Edwards to Claim Front-runner Status in polls within a month (my bet)

[Infinite Hope]

"The former North Carolina senator plans to make the campaign announcement late this month from the New Orleans neighborhood hit hardest by Hurricane Katrina last year and slow to recover from the storm."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061216/ap_on_el_pr/democrats2008

Edwards will give a well articulated uplifting speech from New Orleans and the media will swamp him. It will point to his already-large lead in Iowa and his advantage in states like Nevada as well. I hope Obama enjoyed his 15 minutes of fame, because, while he'll still get media attention, Edwards is going to hold the limelight very soon.

Thankfully his ground operation in the states is strong and by announcing fairly early, he'll easily be able to recruit volunteers and hire operatives. My bet would be while Hillary is the de jure front-runner because of who she is, Edwards will be the de facto front-runner within a month of his announcement - by the end of January. Granted, that's going out on a limb, but I believe he will be within the margin of error of Hillary and have the momentum and ground operation to be the de facto front-runner.

I may update this post with more thoughts/info later.

[Clark2008]

1. I'm sorry. I simply cannot support him.

There are only two candidates running I wouldn't vote for if they got the nomination - and he's one of them.

I really don't care for foreign policy inexperience - we've already seen what six years of that does.

[DaveinMD]

4. unreal

so you would rather continue Republican governance. Its attitudes like this that gave us the current administration.

[lillilbigone]

13. Spoken like a true Democrat?

[Clark2008]

22. I'm actually not a registered Democrat - never have been.

I was an Independent before Bush and have been voting solidly Democratic since that time. In my state, I don't have to register with a party to vote in the primaries, so I don't. I just declare what primary I will be voting in when I go to vote.

In my state, HRC, Edwards or Obama has no shot in hell of winning. Edwards has more of a shot than the other two, but he's really not the kind of Southerner other Southerners look to vote for (I doubt Edwards would have won re-election in his own North Carolina had he chosen to run for a second term); therefore, I would vote my consciousness - that means for someone who knows what the hell they're doing with regards to foreign policy and national security - and it really wouldn't make one fucking difference. My one vote (well, two, my husband, who IS a registered Democrat wouldn't vote for HRC or Edwards, either) wouldn't change the deficit that would surely occur in my state if any of those three are the nominee (and I LIKE Obama and probably WOULD vote for him, even though he won't carry my state).

I'm pragmatic.

Also, I wouldn't be a hypocrite. I would leave this board at that time - on my own and without being asked - since the rules clearly state that one must support the Democratic candidate. For now, I can stay since I support both Clark and Gore, who are Democrats.

[Torgo Johnson]

18. So you're going to vote for the republican then...

Maybe Mccain or Brownback's "foreign policy experience" is more to your liking. Is this how it's going to be at DU over the next year-and-a-half? Are there going to be people threatening to vote for the Repug or enabling the Repug to win (voting Green)if the person who gets the nomination isn't their choice? I don't care much for Hillary, but I sure as hell will vote for her if she gets the nomination.

It's looks like it is going to be the same pathetic shitstorm at DU that it was in 2003-2004. I guess taking control of Congress isn't going to diminish any of the petty shit that goes on around here.

[Clark2008]

23. Nope. I would either vote third-party (Green) or I would write

in a candidate (it's allowed in my state).

I would not vote for the Republican.

To be clear, HRC, Obama and Edwards do not have a shot to win my state; therefore, my not voting for any of them (although I would vote for Obama, because I believe he has some diplomatic sense) wouldn't change the outcome of the election in my state and its Electoral College votes. I also said upthread that I would voluntarily leave this board since the rules state that participants must support the Democratic nominee.

[Rosco T.]

30. Voting Green or 'write-in' IS voting for the Republican...

.. When will people learn that, as things stand now, third-parties are not even close to being realistic for the Presidential race, Senate/House (sometimes) maybe, State and Local, absolutely....

[citizen snips]

24. What would that accomplish?

[Clark2008]

25. My ability to live with myself.

[citizen snips]

26. If it really causes you that much pain

then go right ahead but I urge you think about the consequences of that vote but then again what's the point of worrying about an Edwards nomination now since the primaries are still far ahead?

[Clark2008]

27. Agreed.

I keep hoping that the nominee will be someone who I can vote for - and since there are only two I WOULD NOT vote for, that makes my odds pretty good.

[venable]

39. if you want to 'live with yourself'

you might consider opening your mind a bit. unless JE spat on your dog or something, your antagonism is just bafflling

If it's his war vote, why do you have Clark in your name?

Anyway, I believe Edwards will do fine without the 11 or 12 Clarkies here who psyche's he's disturbed by his very existence.

[citizen snips]

40. isn't obvious

some people have given their soul to the clark candidacy and when you do that there is one person you cannot vote for.

[chimpymustgo]

29. Then step aside!!! Go Edwards! For a better America.

He's quietly reaching American voters. He's a winner.

[cali]

31. Clark has no experience

with domestic issues. And don't give me that bullshit about how he ran NATO or whatever. Unlike you, I'm not so blinded by allegiance to one candiate that I wouldn't vote for Clark or any other dem candidate who ends up being the nominee. And there's no comparison between bush and Edwards, despite your straining to make one.

I feel compelled to remark that the cultishness of some- not all- of the Clark contingent, is a real turn off.

[Eurobabe]

42. No more so than for any other primary candidate

Candidate groupies are a dime a dozen on DU. Welcome to politics and the Democratic party -- who routinely eat their own. :hi:

[1932]

36. That says so much more about you than it says about Edwards.

And I'm wondering if you base this opinion on those fantasy quotes from Pelosi Jr's book that you promised to locate for me (but you can't because they don't exist).

(And by the way, Pelosi Jr -- who made a loving documentary about Bush in 2000 -- really hates on Democrats in that book, so if that's a book you enjoyed reading...)

[PurityOfEssence]

38. Because you love Clark

Turn off mind. Obey the force. Love the messiah. Destroy any ingrates who get in the way.

Sad.

Pervasive.

Must destroy.

[liberalpragmatist]

54. With all due respect...

... isn't it a little bit early to be ruling someone out? You wouldn't even consider him?

He also has more foreign policy experience at this point than George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, and John F. Kennedy did when they were elected.

Certainly Clark has more; and I think you're perfectly entitled to vote for Clark in the primary. But if he doesn't win? You wouldn't even consider Edwards?

[theoldman]

2. Never speculate because you will surely be wrong.

Yes, I am sure that you will update this post. Too much can happen between now and then.

[Infinite Hope]

6. One can't update the post for very long after posting...

...only a short time. The act of speculation doesn't automatically make you wrong just because you could end up wrong. That's flawed logic. And I very well could be wrong, but he'll easily be a close number 2 in all polls and since his ground operation has been operating longer and is well established, that puts him at a distinct advantage, especially in caucus states where people's second choice will matter as much as their first. There will be many who don't reach the required 15% and their supporters have to go somewhere. Edwards is a consensus candidate that few in the party dislike. He'll probably take 50% in Iowa (unless Gore enters) and is already at 36% in polls - add many of those from candidates under 15% and he's going to do very well.

[paulk]

3. front runner status at this point of a campaign

is not necessarily a desirable place to be....

[Infinite Hope]

7. De facto front-runner status is...

as Hillary will still be the focus and be considered the front-runner, but Edwards has the ground operation to beat her in early states, especially caucus states.

[mtnsnake]

44. Isn't that the truth. nt

[Pithy Cherub]

5. As a person of color,

the use of New Orleans as a backdrop is political theatrics and seen as such. That will be the first thing I remark upon as I send it out to family and friends comparing and contrasting that with pictures of Gore with a plane while Katrina was ACTUALLY happening. Next, the pictures of W in Jackson Square and nothing happening after his callous use of the city as a political backdrop.

Obama would get my time, $$$ and energy as would undecided before Edwards. Obama will knock Edwards off stride as soon as he announces. Obama also has money commitments from the ATM of the nation (us Californians) that Edwards who was here is in no position to mirror. The other conclusion is that this may be Edwards "high water" mark of the campaign before the big guns weigh in.

[Infinite Hope]

8. Only for those who haven't consistently been working on Katrina and related...

issues. It'd be seen as opportunism, you're right. But for Edwards, it's a legitimate backdrop and while you support Obama and view things in that regard, I don't think the majority of Democrats will view it that way. He was criticized for his 'Two Americas' views last time and Katrina was vindication for that idea. Many blacks in 2004 were pleased that someone finally was speaking out on it. Since, they've been able to see that he's serious about it and Katrina proved his philosophy to an ignorant nation.

[Pithy Cherub]

11. Obama is my third choice

and was just illustrative of why your hyperbole won't play. A Clarkie, if Truth be told that would switch to Gore if he chooses to run and Clark does not. Then its all in for the Political Rock Star, Obama.

Edwards has been running on an issue that is about to be subsumed, again by Obama. Obama's speech is remembered form 2004, Edwards is not. Obama was a grassroots organizers for people of faith dealing with people of color when Edwards was not. Obama has a distinction of speaking to the needs of people of color over the same period of time as Edwards since 2004. Obama was not spending the last two years buffing his populism credentials/press releases for a run, Edwards did, so that is the prism to view his actions through. It's up to Edwards to make the case to people of color, but Obama will merit a full measure of attention first and foremost when he announces.

[Infinite Hope]

19. Sorry, I saw you said your $$$/time would go to Obama...

I was thinking you were in his camp. My fault.

[Infinite Hope]

20. Edwards' Two Americas Speeches are more remembered nationwide n/t

[venable]

45. what you see as 'theatrics'

is another person's 'unblinking commitment' to the urgent reality that in New Orleans we see a microcosm of the social indifference and blind-eye that Edwards has been fighting his whole life, and until we can take care of the good people of that proud city, we can not claim to have even begun the long road to justice and fairness and equality.

I know I'm not going to convince you of this man's sincerity. Fortunately, his message of justice is heard wide and far by many. He is a great contributor to the cause of justice and equality.

You may be right about Obama, another great man, taking away from attention Edward's message. We will see. I would think and hope that both men care more about the message than who is delivering it.

[Infinite Hope]

46. Well said. n/t

[Pithy Cherub]

48. Edwards is not a vanguard

nor spokesperson for people of color or on poverty. He has set himself up as the latest spokesmodel with a patter of statements and no discernible actions from the true workers on this issue. When his body of work matches a lifetime of committment to poverty like MLK's, Ghandi, Jesus, or even Bill Clinton's get back to me on his platform of standing on the issue. Right now he's just clearing his throat and making noises about his contributions/press releases on poverty while setting the stage for his own ambition.

[Infinite Hope]

50. He has to be elected to have a chance to make changes like Bill Clinton.

If elected, maybe he'll join your list.

Further, no one said he was a spokeperson for people of color nor those of poverty. But he does speak out for positive change for those generally neglected by society.

Frankly, he has more credibility on the issue than others likely to run, assuming Gore doesn't run.

[Pithy Cherub]

51. He lacks the clarity of good judgment

and proven executive leadership skills to be elected. He has utterly failed on national security and that persistent pernicious failure more deeply affected people who have been impoverished. Edwards voted for a war that sent those people of color and from lower income families off to war. He will never gain my trust because he spectacularly betrayed it with an immoral vote for war which led to a squandering of this nation's blood and treasure for a history making failure in foreign policy. Edwards should dedicate his life to the issue if he is seeking atonement, not a self aggrandizing move to say he's for speaking out for poor people while engaging in an orgy of self-promotion in New Orleans for benefit of a national audience cheering his run for president and gaining the votes of people of color who are big players during the primary season.

Obama will rightfully assume the mantle should he run becuase he had years of working the issue. Edwards as of 1998 had not been dedicated to that as he was not a populist then, he was too busy studying the moves of Clinton. Hence, his evolution has been with a few years while others have made a consistent effort. That's why your original post rang falsely to me, because everyone is not looking at how a lifetime of public service has been spent and looking at the last few years. That is why an Obama candidacy has more upside than an Edwards one - and that is just the compare and contrast to my third choice. So no, Edwards won't win me over until his actions align with his rhetoric in terms of proof spending the majority of his professional time on those issues and not on being elected president. Obama can take it from there.

[venable]

52. wow, must be equal of Jesus, Gandhi, MLK, a two term president

not asking much of a candidate are you?

How about he does put his time where his mouth is, which you would know he does if you followed his travels to every labor conflict, large and small, across this great land for the last two years. With virtually no coverage from the MSM. Why? Because it's the right thing to do.

While others were raising money for their candidacy, he was NOT fundraising for himself, but promoting causes from minimum wage issues to unionization to causes of poverty and ways out of same. He is devoted to this cause, and works for it day and night whether you like it or not.

No need to talk to you about this, as you are not going to listen. Your mind is made up, so your eyes can't see and your ears can't hear. It happens to everyone, including myself. It has happened to you on Edwards.

As a result, your sound and fury on Edwards signifies very little.

[Pithy Cherub]

53. You always read it that's confirmation of my selection

as Time Person of the Year. Funny how your posts don't interest me all that much though, but mine interest you.

:hi: until the next time you feel the powerful need to respond to me...

[venable]

56. let's try to be adults

or not.

[fuzzyball]

9. The bet is on.....the loser donates $100 to DU.....agreed?

[Infinite Hope]

10. Perhaps...

That's a well-thought bet. ;) I just graduated from college and if I find permanent employment soon, I'll be messaging you to make this bet real.

[rolleitreks]

12. Well then let's focus on 2012. 2008 is gone. n/t

[Catchawave]

15. LOL....so true.

:hi:

[Mojorabbit]

14. There is something about him

that really puts me off. A kind of slickness or something that I can't define. I'd vote for his wife in a heartbeat though. She seems real. Nevertheless, if he gets the nomination I'd vote for him but somehow I just don't think he will. Just a gut feeling.

[blue neen]

16. Edwards was very impressive on Hardball on Tuesday night.

He seems to have a higher sense of purpose. Edwards definitely would have a good ground game going.

[OneBlueSky]

17. any horse-race analysis of the 2008 election at this point is meaningless . . .

in political time, two years is more like two decades . . . so much can and will happen between now and then that whatever people are thinking today is sure to change . . . and change again . . . and change again . . .

I'm just happy that a number of Democrats will be out there presenting their messages and hopefully stimulating real discussions of real issues . . . I'll be most interested in what they say about corporations and their influence and control in government, and what they intend to do about it . . . anyone talking free trade and globalization will be dropped from my "maybe list" right pronto . . .

I'm also happy that Al Gore is able to sit on the sidelines for basically as long as he likes and still be the frontrunner whenever he jumps in (assuming he does, of course) . . .

[Infinite Hope]

21. It doesn't tell you the results in 2008, but it isn't meaningless.

It matters very much in public support, structural support, and financial support and that's the far from meaningless.

[minnesota_liberal]

28. Only 23 months until the 2008 election!

How long until things really gear up?

[america_in_08]

32. I think he is the best choice for 2008.

I think Edwards shows real concern for the American people. More so than any of the others.

[Carolina Voice]

33. John For President and Elizabeth for First Lady!

[Joe Bacon]

34. I still laugh myself sick over Skolnick's "scoop"

I still remember when Skolnick and Rense "revealed" that Edwards was the "Bilderberger" Candidate for President in 2004 and that those Bilderbergers are just soooooooooo powerful. Much more powerful than Bonesman.

Gee, if the Bilderbergers are so much more powerful than anyone else, why didn't their hand picked candidate win?????

Yeesh, I still remember 1976 when these same tinfoil twits said Jimmy Carter's election was rigged by the Trilateral Commission!

[FrenchieCat]

35. Speaking of Jimmy Carter and his election, how about this freeze frame

in history?
1975- Nov 17th- exactly ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE Presidential election of 1976--US News & WOrld Report Poll on who would win the Dem Presidential nomination in the year ahead--

Hubert Humphrey--- 49%
Henry Jackson --- 14%
Edward Kennedy--- 8%
Birch Bayh ------ 6%
Morris Udall ---- 5%
Frank Church ---- 4%
Lloyd Bensten --- 3%
Jimmy Carter --- 3%

1975 Atlanta Constitution Headline

"Jimmy Carter's Running For WHAT?"

Moral of the story and as Donald Rumsfeld, former and lousiest Sec of Defense ever known once said...."There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know." :)

[Infinite Hope]

37. That Rumsfeld quote is quite deep and actually makes perfect sense. n/t

[Renew Deal]

41. Lieberman was the frontrunner early too.

Edwards has nothing going on. He's already done.

[Eurobabe]

43. Too soon to peak...

If Edwards is front runner towards the end of the primaries, THAT says something. My candidate was front-runner in Sept./Oct. 04 and then got fried. Plus we don't even know who the Repubs will put up.

It's too soon to pay attention to this media-fed frenzy.

[Infinite Hope]

47. Some are confusing the 2 forms of frontrunner I mentioned.

The early and quiet frontrunner working behind the scenes is the dangerous one. The early frontrunner in the media and in name is the one that doesn't last.

[Eurobabe]

49. And the 'killer' is someone who comes out of nowhere

:hi: LOL.

[Catchawave]

55. It's 2008 and there's War Chests to fill.....

I understand what you're saying, but I think we can throw out some of those old Carter/Clinton early low poll surprises of the past.

The darkhorse could be Republican too? I'm sticking with Edwards, and if he doesn't get the nod, I'm not ruling out anybody from any party.

That's why I hate to see so much Dem trashing on DU, it almost makes me want to listen to my husband :beer: