I want to do."

Rebel outsider is an odd role for the Democratic Party's most recent vice presidential candidate to play. Yet Edwards's 2008 presidential campaign—still hypothetical but proceeding at high speed—is all about breaking with the established script. He's largely opted out of the buzz primary—leaving candidates like former Virginia governor Mark Warner and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh to convince Beltway insiders and media types that they're the best alternatives to front runner Hillary Clinton. Instead, he's using the name recognition he built up in '04 and hitting the campaign trail early and often—quietly raising $6.5 million in 105 appearances for Democrats running in 2006.

His under-the-radar strategy is paying off, in Iowa at least. A June Des Moines Register poll of likely Democratic caucus-goers had Edwards leading a pack of potential presidential candidates that included other widely known names like Clinton, 2004 ticketmate John Kerry and even Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack. Edwards is certainly not the only candidate hustling in corn-country—Warner and Bayh visited within days of his most recent visit—but with 10 trips to the state since the beginning of 2005, he's logged more time there than any candidate in either party. This time, they're counting on Iowa, which brought John Kerry's candidacy back from the dead in 2004, to propel them into New Hampshire, and beyond. To win, Edwards must leverage his 2004 visibility, shake off the disappointment many Democrats felt at the campaign and emerge from Kerry's shadow as a worthy candidate in his own right.

Edwards talks about 2004 like it was a lifetime ago. His wife, Elizabeth, was diagnosed with breast cancer the day after the election. "We just threw ourselves into it," he recalls. "I went with Elizabeth to every chemo test." The twin traumas—losing a national election and watching a spouse suffer—were an enormous emotional load. But Elizabeth's illness helped Edwards keep the election loss in perspective. "The adjustment wasn't that hard," he says, "because I was so focused on getting her well."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13773998/site/newsweek/

[acmavm]

1. Edwards would make a great candidate. Not my first choice, but he

sure would be better than 'the person that shalt not be mentioned so as not to stir up her supporters'.

[Warpy]

2. He is a southerner but he remembers where he came from

and that wasn't prep school in New England and the S&B frat at Yale. He remembers what it's like to be told "no, honey, we can't afford it."

His "two Americas" rhetoric was spot on, though. It's a shame he's discarded it. He's risking being called a poverty pimp instead of working for a country full of working people who have been hammered by conservative economic stupidity for 3 decades.

[pooja]

5. I think the numbers show that more people and more

families are beginning to struggle... There are a lot of us out there that are one scary traumatic accident that would send us to the hospital and bankrupt our families. I don't think that anyone who is on the "lower middle class" that isn't on the verge of becoming poor. And the poor are just being pushed aside. Their housing is being swooped up by greedy condo deals... Its a sad state of afairs. I think he can reach people... but I don't know if he can change them.

[OzarkDem]

15. Very true

and the things that are wrong with our country and its future are causing it to happen - weak economy, high energy prices, lack of health care coverage, stagnant wages. Fix all these things and our country will improve.

[1932]

10. It's the same message.

He's rolling out his message and this is phase two.

Hopefully the last phase will be having the ideas behind this message implemented as policy.

[karynnj]

29. I assume the NE candidate you point to was told

"no, honey, we can't afford it." Probably just as often - his family was much poorer than that of most of the kids he went to school with. Edwards' family was poorer, but was better off than many people he went to school with. He did have it harder going through school and law school than Kerry, who had his schooling paid for by a rich aunt. Edwards then became a multi millionaire, why Kerry used his law degree as a prosceutor and went into public service. (Kerry did spend a few years as a highly successful lawyer.)

Edwards' committment to speaking about poverty is great - but is contrary to Newsweek - not an unusual Democratic issue. As you seem to think Kerry hasn't spoke of this, here is part of an insightful Senate speech from Oct 6, 1993 - a decade before the 2 America speech.

"In many ways, we are witnessing the most rapid change in the workplace in this country since the postwar era began. For a majority of working Americans, the changes are utterly at odds with the expectations they nurtured growing up.

Millions of Americans grew up feeling they had a kind of implied contract with their country, a contract for the American dream. If you applied yourself, got an education, went to work, and worked hard, then you had a reasonable shot at an income, a home, time for family, and a graceful retirement.

Today, those comfortable assumptions have been shattered by the realization that no job is safe, no future assured. And many Americans simply feel betrayed.

To this day I'm not sure that official Washington fully comprehends what has happened to working America in the last 20 years, a period when the incomes of the majority declined in real terms.

In the decade following 1953, the typical male worker, head of his household, aged 40 to 50, saw his real income grow 36 percent. The 40-something workers from 1963 to 1973 saw their incomes grow 25 percent. The 40-something workers from 1973 to 1983 saw their incomes decline, by 14 percent, and reliable estimates indicate that the period of 1983 to 1993 will show a similar decline.

From 1969 to 1989 average weekly earnings in this country declined from $387 to $335. No wonder then, that millions of women entered the work force, not simply because the opportunity opened for the first time. They had no choice. More and more families needed two incomes to support a family, where one had once been enough.

It began to be insufficient to have two incomes in the family. By 1989 the number of people working at more than one job hit a record high. And then even this was not enough to maintain living standards. Family income growth simply slowed down. Between 1979 and 1989 it grew more slowly than at any period since World War II. In 1989 the median family income was only $1,528 greater than it had been 10 years earlier. In prior decades real family income would increase by that same amount every 22 months. When the recession began in 1989, the average family's inflation-adjusted income fell 4.4 percent, a $1,640 drop, or more than the entire gain from the eighties.

Younger people now make less money at the beginning of their careers, and can expect their incomes to grow more slowly than their parents'. Families headed by persons aged 25 to 34 in 1989 had incomes $1,715 less than their counterparts did 10 years earlier, in 1979. Evidence continues to suggest that persons born after 1945 simply will not achieve the same incomes in middle-age that their parents achieved.

Thus, Mr. President, it is a treadmill world for millions of Americans. They work hard, they spend less time with their families, but their incomes don't go up. The more their incomes stagnate, the more they work. The more they work, the more they leave the kids alone, and the more they need child care. The more they need child care, the more they need to work.

Why are we surprised at the statistics on the hours children spend in front of the television; about illiteracy rates; about teenage crime and pregnancy? All the adults are working and too many kids are raising themselves.

Of course, there is another story to be found in the numbers. Not everyone is suffering from a declining income. Those at the top of the income scale are seeing their incomes increase, and as a result income inequality in this Nation is growing dramatically. Overall, the 30 percent of our people at the top of the income scale have secured more and more, while the bottom 70 percent have been losing. The richest 1 percent saw their incomes grow 62 percent during the 1980's, capturing a full 53 percent of the total income growth among all families in the entire economy. This represents a dramatic reversal of what had been a post-war trend toward equality in this country. It also means that the less well-off in our society--the same Americans who lost out in the Reagan tax revolution--are the ones being hurt by changes in the economy.

You might say that we long ago left the world of Ward and June Clever. We have entered the world of Roseanne and Dan, and the yuppies from `L.A. Law' working downtown.

Many, many commentators have explained how the assumptions from that long-ago world will cripple us if we do not have the courage to look at today's economy with a clear eye.

[sandrakae]

3. I would rather have someone that would make a great President.

I don't see how a one term Senator can be qualified to be president. He is only one term because he lost support in his home state and knew he would not be re-elected. I am also sick and tired of this attitude that this country can only be run by BUBBAS from the south. This country was founded in the north. There is no reason why we cannot have a well spoken intelligent person running it. This crap about not knowing how to speak to people is a bunch of bull. I hear this every time a candidate can complete a sentence correctly.

[acmavm]

6. Bubbas from the South? Founded in the North?

I think I'll pass on taking any advice from you.

[Clark2008]

67. I'm from the South and I don't think he'd fly

In fact, I know he won't

This isn't 1992.

Gots to have more Foreign Policy creds to win over disgruntled Repugs.

[PurityOfEssence]

92. Clarkies against Edwards

Man, it gets tiresome. Lauding threads for your champion are generally left alone, but a thread that's pro-Edwards draws endless fire from the Clark supporters.

Be happy: no other potential candidate enjoys as much support on this board than Clark. Somehow, this isn't enough; Edwards must be slagged continuously.

Edwards had the gall to not withdraw from the race when Clark rode in on his knightly charger, and this rankles the extremists within the Clark camp to no end. Even deliberate and grotesque lying (about the Bush tax cuts) on Clark's part doesn't seem to sway the stalwarts.

More than anything else, the hero-worship smacks of right-wing and imperial conceits.

There have been many less Clark-lauding threads started on this board in the last few months, but the beat goes on. Face it: he whipped your boy on his home turf and did it without anywhere comparable resources. His effrontery to not drop when the great white knight rode in at a pivotal moment of the primary season makes the extremists in the Clark camp rage to no end.

The usual suspects are here, and they can't help themselves from raining on Johnny's parade. Regardless of how many pro-Clark threads that get to gush their mutual love with no annoyance, pro-Edwards threads are consistently attacked by the more virulent Clark supporters. If the tactics and rhetoric of these more vocal Clark supporters didn't generally reek of ridicule and bullying, I wouldn't take such issue, and I wouldn't remind you of their inherent conservative nature. Conservatives hate plurality and use all tactics at hand to dismiss and crush dissent. Sound familiar?

Although Clark came around late in life to espouse beliefs that are consistent with cosmopolitan folks bent on fairness, his history of supporting extreme conservatism is well documented, his track record as a diplomat is spotty and his unscrupulousness is undeniable.

Even given his lying and maneuvering, I like Clark much more than the most combative of his supporters. Those are already beseeching the moderators to have this post scrubbed as they have so many times before.

Clark gets his days in the sun on this board; let Edwards get such a fair forum.

You are not among the worst, but many of those are to be found down-thread. Perhaps you don't know the ongoing dynamic. Perhaps you do. Regardless, the pattern is consistent and anti-pluralist.

[Warpy]

7. He's no Bubba

He was one of the sharpest civil trial lawyers out there and he always managed to fight on the right side.

Dismissing educated southerners is a big mistake. Yes, they tend to be a little less progressive in the south than they are in the rest of the country (minus the obvious moron majority states), but that doesn't mean they can't be fine presidents.

The southerners you have to watch out for are the ones who went for the easy votes, the bigot votes.

[Clark2008]

68. Really?

We're less progressive. Guess you've never heard of the Southern Poverty Law Center, HONEY.

Geesch.

[DemDogs]

75. And I figure I know who Morris Dees would support

(and it ain't your guy, Clarkie)

[AmericanDream]

8. What a load of crap...

Edwards, one of the nation's top lawyers, the guy who was the youngest guy in the country (at the age of 37) to become the member of the inner circle of advocates (an organization of top trial lawyers in the country who only include lawyers who have won at least 50 million-dollar cases), the guy who used to give 2 hour closing statements without notes .... is a "bubba?" Edwards is one of the most articulate democrats in the country today... so if you want a "well spoken, intelligent" guy, then you shouldn't have a problem with Edwards. But you are just as bad as those who make southern roots a prerequisite for any effective candidate.

[patricia92243]

9. I thought the first English child was born in NC - we have a play called

"The Lost Colony" about it. I thought it was the first settlement. I could be wrong. I'm not much on history.

[Inspired]

12. This man WILL be a great President

Bubbas? Clinton was a Rhodes scholar for Christ's sake.

Tell Valeria Lackey that John Edwards isn't anything more than a 'bubba'. She'll tell you this man helped win back her future.

I'll take this one term Senator over any pandering multiple term Senator out there. Your theory that he would have lost if he ran for re-election is debatable.

Take it from this Iowan...John Edwards will win the Iowa caucus and there is a very good chance he will go on to win the nomination.

Game on.

[blm]

13. What pandering multiple-term senator? McCain?

.

[Spider Jerusalem]

You're obviously very ignorant of American history.

First permanent English settlement in North America was established in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607 (13 years before those Separatists set sail aboard the Mayflower). And the Declaration of Independence may have been signed in Philadelphia, but it was written by Thomas Jefferson, a Virginian; another Virginian, James Madison, is called, with some justification, 'Father of the Constitution', and yet another Virginian, George Mason, is known as 'Father of the Bill of Rights'....quite obviously, the contributions of the South to the founding of America are far greater than you're willing to give credit for (oh, and George Washington was from Virginia, too, in case you didn't know).

The Civil War ended 140 years ago...get the fuck over your apparent hatred of the South. You're no better than some redneck complaining about 'Yankees'.

[Sapphire Blue]

38. He's my first choice... and I ask everyone to consider voting for him...

John Edwards: "We can end poverty in the United States within 30 years.": http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1520734

[Clark2008]

69. Considered him the first time around

Knew he wouldn't fly.

Too wishy. Too washy. Too pretty.

Ain't a gonna happen.

[DemDogs]

76. My first choice, too. And my second choice, and third.

I am happy to support him. I am excited to support someone so inspiring who speaks from the heart. I am relieved to support someone I know can actually win but is not a compromise candidate.

[PaDem]

89. I would indeed support him if he could win..............

just too much working against him.

[Skink]

4. The Nation we live in fighting porverty a losing strategy.

:argh: :wtf:

[1932]

11. Fighting for what you really believe in is a winning strategy

[NCarolinawoman]

14. Why didn't he believe in fighting for the poor when he was my senator?

I remember very clearly his campaining for his Senate seat and saying, "I will rememember each and every one of you". It turned out to be a bunch of bull. Some of my relatives told me that he said the same thing when he was running in the primaries in South Carolina.

PLease tell me why John Edwards doesn't connect pre-emptive war with poverty? Yes, I know he apologized for his IWR vote, but then he goes over to Israel on an Israeli lobbyist sponsored trip, and says he would not rule out a pre-emptive strike on Iran. He says this while the Generals in the Pentagon are trying to knock some sense into "W' by warning "W" that a pre-emptive strike would be a terrible mistake.

[1932]

19. A couple weeks ago I met someone who worked in his Senate office

He was a financial aid student in college, latino, had no connections at all with Edwards (his father wasn't a rich NC constituent or a friend of a friend), and he got a job on the senate staff because "Edwards was really committed to having a staff that reflected his belief that everyone should have a chance, regardless of where they started." He said that Edwards was also really committed to those ideas in legislating too, and in representing his constituents.

Do you have more information about the Israeli trip? I'd like to see those quotes.

[NCarolinawoman]

54. Here is a link to the Israeli story.

http;//www.newsobserver.com/659/story/449646.html

I first read the print story in THE NEWS AND OBSERVER, which is the major newspaper serving central and Eastern N.C. The original story had more information....the online story looks like it has been streamlined and paired down. Scroll down past the Mary Easley story until you get down to Christensen's stuff. Then scroll a bit further down.

What is no longer included in this story is that Edwards's trip was sponsored by the sister organization of AIPAC. Edwards gave a speech before that group last spring; along with Hilary, Bayh, and Warner. While in Israel, he met with the Prime-minister as well of the leader of the Likuid party.

I am very uncomfortable with someone who is lacking in foreign policy experience talking about attacking Iran while being sponsored by an Israeli Lobbying group. Particulary when that someone (Edwards) co-sponsored the IWR with Lieberman.

As far as what he has done for the poor; in the past I have listed in detail here at DU what he did NOT do for the poor in North Carolina. Choosing to fly to a fundraiser in California, instead of visiting one of the poorest sections of the state after it is devastated by a hurricane, is just ONE of the reasons I find him disingenuos.

[1932]

65. That story is a little light on indictable facts, but I'm willing to hear

more. Let me know if you ever chose to develop this argument.

As for attending a fundraiser...that's something you can say about any politican. Every time any candidate attends a fundraiser they could be visiting poor communities. But we know they have to attend fundraisers.

[DemDogs]

77. What a crock. Edwards absolutely did visit hurricane-hit areas

He visited several North Carolina eastern counties after the hurricanes devastated that region. He started a natural disaster bipartisan coalition in the Senate. He got funding for rebuilding the area.

Plus he supported rural health care initiatives in North Carolina that reached low income Tar Heels. He was a huge supporter of Title I funding for schools serving low income populations. He was the sole reason a compromise was worked out on the Financial Services bill his first year in office that made sure that CDBG money would continue to be available.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You think that you can make these brought assertions and that no one here will know any better and just trust you because you have NC in your screen name. Well, you don't know jack.

On Israel, you are also misleading people about the Rob Christensen article by suggesting that it used to say something that the online version doesn't say. Oh, sure. After someone called you on it, the N&O took it on themselves to edit the online version of the article. Who are you kidding? And Edwards has been to Israel twice, met with leaders on all fronts both times. He has also met with Jordanian and Egyptian leaders.

[DemDogs]

78. What a crock. Edwards absolutely did visit hurricane-hit areas

He visited several North Carolina eastern counties after the hurricanes devastated that region. He started a natural disaster bipartisan coalition in the Senate. He got funding for rebuilding the area.

Plus he supported rural health care initiatives in North Carolina that reached low income Tar Heels. He was a huge supporter of Title I funding for schools serving low income populations. He was the sole reason a compromise was worked out on the Financial Services bill his first year in office that made sure that CDBG money would continue to be available.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You think that you can make these brought assertions and that no one here will know any better and just trust you because you have NC in your screen name. Well, you don't know jack.

On Israel, you are also misleading people about the Rob Christensen article by suggesting that it used to say something that the online version doesn't say. Oh, sure. After someone called you on it, the N&O took it on themselves to edit the online version of the article. Who are you kidding? And Edwards has been to Israel twice, met with leaders on all fronts both times. He has also met with Jordanian and Egyptian leaders.

[1932]

86. Thanks for that post.

[Clark2008]

70. I remember him dissing the vast Muslim population after 911

They asked to meet with him. They BEGGED to meet with him - they wanted him to set the record straight about the vast majority of Muslims and Arabs in the country.

He stiffed them.

He will NEVER get my vote.

[DemDogs]

79. Another lie. Clarkies have no moral fiber when it comes to Edwards

Every single word except your last sentence is a lie. (I do believe you will not vote for him because Clarkies have always been bitter about Edwards, I suppose.)

No one asked to meet with him. No one begged to meet with him. He didn't have to have the record set straight about Arabs and Muslims. He understood that the war was with radical jihadist Islamist extremists, not with the Arab world.

He didn't stiff anyone. What's more, he met with people like Zogby, a voice for the Arab community in the US, in a productive conversation.

If you don't like Edwards, don't like him. But you are no better than Rove if you are willing to make things up about someone you don't like.

[1932]

87. I'm still waiting for Clark2008 to give me the page number in Pelosi's

daughter's (insane, bitchy, anti-Democrat and nasty) book whch she swore would support something she claimed Edwards did.

Even though the book's available on-line and it's easy enough to search it that way, I'm still waiting.

[DemDogs]

90. Edwards is Mr. Clean

No trading pistols with war criminals here. It is just Clark2008's dream that it be so. This guy was vetted by two presidential nominees and had the worst Helms-Faircloth opposition people all over him in the Senate race. If it was there, you wouldn't have to read it (or, as it turns out, not read it) in somebody's second cousin's footnotes.

[tkmorris]

94. Back that up

I am an Edwards supporter but if you can document things that cause you discomfort with them man, like this claim, I would like to see them.

[imlost]

16. Doesn't resonate with me. Sorry!

I'll take him over any republican any day.
But, he's not my top choice. I don't agree with his IWR sponsorship.
I'm sorry but he is no Bobby Kennedy.

His wife is an amazing women!

[AmericanDream]

17. what does he have to do?

He said the his vote was wrong, he takes full responsiblity for it, and is asking for withdrawl of troops.... you are right that he is no bobby kennedy, in many ways, he is better... Edwards has actually done stuff for the poor (unlike bobby, who, though genuine and passionate about the issue, before running, didn't do anything for the poor)... he was on the board of an organization called the Urban Ministries which helps the homeless and the poor and this was before he ever got into politics.

And since when did his wife become a multiple "women."

He is an amazing man, regarless of whether you think he should be president or not!

[imlost]

21. Like I said he isn't my top choice.

"What does he have to do?"
Maybe you should ask the families of dead soldiers and dead civilians in Iraq what he should!
It's not so simple. He did what he did and now he has apologized. Great for him. I hope his consciuos is clear.
It's not enough for me.

Edwards does things when he wants to be elected for something. Plain and simple!

I grew up in Easter Hill, Richmond Ca. A very poor and dangerous area. He doesn't speak for me.
I commend him for doing something even if it's for the wrong reasons(because he wants to run for president).

I meant "woman"! Is that better for you!

[GreenArrow]

63. I percieve that you

understand John Edwards.

A pure political panderer, self-promoter, opportunist and thoroughgoing phony, Edwards is about the last candidate I'd ever vote for. I'd vote for Lieberman before Edwards, despicable though he is, since JL is much less disengenous about who he is and what he really believes in.

[DemDogs]

80. Edwards worked on poverty years before politics

He was working on homelessness issues in North Carolina. He paid for a children's library in a small rural town. Listen, he was always one of the good guys.

Maybe he hasn't addressed Easter Hill by name, but if you look at what he is saying you might find that he speaks for at least some of the same things you care about.

[Iowa]

35. Nope, that doesn't cut it...

"what does he have to do? He said the his vote was wrong, he takes full responsibility for it..."

We all knew that it would be a disaster BEFORE the vote. Many of us were out in the street protesting BEFORE the vote, only to be drowned out by all the "support out troops" counter protesters whose numbers dwarfed ours. The war was driven by a mob, and he made a cold, calculated, political decision to go along with the mob.

There are no free passes on IWR, and a belated admission of error after the tides were clearly turning doesn't even begin to atone for the vote. Anyone with a brain and functioning conscience would have opposed it at the time, and those who went along for personal gain have a very, very long way to go to redeem themselves from the horror they unleashed. He hasn't even begun to take full responsibility for what he helped to do. Not even close.

[GreenArrow]

64. right on!

:thumbsup:

The guy has a lot of nerve even thinking about running after that vote and his accompanying sales pitch in favor of it.

[DemPopulist]

51. I could point out

That Bobby Kennedy was wrong about the Vietnam war before he was right.

[Catchawave]

18. Great article, especially this part:

"...may be the most viable national candidate since Bobby Kennedy"

Wow ! He's certainly has the rock star appeal that RFK had :loveya:

[Clark2008]

71. I no more want to vote for a rock star for president than I do a

schmoe half the country would think would be cool to have a beer with.

:puke:

[AirAmFan]

20. He's my first choice. It's ESSENTIAL to run a Southern populist in 2008,

and so far I see no one else who comes close to Edwards's appeal. He's Kennedyesque and sincere. He made his money fighting corporate evildoers. If Kerry had adopted Edwards's "Two Americas" theme from the '04 primaries, it's likely Kerry and Edwards would be in office now.

It's simple arithmetic. Edwards doesn't lose African-American and Hispanic support, and he potentially gains the kind of progressive white Southerners who put Clinton and Carter into office. Remember, the last Democrat to win the Presidency with a majority of the white vote was Lyndon Johnson in 1964, and the last Democratic President from outside the South (Kennedy excepted) was Truman (who came from a border state with strong Dixie leanings).

[blm]

23. Kerry received more votes than any candidate in American history - they'd

be IN the WH if Terry MacAuliffe had believed in machine fraud and worked to secure the voting machines and countered GOP efforts to duppress and purge Dem voters throughout the 4 years he was in charge.

GOPs worked for four years to rig the vote - it was Terry Mac's job to counter those efforts. Kerry and Edwards got STUCK with the collapsed system and Dem infrastructure that MacAuliffe and Clinton were responsible for from 2001 thru 2005.

[AirAmFan]

27. And Gore, a Tennesseean, actually DID win both the popular and electoral

votes in 2000.

Republicans are likely to keep control of most Governorships and Statehouses in the Red State South for the foreseeable future. That gives them the power to manipulate the vote, before, during, and after Election Day. That's a given. But why make it easier for them by running a non-Southerner? Republicans dominated Presidential elections in the South decades before the advent of electronic voting.

Thanks to the wimp-outs of Jimmy Carter on the Ford-Carter commission, and Chris Dodd on the Help Ameirica Vote Act conference, there are no national standards for elections and for voting equipment. Carter and Dodd were warned about the situation that has developed, but we're here now. We've got an even steeper hill to climb in the South because our Democratic leaders sold out on voting standards. Candidates like Edwards stand a better chance of climbing that hill than ther rivals from outside the South, unless one of those rivals is another John Kennedy, a politician for the ages.

[blm]

33. There's no such thing as having a lead that overcomes rigging -

that's a line of BS. No matter HOW many votes are cast for a Dem, the percentage of FLIPPED votes doesn't change, it just means more votes are flipped.

This whole thing about a southerner is pure fantasy cooked up to explain why Dems have lost and to DISTRACT from the real problems. Any Dem could win if the media and the voting machines weren't controlled by the corporate allies of the GOP.

[calico1]

28. I don't know about that.

We ran a Northern, New England "elitist" last time and he did just fine, including among Southern Democrats. I think the idea that the candidate "must" be from the South is inaccurate. Its just that the better candidates we have had in the past have happened to be from the South. Its not just being from the South that made them good. I like John Edwards because of his positions and his charcter. That he is from the South is a minor detail to me.

[AirAmFan]

31. Just expressing my opinion (backed up by overwhelming data!)

(smile)

[blm]

34. Overwhelming data from when? From the last race with an impartial media?

From the last race without rigged machines?

[AirAmFan]

47. Data from election RESULTS. Think back to past Democratic Presidents

people now alive have voted for, and where they came from:

1. Clinton: AR
2. Carter: GA
3. Johnson: TX
4. Kennedy: MA

That's 3 to 1 odds for a successful Democratic candidate to come from the South. And the exception is the kind of politician that comes around only once in a generation. Which possible '08 candidate from outside the South do you think is another John F. Kennedy? Among all the possibilities I can think of, Southerner John Edwards is by far the most Kennedyesque.

[blm]

50. ALL were long BEFORE the GOP controlled most media and voting machines

If your plan is to ignore that the GOP now controls most of our broadcast media AND most of the electronic voting machines and merely replace the top of the ticket with a southern Dem, then you've lost already.

[Awsi Dooger]

58. Ha!

Multiple whiny irrelevant defeatist posts about electronic voting machines. And YOU are telling someone they've lost already?

[blm]

61. Did you hear Bill Clinton now believes RFKs article and that Ohio was

stolen? I guess he's being a whiny defeatist, too.

You don't GET why I post about it? So it DOESN'T HAPPEN TO THE NEXT CANDIDATE, WHOEVER IT IS.

If YOUR plan is to not counter vote suppression and vote stealing since it wasn't a problem in 2004, then you HAVE LOST ALREADY, and I hope you are not advising ANY Democratic candidate.

[CarolNYC]

62. So, you don't think...

electronic voting machines are a problem we should worry or care about? Oh boy.... :eyes:

I guess you also think there's no problem with the media....

[Clark2008]

74. Bahahahahahahaha!

Edwards couldn't hold Kennedy's reading glasses. Oh, come ON, now!

[DemDogs]

81. Exactly right. It is about character not accent n/t

[karynnj]

32. Some of those he fought as a lawyer were corporations,

many were doctors.

[TayTay]

36. And if Edwards runs in the General Election

against a McCain, he could lose, by the last poll, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut and New York.

I hope his Southern populism can make up for those states. These are all states that have elected Republicans to statewide office recently and should not be taken for granted. Southern populism doesn't play well everywhere.

[DemPopulist]

42. Show me those polls

And show me the candidate that beats McCain in those states.

The polls I've seen show Edwards does the best against McCain of any of the Dem candidates.

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

[FrenchieCat]

46. I'm not sure which part of the link you are looking at.......?

But, I have two comments:

1. Edwards doesn't beat McCain.
2. Not all Dem Candidates are put up against McCain in these polls (in Fact, Wes Clark isn't listed in any of those polls from that link).

Here's what I see.......John Edwards losing to both Giuliani and McCain...

Both of these GOP men have Foreign Policy and National Security Experience...which is why, both beat Edwards.

Edwards populist message is not enough to win, in this day and age.....as Americans are looking for a strong leader (not one that gets it way wrong before getting it right).

Remember it ain't about how close one comes to winning....cause in this game, winner takes all!


Rudy Giuliani (R)
John Edwards (D)
Unsure

2/13-15/06
47
44
9

10/12-13 & 17/05
48
43
9

4/18-21/05
45
48
7

2/14-16/05
49
43
8


John McCain (R)
John Edwards (D)
Unsure
2/13-15/06
47
41
12

10/12-13 & 17/05
49
41
10

4/18-21/05
46
43
11

2/14-16/05
51
39
10

[DemPopulist]

49. I didn't say Edwards was currently beating McCain

But he clearly does the best in that set of polls, and thus has potential to move up. I could cite his very strong favorability/unfavorability ratio too.

Frankly, I don't think Clark would poll any better, not because he isn't a strong candidate (though I have a hard time seeing how he gets the nomination) but because he simply isn't as well-known as the other candidates tested. Look at Warner's numbers in the Zogby polls there for a comparison.

Also, I wouldn't say that Guiliani and McCain are popular because of their national security bona fides. What are Guiliani's "national security" credentials besides being mayor on 9/11? They're popular because the media has had its lips pressed to their asses for most of the past six years.

I'm not a certified Edwards supporter, btw. I'd support Gore if he runs. But I think Edwards is one of the strongest candidates we could nominate.

[FrenchieCat]

55. Maybe you are right, maybe Edwards is "strong"....but that doesn't

answer why he co-sponsored the IWR Lieberman Bill. No one answers that question when they talk about how "great" Edwards is.

I don't understand why and who are those who would reward Edwards, who certainly did support the Iraq War until "oh so recently".....with the presidency.

The President I want is a leader who wouldn't make that big of a mistake on an issue as important as War and Peace....and only see the error of his ways once the polls had turned.

What makes him so "strong" in your eyes? Is it that he is now working the "poverty" issue.....after supporting a war that has cost billions from our budget and so many lives?

Sorry, I just will never get this love for Edwards so many have. I don't see him as many do. I don't see any leadership qualities in him, at all.

Timing is everything, and when it came time to stand strong and against the prevailing winds of irrationality and to stand with reason, John Edwards just wasn't there. I don't reward that kind of lack of judgement......no matter that he became "sorry" three years later. Don't care how cute, or how good his speech is, or how popular his wife seems to be. I continue to be unimpressed.

[Clark2008]

73. I don't either, considering he was DLC

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/edwards/edw073002sp.html

[DemDogs]

82. Edwards versus Guiliani! That's a slam dunk.

If you think Guiliani can survive campaign level scrutiny, then someone is spiking your lemonade.

[Awsi Dooger]

59. Head to head polls don't matter in the slightest right now

It's all name recognition and public perception.

This is what matters: both sides automatically have a minimum of 45-46% locked for 2008. So, among the remaining 8-10%, what are the top criteria for wooing them and who can do it? Some will argue it's national security. IMO that's ignorant bunk. A nominee of a major party is automatically granted a huge benefit of a doubt by the American people. You only lose that via not being able to cope with the GOP onslaught, or self-implosion.

An upbeat charismatic candidate has a huge edge toward that elusive swing vote. And teflon against personal attacks, or lightweight charges. Edwards can deflect more with a smile and memorable short sound bite than a John Kerry can manage with 500 of his rambling sentences. I host debate watching parties every presidential cycle and you'd be shocked how infrequently the people in my living room focus on specific issues as opposed to how they feel about the candidate. Many studies have concluded that people are actually reluctant to tell public surveys how much stock they put in personality and likeability when choosing a politician. They think it sounds better to list a high profile issue as their number one priority.

IMO charisma and likeability are more vital in trying to oust an incumbent, and not quite as important in an open race. That's partially why I supported Edwards in 2004 but prefer Warner in '08. If Edwards could win his home state, or had an electoral advantage somewhere else that Warner does not, it might be a different story.

[saltpoint]

66. If it turns out to be John Edwards heading our ticket in 08 he will

win against any Republican.

Edwards beats McCain, Allen, Brownback, Giuliani, Frist, Barbour, Romney, Hagel, Huckabee, Pataki, and anyone else I've left out of the potential GOP field.

I think a lot of our folks beat every one of their folks, if by varying margins.

[FrenchieCat]

72. The world is exploding all around us, and you think we need

1992's strategy in 2008?

What-E-ver! :eyes:

[DemDogs]

83. 1992 is not Edwards

He has rejected the Clinton triangulation. Read the National Press Club speech he gave a few weeks ago.

[Reckon]

22. Watch this great interview with Edwards

This guy has some backbone!

VIDEO:
http://bradblog.com/video/flvplayer/FlvPlayer.html?file=http://www.ameratsu.com/media/vid/abc/abc_tw_john_edwards_slams_bush_060521b_320x240.flv&width=640&height=480%22&OrigWidth=320&OrigHeight=240

Edit: Edwards calls Bu$h worst president of his life time.

[FrenchieCat]

24. As long as we are involved in turbulent relations with most countries

throughout the world, John Edwards will be too easyly knocked down, at just the right moment, by the GOP and it's ally, the media.

Let's put it this way, his populist rethoric is what progressives want to hear.....but the rest of the country will always allow fear to get in the way of their best interest, if that fear is framed "just so". All the media has to do is focus in on a "terra plot" days before the vote, capture a Number 3 guy, etc., etc....

Plus the media showers Edwards with a bit too much love for me, (and that alone makes me suspicious) which means they will continue to build him up throughout the primaries....only to take him down at just the right time.

So, yes.....maybe he'll win the nomination (although I don't think that saying you're sorry on a misjudgement of something as important as war and peace should reward one with the presidency) if Democrats are foolhearty enough to ignore the two 800 pound gorillas in the room called Foreign relations and National Security.....But he will never win the presidency...not in these times.

So it is my strong belief that John Edwards (Mr. Cute Sunshine Optimist) as the nominee against John McCain, or a few other GOP candidates in 2008 will lose us the White House again....guarantee.

On Edit: I also very much hope that John Edwards is working as hard to elect 2006 candidates to win back the congress as he is setting himself up for a 2008 run. It's great to have a "strategy" for one's future.....but if one wants to be a public servant, it shouldn't be a strategy that ignores the good of the country now, for the good of oneself later.

[Reckon]

25. Good point.

Edwards is not my first choice but I sure like him out there swinging away, telling it like it is. Enough with the timid stuff.


Maybe a Clark/Edwards ticket?

[Catchawave]

26. He's raised 6.5 million for 2006 candidates.

I hope that's enough for you :)

Edit to add: if you read the article, it's clearly stated that..."quietly raising $6.5 million in 105 appearances for Democrats running in 2006."

[AmericanDream]

30. Since you've given your prediction...

Let me just say that not only will Edwards win the nomination, he will most likely be the next president. Just as good as yours.

[Inspired]

40. The media showers Clinton with love

not John Edwards. He barely gets any recognition at all by the msm.

I don't know of one Democrat right now who is leading any national poll against McCain. Not just Edwards. Although I believe there was a poll out a few months ago that had Edwards polling higher than any other potential candidate when paired up against any Republican. I don't recall the poll name though.

[blm]

52. Yeah - but who is most able to TROUNCE McCain in 3 debates?

Because that is the one thing the media cannot control as much as any other part of the campaign.

[karynnj]

56. My guess is that the best debater is

the Yale debate star from 1962-1966 who is always quite good in any debate. Not to mention that McCain credits Kerry with keeping him calm when attacked in the POW meetings. Kerry likely knows McCain well enough to set him off.

[Inspired]

57. True...

But Kerry trounced Bush in the debates and still lost the election. I'm not all that concerned with McCain and I'm not all that concerned with Edwards ability in any debate.

[blm]

60. GOP controls most media and voting machines, and nowhere do I see

where that is a problem to be dealt with - seems some of you believe all that is needed is a southerner and the media and voting machines will fall into line for a southerner.

[DemDogs]

84. Edwards has raised 6.5 million for 2006 candidates

Is that enough for you so far?

As for whether he would be knocked down on the foreign stage, let's start by saying he would not trade pistols with war criminals, like your guy did. Kerry asked him to go to Bilderberg in 2004, the press guessed as a test of how he would be received in the international community, whether he would be "too easily knocked down" as you say. Well, he wasn't. Not only that, he impressed everyone. After he spoke, there was an long ovation, reported in the press, which broke the practice and rule at Bilderberg that prohibited applause. So find another complaint. This one won't fly.

[Placebo]

37. Poor John Edwards.

It must be hard to have such ambition for the nation's highest office but know you're never going to get there.

[Inspired]

39. Save your pity for less honorable men

Don't feel sorry for the guy over any potential election result. Losing an election wouldn't be nearly as devastating as some of the events in his life have been.

I hear your sarcasm loud and clear and don't understand where you are coming from. He is one of the good guys.

In my most humble opinion, he will be just fine with the results...while sitting in the Oval Office.

[Placebo]

44. While sitting in the Oval Office...

as a guest of the next president, you mean.

[SeaNap05]

41. There should be more to see......

in the future with Edwards.

[Fabio]

43. Great man.

Smart.
Good heart.
Nice Family.
Knows where he came from.

[sandnsea]

45. Hey you!!

Nice of you to say so, makes my little heart go pitty-pat. Somebody needs to tell him to go ahead and get a little philosophical once in a while, shows us there's some depth to him. Nothing below the surface is the most common criticism I hear of him out in the real world.

[politicasista]

48. I like Edwards, but we need to focus on 06

Talking about 08 only distracts us from Blinky and our goals of taking back Congress and getting the voting machines fixed.

[Catchawave]

53. Raising the States

Edwards is very much a part of the 2006 focus, as are other great Dems. He even helps state legislature candidates raise money. Details here:

Raising the States

Our nation has gone dangerously off course, and we can't wait until 2008 to get it back on track.

Instead of waiting for change to come from the federal level — which is unlikely so long as Republicans control Congress and the White House — we at the One America Committee are making changes now by working directly at the state level.

Earlier last year, we launched "Raising the States," a grassroots project that helps Democrats build and maintain majorities in state legislatures across the country. State legislatures often determine how their states address poverty, health care, education, and other issues that matter to working Americans. With more Democrats in position to make these key decisions, we can pass crucial reforms that would lift millions of working Americans out of poverty. And with more Democrats winning elections and showing what our Party is capable of, we will energize and strengthen our Democratic Party.

That's why Senator Edwards has spent the last year traveling around the country raising money for Democratic candidates. He knows what they're up against. They face a formidable GOP fundraising smear and money machine, powered by the special interests, corporate money and national donors that converge wherever there is a chance to pick up a seat for the GOP. These GOP groups pour so much money into state campaigns because they know the stakes are high.

At the One America Committee, we believe that a Democrat should never lose an election simply because he or she didn't have the funds needed to compete. As Democrats, it's our job to level the playing field for our candidates. "Raising the States" is a grassroots campaign; it's powered by individuals like you. To keep it going strong, Senator Edwards needs your help.

State Legislators Of The Month
Every month, the One America Committee will highlight some of the Democratic Party's brightest stars from state legislatures across the country....cont'd at:
http://oneamericacommittee.com/action/raise-the-states/

[Daniel K]

85. I just can't see Edwards as a serious candidate in 2008

He should have stayed in the Senate instead of giving up his Democratic seat, which is now held by a Republican, Richard Burr.

[KoKo]

88. Yes...giving up that seat hurt NC...Two Repug Senators who are Bush

Supporters in everything he does. Burr is dreadful and maybe worse than Dole. He was pressured by Erskine Bowles to give up the seat...but I wonder if Edwards even wanted to remain in the Senate. He was running for President from the time he got into the Senate for one term.

Edwards strikes me as wanting to be President more than serving the time it takes to get some experience politically. Maybe that's a good thing and we could use someone without any governing and only limited legislative experience but he is an ally of the DLC and voted for Iraq Resolution when the folks who put him in office were begging him not to. He sided then with the DLC Dems and not the activists who worked for him who didn't have the big money.

I think he's sincere in his beliefs on poverty but it's hard to support someone who thinks he can just bypass the gates and go to the finish line on charisma and charm which he has lots of.

[DemDogs]

91. Edwards has more character than charisma, and he has a lot of that

What makes him a strong candidate is that he didn't serve himself by doing a Lieberman (by running for Senate too) or a Kerry (by stashing away money for another run). He has been straight about what he is doing now. You don't hear him use any coy language about running in 2008. He says, "I am interested in running."
Best of all, he actually stands for something.

[Critters2]

93. I heard him speak in Des Moines in 2004

I'll never forget his opening line, with that great drawl...."Ah luv Ah-o-wuh!"