It's OFFICIAL!!! Edwards going for it my prediction he's the front runner by...

[bigdarryl]

this time next year. I've been saying for a while watch out for this guy and Vilsack. Hillary and Obama will fade mark my word.democrats
hate to be told who to vote for and this Hillary Obama love fest by the media is turning a lot of people off.

[MethuenProgressive]

1. Edwards? ::::yawn::::

Didn't he used to be somesody?

[DemDogs]

25. 2500 not yawning in Iowa, maybe 2K in NH not yawning either

That doesn't even count the tens of thousands of people who watched these town halls online. Check out <http://media.podtech.net/media/2006/12/PID_001663/Podtech_News_Scoble_Edwards.mp3>
Man, it is GREAT that he had the video up live on these town halls and took online questions. Edwards has the right message and he is using the net to reach out. He got stronger and stronger in 2004, so look out now.

[Inspired]

49. I was there

and you are right. No one was bored. Not even the few Republicans I met who are now Edwards supporters.

[Tellurian]

2. Lookie Here!

GORE/HILLARY


BD, Edwards is playing the shell game w/you.. :hi:

[Realist2008]

4. hahaha

i hope your kidding. no way hilary or kerry would stand a chance. give me edwards or obama.

[Tellurian]

5. Edwards and O Bama aren't going anywhere..

They're just teasing you..



GORE/HILLARY

read it and weep!

[Mr_King]

7. If Hillary got the nod....

it would be like Bob Dole getting the GOP nomination in 96. The Repunklicans nominate a canidate because it is their turn (Reagan in 80, Bush in 88, Dole in 96) and they are the ones that recycle canidates more often (Thomas Dewey in 44 & 48, Richard Nixon in 60 & 68).

If we were like the Repunks Humphrey would have got the nod in 72 over McGovern, Gary Hart would have got the nod in 88 (depending on the Donna Rice thing), Mario Cuomo would have gotten the nod in 92 instead of Clinton, and Lieberman would have been nominated over Kerry in 04.

We can't give it to Hillary because it's her turn and as much as I love Al Gore we can't recycle him in 2008. It's time for a new generation of Democrats to take over, and this past election proved that.

[Tellurian]

9. So, you're advocating Juniors go to War?

I think not. Foreign policy is in shambles. Health Care is non-existent.
The Environment is in a heap of trouble. Tax Cuts are upside down.
Elections stolen at every turn. Monumental deficits.
Did I mention, we have a War to resolve?

Sure, lets send in the second string and live with Republicans for 8 more years..

Because why? You want to see an inexperienced junior democrat at the helm taking on
the biggest Crime Regime in the history of the World. For what is at stake, your
fantasy president(ial league) is too risky and all 'feel good' fantasy.

[Mr_King]

11. Oh but....

let's keep recycling the same Democrats over and over again. Because Gore and Kerry will do so much better the second time around. We just have to remind Gore not to sigh during the debates and keep Kerry from going wind surffing during the campaign. I love Gore and Kerry and would love see both of them serve as diplomats for this country either in the state department or at the U.N. under the next Democratic President but they had their chance and it's time for some new blood in this party.

With your thinking Clinton would have never got the nomination in 1992 because he was just some young hillbilly Governor with no foreign policy experience (Governor's rarely do). JFK would have never been the Democrats choice in 1960 because he was just a young pretty boy Senator who was too young to be President.

Kennedy's generation (the WW II generation) took over from the pre 20th century generation (FDR, Truman, Stevenson).

Clinton's generation (the baby boomers) took over from the WW II generation (Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Ted Kennedy).

It's time for the next generation to take over from the baby boomers (boomers like Gore, Kerry, and Hillary).

We can't keep the same bunch around forever. The baby boomer Democrats have had their turn to try to fix the broken health care system, the broken tax system, the non-existent election reform policies, the monumental deficits (which by the way the next generation will now have to pay off), and fix the middle east crises that they were handed from the WW II generation. I won't say the baby boomers failed but they haven't won enough elections to fix these problems and their in itself is the problem.

It's time for a new game plan, with a new (younger) team of players. And 2006 was just the begining.

[Tellurian]

12. Your proposed argument of what "IS" is a parallax view of reality

and is almost as disturbing as the divine solution you propose as a quick fix, "youth".

"It's time for the next generation to take over from the baby boomers (boomers like Gore, Kerry, and Hillary)."

"Because Gore and Kerry will do so much better the second time around. We just have to remind Gore not to sigh during the debates and keep Kerry from going wind surffing during the campaign."

For instance, the ubiquitous examples used for your supporting argument. Al Gore and John Kerry are NOT one and the same. It wasn't the "sighs" as you put it from the debates as the reason Al Gore is not currently our president. So soon, you've conveniently dismissed the impact of stopping the vote count in Florida, So soon, you've conveniently dismissed the lengthy trials contesting the validity of Gore's lock on the presidency where the outcome of the 00' election was determined by a decision of the Supreme Court in favor of Bush.

Al Gore WON the 00' Presidential election by 500,000 votes. He did not concede until there was no recourse left for him within the court system. Plain and simple, it was stolen from him due to a Supreme Court decision appointing Bush, president.

OTOH, John Kerry, a Skull and Bonesman, conceded the 04' election without benefit of the fight he promised throughout his campaign for reasons only known to himself. Do you see the dissimilarities now?

Your assessment of facts determining your conclusions are imo, without merit because you are blinded to historical facts that have determined the Truth. Your argument of new blood is wishful thinking and a feel good band-aid rather than solid ground on which to build a foundation of supporting arguments on why 'youth' rather than a proven, seasoned candidate who can win, would guarantee a win for the presidency.

"I love Gore and Kerry and would love see both of them serve as diplomats for this country either in the state department or at the U.N. under the next Democratic President but they had their chance and it's time for some new blood in this party."

There isn't a candidate in the field that can compare to Gore. Again, because you wish to have new blood as the next Democratic nominee ( a utopian solution), isn't going to guarantee a WIN for the Democrats, therefore shutting out any hopes of diplomatic service for Kerry and Gore tout de suite.

"With your thinking Clinton would have never got the nomination in 1992 because he was just some young hillbilly Governor with no foreign policy experience (Governor's rarely do)."

I have to say, that statement is hilarious. Don't you know, theres nothing more dangerous than a 'hillbilly' with a genius IQ? A hillbilly who was able to garner a scholarship to Oxford University, marry a woman with an IQ a teensey bit higher than his (so he'd have someone to talk to) catapult himself into a Governor's position, then take on the Bush Cartel and WIN! Hill & Billy..ha!

With Al Gore as the designated democratic nominee and Hillary as his VP, together with both families reinstated in the White House, they bring 32 years of WH experience to the table. Knowing the mess the current administration has made of our country, it will take every bit of experience these four people have gathered over the last 14 yrs to put our country right again.

The younger Senators, O Bama and Edwards, (who I like very much as well) would be great team players and remarkable additions to the Gore Administration, as would Kerry as AG...if that were a plausible appointment Kerry would accept.

So, for now, you haven't been able to convince me "youth" or "new blood" is a practical solution to the serious monumental problems we are now facing. I welcome anything else you might like to add to convince me otherwise.

Oh, and designate your candidate if you will next time. Semantic arguments suck big time..imo..

[Mr_King]

16. And your argument ISN'T wishful thinking?

First of all you need to understand one thing above all else.

AL GORE IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008!!!!!

He has been saying this over and over and over for the past two years. When will people like you accept him at his word. Listen to the man's own words he is telling you he's not running and he hasn't even shown any signs that he plans to run. Not even Al Gore can just say one day "I'm running for President" and then everything will magically fall into place. Simply put your dreams of a "Gore Administration" is just that a dream, a dream that won't happen. HE'S NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT no matter how much you hope and think that he will.

"For instance, the ubiquitous examples used for your supporting argument. Al Gore and John Kerry are NOT one and the same. It wasn't the "sighs" as you put it from the debates as the reason Al Gore is not currently our president. So soon, you've conveniently dismissed the impact of stopping the vote count in Florida, So soon, you've conveniently dismissed the lengthy trials contesting the validity of Gore's lock on the presidency where the outcome of the 00' election was determined by a decision of the Supreme Court in favor of Bush."

Never once did I say Gore and Kerry were the same person. I implied that have many of the same political beliefs not because they are in the same party but because they are from the same generation and have been through many of the same life experiences.

Now if you want to rehash the 2000 recount so be it. This is my view of the Florida recount. Gore was cheated and had the election stolen no doubt about that. I will go to my grave believing more people went to the polls that day in Florida and intended to vote for Gore. But my problem with Gore's campaign in 2000 was #1) he did not talk enough about the Clinton/Gore economy. #2) he gave up on Ohio which IMO was a bad move. #3) He tried to pick and choose counties (mostly Democratic counties) to recount rather then asking for a recount of the entire state to begin with.

The 2000 election should have never been that close and Gore should have beat Bush in a landslide or at least by as much as Clinton beat Bush Sr. 8 years earlier. It got to the point that Gore ran against Bush rather than ran for President. He let Bush frame the message of the campaign and that IMO was why it was so close. Gore winning New Mexico was proof he could have beat Bush by a wide margin if he just would have stayed true to himself and not tried to be the every man candidate.

"Al Gore WON the 00' Presidential election by 500,000 votes. He did not concede until there was no recourse left for him within the court system. Plain and simple, it was stolen from him due to a Supreme Court decision appointing Bush, president."

And like I said their in itself is the problem. If Michael Dukakis had won in 1988 Clarence Thomas would not have replaced Thurgood Marshall on the bench and it probably would have been 5-4 in Gore's favor. But the baby boomer Dems have lost election after election or had them stolen from them. 2000 should not have been that close, the boomer Dems should have stopped fighting Vietnam and Watergate long ago and focused on today's issues. And Hillary would just be more of the same. The Democratic formula for winning elections of the past 20+ years is a bad one. Simply put Gore should have won by more then 500,000 votes.

"OTOH, John Kerry, a Skull and Bonesman, conceded the 04' election without benefit of the fight he promised throughout his campaign for reasons only known to himself. Do you see the dissimilarities now?"

I am so sick and tired of hearing this Skull and Bonesman B.S. that is all that is a bunch of B.S. John Kerry did not concede the 2004 election because he and Bush were in the same club in college. This Skull and Bones brotherhood thing is just a big conspiracy theory created by the extreme far left members of this party who didn't want Kerry to be the nominee in the first place. That's just as bad as saying Neil Armstrong never landed on the moon. I will never believe Kerry gave up because he was a Skull and Bonesman and so was Bush. Kerry LOST because he couldn't fight the Swift Boat attack ads that August and because Ohio was indeed stolen from him. But like with Gore in 2000, 2004 should not have been so close either.

"There isn't a candidate in the field that can compare to Gore. Again, because you wish to have new blood as the next Democratic nominee ( a utopian solution), isn't going to guarantee a WIN for the Democrats, therefore shutting out any hopes of diplomatic service for Kerry and Gore tout de suite."

And that argument goes both ways. Because you wish to have OLD blood as the next Democratic nominee that isn't going to guarantee a WIN for the Democrats either. Gore and Kerry and Hillary are not getting any younger and whether you want to admit it or not the door to winning the Oval Office is quickly shutting on them and their generation.

"I have to say, that statement is hilarious. Don't you know, theres nothing more dangerous than a 'hillbilly' with a genius IQ? A hillbilly who was able to garner a scholarship to Oxford University, marry a woman with an IQ a teensey bit higher than his (so he'd have someone to talk to) catapult himself into a Governor's position, then take on the Bush Cartel and WIN! Hill & Billy..ha!"

Yeah because we all know that the reason Clinton won in 1992 was because he was a Rhodes Scholar some 20+ years earlier and has an high I.Q. Please give me a break that was an after thought for many of the voters IMO. America was in a recession in 1992 remember. As James Carville said "It's the economy stupid." People were tired of Reaganomics, Bush broke his promise of no new taxes, the middle class was struggling, and all that helped Clinton. The great thing about Bill Clinton unlike Michael Dukakis 4 years earlier, he knew how to frame his message in a way that could appeal to the middle while keeping the Democratic base. Plus he kept the message on domestic issues which was his strongest issue and Bush's weakest issue. If people cared more about foreign policy in 1992 and who was the more experienced candidate then Bush would have won re-election. Bush was a former Ambassador, Bush was the one with much more foreign policy experience then Clinton. You are putting too much stock in the foreign policy issue because you know that is one of Edwards' weaker issues and that is an issue where Gore has Edwards beat. But that doesn't make Gore the best overall nominee. If you asked the average voter who they thought was more experienced to be President, Bush of 88 or Clinton of 92 I would bet Bush would be the choice. A candidate with the most experience does not mean they are the best candidate.

"With Al Gore as the designated democratic nominee and Hillary as his VP, together with both families reinstated in the White House, they bring 32 years of WH experience to the table. Knowing the mess the current administration has made of our country, it will take every bit of experience these four people have gathered over the last 14 yrs to put our country right again."

Yeah because we know how much Al and Hillary loved each other. Hillary has already made it clear she is not going to be anybody's running mate. She does not want to be anybody's V-P and she sure is hell wouldn't want to be Al Gore's Vice-President. It would be a great team I totally a agree. A dream team, but that is what it is...a dream because it would never happen. There's a reason why Reagan and Ford didn't run together in 1980. Al and Hillary's egos are just to big to be on the same ticket. You need to join us in 2006 buddy and stop living in the past. The era of Clinton/Gore is over.

By the way Clinton & Gore didn't have much experience when they took over the White House but they still managed to "put our country right again" after 12 years of Reagan/Bush.

"The younger Senators, O Bama and Edwards, (who I like very much as well) would be great team players and remarkable additions to the Gore Administration, as would Kerry as AG...if that were a plausible appointment Kerry would accept."

As I stated, a Gore Administration is not going to happen because he's not running. Though I would like to see him work to help improve diplomatic relations strained by 8 years of Dick and Bush as SOS or an envoy for a President Edwards. When it comes to Kerry I see him running for re-election in the senate in 08 not the White House.

"So, for now, you haven't been able to convince me "youth" or "new blood" is a practical solution to the serious monumental problems we are now facing. I welcome anything else you might like to add to convince me otherwise."

I don't really see the point of trying to convince you otherwise. I can see you're already set in your belief that Gore and/or Hillary are the best choice and your mind (which from what I can tell) is already made up. I just happen to respectfully disagree with you that's all. But you haven't been able to convince me that "recycled candidates" and the "old blood" of the party is a practical solution to the serious monumental problems we are now facing.

"Oh, and designate your candidate if you will next time. Semantic arguments suck big time..imo.."

Well I don't see why I should tell you who is my designated candidate in 08 just because in your opinion it "sucks big time." But I'll be nice and humor you.

#1 yes John Edwards
#2 is Barack Obama (though I don't think he'll run but I think he would accept being V-P unlike Hillary)
#3 was Evan Bayh until he decided not to run
#4 was Mark Warner until he decided not to run
#5 is Bill Richardson
#6 is indeed Al Gore
#7 is Mike Easley
#8 is John Kerry
#9 is Hillary Clinton
#10 is Wesley Clark

and I guess the next choice would be either Brian Schweitzer or Joe Biden. Schweitzer has less experience then Edwards and Biden I think his senate record is too long which would give the Repunks too much to distort in 30 second ads.

[Tellurian]

19. My only wish is... an improvement in your reading comprehension...

"AL GORE IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008!!!!!"

Ah, so gullible you are! Never heard of a draft candidate?
He will be drafted AND RUN!!! Take it to the BANK!

"and he hasn't even shown any signs that he plans to run."

For what good reason would Gore tell you his plans? Unless you are his confidante?

"Hillary has already made it clear she is not going to be anybody's running mate. She does not want to be anybody's V-P and she sure is hell wouldn't want to be Al Gore's Vice-President."

Got any proof for that statement...a link maybe?

So, my final question is..

Would you vote for Gore when he runs? A simple Yes or No will suffice.

...just a friendly note...you ought to be more careful when reading text. You get ahead of yourself thinking you know the crux of the sentence before you read to the end, which often times you fail to do. The errors and misstatements in your responses were too numerous to try and slog through to make the necessary corrections.

[Mr_King]

22. Okay first of all...

I don't need you to tell me how I should read or write. This is an internet message board not the New York Times. I can read or write text anyway I see fit too. You know if you don't like what I have to say you don't have to read it.

I bet my "errors and misstatements" are indeed "too numerous to try and slog through to make the necessary corrections." But honestly I think you're just running out of ways to prove your point. So it's just easier to portray me as some sort of simpleton who shouldn't even try to present a point of view which is different from your point of view. Hmmm maybe you don't have as much faith in your belief of a Gore campaign in 2008.

"Ah, so gullible you are! Never heard of a draft candidate?
He will be drafted AND RUN!!! Take it to the BANK!"

Oh I'm gullible? I just happen to support a man who has announced he is running for President and you're the one trying to draft a man who said time and time again that he is NOT running for President and doesn't want to. But I'm the gullible one. Please!

But to answer your question of course I've heard about drafting candidates. I heard about it in 1976 when some Democrats tried to draft Hubert Humphrey. I've heard about it in 1988 when some Democrats tried to draft Mario Cuomo and then again in 1991 when Bush Sr. had high approval ratings after the Gulf War and some Dems thought Cuomo was our only hope of beating Bush in 92. And again in 2002 Democrats wanted Gore vs. Bush II (I was one of the "draft Gore" people). Even after he announced he wasn't running in December 2002, I still wanted him drafted to be the Democratic nominee. But Gore was right, the campaign would have had the dark cloud of the 2000 recount hanging over the 2004 election.

Humphrey wasn't drafted in 76, Cuomo wasn't drafted in 88 and 92, Gore wasn't drafted in 04. He won't be drafted in 08 when the crowd will be so big. Sorry to rain on your parade but it ain't happening. Just like some 20 something kid today, Al Gore doesn't want to be drafted either. Hopefully one day you'll notice that and you'll join Mr. Gore and I in the real world.

"For what good reason would Gore tell you his plans? Unless you are his confidante?"

You know damn good and well I don't know Al Gore, I wish I did but I don't. But I can tell when a person plans to run for President. First they don't say "I'm not running for President." Second they make the usual trips to Iowa and New Hampshire. Third they start courting campaign donors. Fourth they start hiring consultants and other campaign staffers. Fifth they don't spend their time making movies, being president of cable networks, and sitting on the board of a major corporation. IMO Gore is happy with the work he's doing now and seeking the oval office is not something he wants to go through again. But that is just my opinion.

"Got any proof for that statement...a link maybe?"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/12/politics/main617117.shtml

If Hillary didn't want to be Kerry's V-P in 2004 what would make you think she'd want to be Gore's in 08? Gore had to stifle himself on some of the issues he disagreed with Clinton on when he was Vice-President. Can you honestly see Hillary not expressing her views (which sometimes differ from Gore's). Can you honestly see Hillary following Gore's policies even if she disagreed with some of them. Hillary Clinton is not "some little woman standing by her man." IMO she won't stand by any man and that includes Al Gore. She's her own woman and her own candidate.

Plus IMO she has more power as a Senator then she would have as Vice-President. The President makes the final decisions and 50-50 ties rarely happen in the senate. IMO Hillary (like Gore) has already been V-P, she just didn't hold the title of Vice-President.

"So, my final question is..

Would you vote for Gore when he runs? A simple Yes or No will suffice."

IF Gore got the nomination at the convention and became the nominee not only would I vote for Al Gore I would do everything in my power to make him the next President of the United States. But he ain't running so it won't happen.

Candidate Gore would be a NO
Nominee Gore would be a YES

[Tellurian]

24. A bit cranky and thin skinned..

for someone just posting on a message board NOT the NYT...

OLD BUSINESS:

I'll give you an example of your reading comprehension or lack thereof..


My statement:

"Oh, and designate your candidate if you will next time. Semantic arguments suck big time..imo.."

Your response:

"Well I don't see why I should tell you who is my designated candidate in 08 just because in your opinion it "sucks big time." But I'll be nice and humor you."

The fact is I said, semantic arguments "suck" big time. All of the WORDING in the last post as stated, is in the form of a semantics..The use of words like IF, MAYBE, COULD, SEEING, THINK etc..

and this denial:

Simply put Gore should have won by more then 500,000 votes.

Gore DID WIN by over 500,000 popular votes. He lost the electoral votes because Bush's brother threatened the
Electoral Vote representatives with replacement IF they didn't cast ALL of Florida's Electoral Votes to Bush. Jeb caused a Constitutional Crisis when he created this issue that jeopardized Bush's election by appointment of the SCOTUS. Jeb subsequently backed off when he was told his actions were a detriment to his brother.

NEW BUSINESS:

"You know damn good and well I don't know Al Gore, I wish I did but I don't. But I can tell when a person plans to run for President. First they don't say "I'm not running for President." Second they make the usual trips to Iowa and New Hampshire. Third they start courting campaign donors. Fourth they start hiring consultants and other campaign staffers. Fifth they don't spend their time making movies, being president of cable networks, and sitting on the board of a major corporation. IMO Gore is happy with the work he's doing now and seeking the oval office is not something he wants to go through again. But that is just my opinion."

I don't know any such thing...this is an anonymous message board..You could be George Bush, for all I know. There is no way to tell WHO you are writing to on this board. So, you'll just have to take my word for it. There is a strategy in place and Gore is definitely going to be the Demo nominee..

He'll need your vote...so please, clear your mind, leave it open and receptive to new ideas. Keep that in mind at all times. These are little fun skirmishes...I enjoy the repartee with you. If I've offended you in any way shape or form, please accept my humble apologies. We have bigger fish to fry.. if you want to be on our team, yes?..

Have a Happy New Year's Eve!

[Mr_King]

26. Hahaha...

You didn't get under my skin. In fact I find you delusions of grandeur (a Gore candidacy in 08) hilarious.

"The fact is I said, semantic arguments "suck" big time. All of the WORDING in the last post as stated, is in the form of a semantics..The use of words like IF, MAYBE, COULD, SEEING, THINK etc.."

No the fact is that you thinking semantic arguments "suck big time" is your opinion and not a fact just because you believe it is one. If you didn't know, just because you believe something to be true doesn't make it true.

But I do believe semantic arguments don't make for good debate.

"Gore DID WIN by over 500,000 popular votes. He lost the electoral votes because Bush's brother threatened the
Electoral Vote representatives with replacement IF they didn't cast ALL of Florida's Electoral Votes to Bush. Jeb caused a Constitutional Crisis when he created this issue that jeopardized Bush's election by appointment of the SCOTUS. Jeb subsequently backed off when he was told his actions were a detriment to his brother."

Yes Gore got 543,816 more votes then Bush, we know that. But you missed the point. Gore IMO should have won by more then 543,816 votes, much more. Had he done that Jeb could have still stolen Florida for his brother but it wouldn't have mattered. Had Gore had at least won New Hampshire he would have won the electoral college without needing Florida. And like I said before he gave up to soon on Ohio. He only needed another 2% in New Hampshire, only 4% more in Ohio. It should have never came down to Florida.

Now you wanted me to give proof and a link to my claim about Hillary Clinton. Where is your link to a credible source proving Jeb Bush "threatened the Electoral Vote representatives with replacement IF they didn't cast ALL of Florida's Electoral Votes to Bush." Gore clearly had the election stolen from him I agree. But which is it, the Supreme Court or Jeb Bush? I find it hard to believe that they couldn't find at least 25 devote Republicans in Florida to be electors for Bush and stay faithful to him. But like I said many times already it should have never been that close to begin with.

"I don't know any such thing...this is an anonymous message board..You could be George Bush, for all I know. There is no way to tell WHO you are writing to on this board. So, you'll just have to take my word for it. There is a strategy in place and Gore is definitely going to be the Demo nominee.."

Well let's set the record straight here and now. I don't know Al Gore, and I'm sure as hell not George Bush. That is a really low blow right there.

There is a strategy in place huh? Okay if you say so. I just hope your strategy for a "draft Gore in 08" movement is better then the strategy for the "draft Gore in 04" movement was. His nomination in 08 is by no means definite. He's not even a candidate and you have yet to even give any explanation as to how this so called "strategy" is going to play out and I question if one even exists.

"He'll need your vote...so please, clear your mind, leave it open and receptive to new ideas. Keep that in mind at all times. These are little fun skirmishes...I enjoy the repartee with you. If I've offended you in any way shape or form, please accept my humble apologies. We have bigger fish to fry.. if you want to be on our team, yes?.."

If he somehow got the nomination he will get my vote but not a moment sooner. So for now John Edwards is my candidate and he has my support. I hope you keep an open mind about Edwards. I hope you are receptive to the new ideas of the Edwards campaign. I hope you keep that in mind at all times. It works both ways see.

[snowbear]

18. Tellurian

GORE/HILLARY

read it and weep!

I'm weeping alright!

[Tellurian]

20. Hi larissa..

cute...is your avatar a baby Polar Bear? :hi:

[snowbear]

21. Actually it's a puppy...

But he does kinda look like a polar bear..

[Nedsdag]

60. It'll be a cold day in hell

before Hillary and Gore team up. Hillary and Gore don't like each other at all. Hillary never forgave Al for backing away from her husband during the 2000 election. Bill and Al may have patched things up but Hillary and Al (and Tipper) haven't.

[zann725]

15. Edwards IS impressive, but why should Edwards be more a "winner" than Kerry? Both DID "lose" in '04.

(Let's not forget Edwards WAS half the losing "'04 Ticket".) If we're NOT handicapping Edwards for the loss, then Kerry (who's done lots of impressive legislation and diplomatic trips both before and since '04), should be equally viewed as a potential "winning" Prez candidate. Plus JK has far more years' public service, as well as military honors...which Edwards does not have.

[Mr_King]

17. Because...

people vote for President not Vice-President. People focus on the record of the name on the top of the ticket not the second name. Dan Quayle is living proof of that.

[crispini]

42. *Cough* except that popular scuttlebutt has it that...

Gore and Hilary can't stand each other. Hmmmm.....

[Der Blaue Engel]

3. I'm a Kerry girl, and I love Gore, but I think this is terrific

He is a far more dynamic candidate than anyone who's declared their run thus far.

[ChiciB1]

6. I'm On This Train.... Have Been For A Very Very LONG TIME! n/t

[NastyRiffraff]

8. Edwards or Gore...

I'll work my butt off for either one. Better yet, a Gore/Edwards ticket. Now THAT I can get excited about! (Backspaced over what I originally typed, about getting excited, in deference to any chidren reading here)

[Tellurian]

13. ....

[Eurobabe]

10. That's great, but your assessment that Hillary or Obama

are going to fade are delusional.

Edwards will be just one more voice against the CON agenda. :hi:

[Tellurian]

14. Sounds like a plan to me..

Having Edwards, O Bama and Hillary out in the mainstream is a working plan.
When the nominee is chosen, they will concede their loyalists to the frontrunner.

Perfecto!

side bar...

probably the reason Kerry won't commit. The loner doesn't intend to work for
any other candidate except himself.. just saying-

[loyalsister]

23. Yawn

He's got a paternalistic streak that makes him come across as belittling people. He will alienate the people he is courting. They are smarter than he thinks.

[aein]

41. Agreed

[GreenArrow]

54. they may be smarter than he thinks

but they may only figure it out after the horse is out of the barn. I predict if Edwards gets elected (and there's a good chance of it) he will be a one term President.

Couldn't agree more on the paternalistic streak, most recently expressed in his call to "restore America's moral leadership". That might play well in Peoria, but it's horseshit. Can't you just see the millions of Europeans, a billion Chinese, and millions of South and Central Americans (a group that has long been a special target of this nation's moral largesse) praying for the return of the USofA's moral leadership. Nevertheless, that's the kind of breathy, depthless feel good rhetoric that Edwards (as with any successful politician) specializes in -- tell the people what they want to hear.

[On the Road]

27. I Agree Edwards Will Do Better Than Current Polls Predict

and that H Clinton and Obama will do worse. But Vilsack? What seems appealing about him? Affable guy, but he sounds like a starched empty suit.

[jcrew2001]

28. frontrunner

Its odd that usually the Dem frontrunner doesn't win. Take Dean for instance and in 1992 and 1988. Edwards will be the sleeper candidate and he'll win when Hillary and Obama fall.

Hillary is def potent, but I really do think Edwards can win over many people.

[Critters2]

29. Still won't get my vote in the primary. I have an IWR-related litmus test

he can't pass.

[NCarolinawoman]

32. I agree. I also have an environmental litmus test and Edwards does NOT pass. n/t

[Clark2008]

30. It scares me to death to admit you might be right.

I cannot believe people would actually vote for this snake oil salesman who voted for the war and for the Patriot Act because he's "cute."

:puke:

Oh, and if he gets the nomination, I'll leave this board because I cannot and will not vote for him. I won't vote for the Republican, either, so I'll just write in someone.

And before someone says it's sour grapes because I'm a Clarkie: it's not. I had a long soliloquy about why I would not vote for him two weeks ago and it was because of things he did before Clark every even considered entering into the race in 2003.

[DaveinMD]

40. its not because he's cute

You may not like him, but that's no reason to denigrate the intelligence of everyone else that does.

[aein]

43. then what is the reason?

prove your intelligence by putting up an argument and not say "its wrong to imply that others are stupid "

[DaveinMD]

45. First let me start off by saying

I supported Clark 4 years ago. I don't think he's running and I haven't made a choice yet.

Of the big three, I am leaning Edwards for one reason. He is one of the few candidates that understand the need for the party to return to a message of economic populism. I don't see Obama there and Hillary surely isn't there.

The Edwards message of two America's--one wealth and everyone else, is a vital message in this period where wealth is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Before he came along, we hadn't heard a Democratic candidate talk about the poor since the 80s. Its not just about the middle class with Edwards.

This time, he's saying universal health care is more important than the budget deficit. We haven't heard that message in a real long time as well. And he's opposing these giveaway trade agreements that have killed working people over the last 20 years. So, these are my reasons why I could support John Edwards for President.

[aein]

51. do you think that those positives outweigh the things he did vote for in congress?

I saw him on pete rose, and I was actually impressed with him on that appearance. Back in 2004, I was disappointed in his debate with Cheney. He came off as a slick puffball to me. But since then he has gotten more knowledgeable and willing to speak in nuances.

But I reject your claim that he is the only one who has the right position on these issues. After all, Obama was a community organizer in Chicago for 3 years. And he is an opponent of NAFTA and VOTED against CAFTA. . He's also was, always, right on Iraq.

[DaveinMD]

56. I like Obama too

I just don't hear him talking about these things. You can always find some votes to disagree with when it comes to any Senator. I have always liked Edwards. I don't find him to be too slick. I think charisma is a positive.

[Clark2008]

73. Maybe not everyone feels that way who likes him, but informal

office polls at both where I work and where my husband works reveals that very thing.

Sorry, but there are a lot of folks who like him only because he's cute.

[DaveinMD]

77. that's hogwash

you address people here who are very educated about politics dismissing their opinion. Its not the way to foster a healthy dialogue and it leads to flame wars.

[1932]

46. Are you not voting for all the other politicians who didn't reply to your ex-

borther-in-laws offer to meet with them?

He didn't get a meeting with anyone, right?

[Clark2008]

74. Actually, he did meet with several others from North Carolina.

I, however, don't live in North Carolina and, thus, cannot vote for any of the others who didn't meet with him, anyway - unless they all decide to run in the presidential primaries.

I don't know where you got that he didn't get to meet with anyone of his representatives. He met with several. Just not John Edwards who wouldn't meet with him.

[1932]

76. Who did he meet with and who didn't he meet with.

I need to make my list of who's good and who's bad.

[PurityOfEssence]

55. Clark, Clark, Clark

At least the partisan nattering has tapered off a bit of late, but the ongoing vengeance of extremist Clark supporters roils just below the surface.

Calling Edwards a snake oil salesman is beyond being an insult. This is a guy who's fought for the little guy all his life and put his political future on the line for some very noble causes. To be from a state with such a huge credit card industry and be a vocal opponent of predatory lending is risky to say the least. To vote against the tax cuts (even though your Clark would like us to think he didn't) was a dangerous move for someone from North Carolina. Compare Edwards' public stances and votes against the mealy-mouthed positioning Wes Clark has continuously done: for the IWR, then always against it, for vouchers, then always having been against them, praising Bush's foreign policy then always having been against it. All this is open to interpretation and differing focus, whereas the hard-and-fast reality of votes cast isn't.

Hate Edwards for the IWR vote, hate him for the Patriot Act vote, but give the man his due: he's a true populist and has been a consistent champion of the people. This is beyond tiresome; protestations that it has nothing to do with support of another candidate is ridiculous: your very moniker is an unflagging support of your choice.

This simply doesn't pass the sniff test.

[madmunchie]

31. Edwards doesn't deserve to be POTUS and I pray to God that you

are wrong, because if he is the frontrunner, we are so very fucked.

[Inspired]

48. Please explain

how we would be fucked? Really, I want details and I pray that you have some before making - what appears to be - an absurd comment like this.

[madmunchie]

52. Edwards doesn't have the knowledge to be the POTUS

Edwards cast the wrong vote on the most important vote of his life

Edwards has NO Foreign Policy expertise

Edwards during the Democratic Primaries for President did not back down from his voting for the war in Iraq - no in fact he didn't decide to admit that his vote was wrong until it was "politically safe and popular" to do so. Showing a major lack of intelligence and/or character. I even knew that going to Iraq was wrong BEFORE Edwards apparently knew.

Edwards has been in Iowa so many times that it is so painfully obvious that his campaign is all that he cares about, being POTUS is all that he cares about, instead of doing work FOR the American People, he is working to further his career

Edwards, while serving his one and only term as Senator (his only Governing experience) was out campaigning for the #1 position and then the #2 position. Instead of focusing on the job that he was elected to do. Sure others were out campaigning as well, but Edwards NEVER even gave his supporters 1 full term of his working for them. Besides which, if he would have run again for the Senate, there was a great chance he would have lost.

His story of being the "son of a millworker" is so old because we have all heard it over and over and over and over again. Many other candidates had poor backrounds as well but they didn't harp on it over and over and over again.....because they had other things on the agenda to talk about with expertise....like Foreign Policy issues that are right now dominating this country.

Way too many of Edwards supporters have way too short a list of this guys credentials. Being a trial attorney and being POTUS are not the exact same job qualifications. Just because Edwards is a good speaker, good looking and charismatic doesn't qualify him as POTUS His success as a trial attorney could put him on the cabinet not in the oval office. Remember, Bush had charm, charisma and some considered good looking. (by many back in 2000, not necessarily now)

This time around we need EXPERIENCE, WISDOM AND FINESSE. The POTUS is not an ojt type of job. Look at what we ended up with when we tried that with Bush. We don't need a POTUS that "you want to have a beer with", another way of saying that Bush was likeable. (so who cares if Edwards is "likeable"?)

Maybe the people of this country will realize that good looks, charm and being from the south don't necessarily make for a good POTUS, maybe the people of this country will look deeper than that in a candidate this time around.

Edward's has a basic lack of character and he is way too ambitious, arrogant, calculating, inexperienced and not just not qualified for POTUS, he would make many mistakes and I don't trust that he would do what is in the best interest of this country, I believe that he would FIRST and foremost ALWAYS be serving his own best interest.

His first 4 years will be learning and campaigning for his next 4 years, while many important decisions will be doled out to his cabinet, which I don't believe he has enough knowledge to wisely choose.

[Inspired]

58. I disagree with many things you said

I think he will make a great president. And I think he has a fairly good shot at it. I can't name one Democratic contender right now who is drawing as much Republican support this early on as Edwards is. Yes, Edwards has been in Iowa a lot. Good for him. Each event draws several new Republicans. They are drawn to his intelligence and character. The two things you think he lacks. How ironic.

I won't go into to moment when I realized that he was the candidate that I support. Trust me...it has NOTHING to do with his looks. I dismissed him for months because of his looks and because I didn't feel he had 'earned' the right to become our president. I was wrong but I am proud to say I realized this before the '04 Iowa caucus.

You obviously have strong opinions against Edwards. You can say he doesn't have the experience you are looking for. Fine. I don't agree but you are just as entitled to your opinions as I am.

However, to say he lacks character is outrageous. To say he lacks intelligence is unbelievable. To get so personal just because you don't support him shows a lot about YOU. To say we'd be fucked if he was elected is still absurd.

[madmunchie]

68. Correction: I never said that he was not intelligent. So please don't

put words in my mouth.

Edwards is the only one ACTIVELY campaigning right now. THAT is why he is drawing the support. The others haven't gotten out there to campaign, because most of them are working at something other than campaigning for POTUS, some even are trying to do good for the country....

Clark has been on FOX news for months speaking to many more Republicans about why Bush's policies are failures, his audience is much bigger and I think he will get much more support if he chooses to run. How anybody could be drawn to Edward's character is beyond me. He has been seen over and over clammering to get in front of the cameras at different events whenever possible. He failed to acknowledge his bad vote giving Bush the authority to go into Iraq WAY WAY too late. He may personally have know that his vote was wrong, BUT he didn't admit to it until it was politically safe to do so....lack of character.

When an employer looks to hire somebody they first review the application. Edwards resume of qualifications to be POTUS is an easy one pager. He doesn't have Foreign Policy experience, He doesn't have much if any experience with many of the domestic issues. He is basically a one issue candidate. The role of POTUS requires more than a one issue candidate. Especially now. How do you judge a person's qualifications for POTUS? What qualifications do you look for? Trial Lawyer qualifications does not equal POTUS qualifications.

I stand by my words, I judge Edwards by his actions. His actions have been all about campaigning and positioning himself, very little to do with Governing.

We have much much better to offer: Gore, Clark, Kucinich, Feingold and even Obamma, although Obamma has just been in the Senate a couple of years or so, he had been in State Government for over 7 years before that, which gives him much more experience in GOVERNING, than Edwards. As a matter of fact, I would take Biden over Edwards as well, maybe even Dodd. Who knows what will transpire in the next year or so, but I do know that Hell would have to freeze over before I would support Edwards in a Primary.

When Edwards first came out, I thought about him and watched him, but after the debates, I knew that this guy didn't have what it would take to make a great POTUS, he was on the wrong side of the most important issue AND some his answers to other questions were so canned that it was obvious that there was a severe lack of depth to this man. He was too superfical and rehearsed and WRONG.

You have your right to your opinion, but when you look on this board, Edwards is definetly NOT the favorite son here......do you ever seriously...and I do mean seriously wonder why???? The group of people here are probably some of the most knowledgable and involved in politics that you can ever find. Seeing that they don't by great numbers support Edwards speaks volumes. They too are looking for more substance.

I feel that most of Edwards supporters aren't too deep of thinkers (now I didn't say stupid), and don't have the highest of standards when looking at possible candidates. They possibly get swept up by nice speeches....because that is all that they really have to judge Edwards on. He has no solid record of Governing to review. Some say that is good, Possibly, but I say not good enough to make him the best candidate because of it.

Ethically, I would hope that an elected official could at least finish one full term in public office serving the people that elected them, BEFORE they are off and running to be POTUS.

[NCarolinawoman]

69. I have to say I agree with everything that you have said, n/t

[madmunchie]

70. I take it that you are from NCarolina......

Could you please elaborate since I am sure that your experience is much more "up close and personal", PLUS is it true the Edwards probably would have lost the N Carolina race for Senator if he would have tried to run for a 2nd term? I'd really like to know anything that you would like to share! Thank you in advance.

[JeffR]

33. Never mind Edwards. Give me Pigasus or give me

uh... bacon.

[zulchzulu]

34. When you look at who is most qualified to be President...

...Leader of the Free World...




...A Person that most would look up to for their years of service and record...




...um....




Edwards?



Back him. Support him. Give his campaign money (I gave $25 when he announced).



We'll see.

[Bucky]

39. What does being most qualified have to do with getting elected?

Are ability to run the government and ability to get elected president even remotely connected?

[aein]

44. but what's more important? electability is an self-propulgating sophism that only clouds us from....

...selecting a person who we think can run this country well. Edwards is 'electable.' But so was George W. Bush.

[high density]

35. Probably not

His words seem pretty hollow foreign policy-wise. There's no experience or any special reasoning behind what he's saying other than what appears to be a finger in the wind. His domestic policy doesn't seem to make much sense either because he recently said he's not worried about the deficit. I think the deficit is a major issue which needs to be brought under control before China owns more than just our manufacturing industry.

[AJH032]

36. okay...so what is official?

:shrug:

[Digit]

37. He is definitely one to watch n/t

[Bucky]

38. I'm a Clarkie, but I agree. Edwards really is looking like the one to beat

I think Mrs Clinton, for all her dollars, has a glass jaw. She's the Democratic John Connally--connected to all the right people in DC and flush with cash. But the person who gets the nomination is the one who sets the roots on fire. She won't. She'll be out by Michigan, probably as a result of back-to-back weak performances in New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.

[madmunchie]

72. Remember one thing, Edwards is just about the only one that

has already announced that he is running for POTUS, others have jobs - besides campaigning.

[distantearlywarning]

47. He's my favorite.

I'd vote for him.

[stuntcat]

50. Edwards was/is still my favorite, but

He'd have to do a lot to get as much attention as Clinton or Obama.
And as true and right as hie "one America" stuff is, he's said it a few too many times.

But whatever, I love him! :loveya:

[MGD]

53. Too bad he voted for the IWR. I guess we can't support him now.

[Inspired]

59. I can. I will. I do. n/t

[fuzzyball]

57. First, Edwards has to shake off the "loser" tag from 2004

and I was not impressed by his appearance on Leno.
He tried to pass all blame on Kerry.

[Inspired]

62. Well, Kerry ran the campaign, didn't he?

Kerry was the one those who voted for Bush didn't like. Not Edwards. Edwards wanted to do more. He wanted to go out against the swifty's early on. Edwards wanted to challenge the Ohio outcome. Who stopped him? The K-E-R-R-Y campaign.

Kerry's campaign was flawed. I remember walking into the headquarters, I was captain for 3 precincts, begging them to give me something to work with. I saw first hand our support slipping away. We were slammed in August/September of 2004 and we couldn't ever regain the lost support. This was NOT Edwards fault. There were so many mistakes made in this campaign that had nothing to do with Edwards.

[fuzzyball]

67. You are right but...no VP nominee should ever pass all blame on to

the presidential nominee. It is always a team effort.
Be a man and accept part of the game. Otherwise it comes
off as childish.

[Nedsdag]

63. As he should.

Kerry kept him on a short leash during the campaign. Kerry barely campaigned in the South. You hardly saw Edwards during the campaign. Yes, Kerry was at the top of the ticket; however, the reason I even voted for him was Edwards. I'm undecided for 2007 (too early) but I will definitely consider Edwards next year.

[FrenchieCat]

78. Your logic loses me......

On the one hand Edwards supporters have stated on this thread that people don't vote for the VP....yet on the other hand, you state clearly here that you voted for John Kerry precisely because John Edwards was also on the ticket.

SO I ask, why is what is good enough for you (to vote for one based on the Veep running)not good enough for others?

I believe that most who voted for John Kerry did so because they did not want Bush as President any longer....and believed that John Kerry would be a good President. So you are basically saying that although John Kerry selected John Edwards as Veep, most people didn't realize that John Edwards would be next in line...and that voting for Kerry would more or less ensure an Edwards presidency at some point in time?

The whole "They would have voted for Edwards as Prez but did not vote for Kerry as prez cause he was on top" doesn't make much sense to me. I think that it is an Edwards supporter excuse as to why Edwards didn't really help Kerry much in the Presidential race. I think folks vote for the package.....and then there are other variables......

[FrenchieCat]

61. John Edwards may in fact have a great chance.....

after all, he's the only White guy in the Democratic bunch who the media will give the time of day to....so he's well positioned.

In terms of his qualifications, other than knowing how to do politics well on his own behalf, that's not enough.

Here is John Edwards working side by side with the "poor" people......along with his microphone pinned to his shirt. How cute is that?



And talking about the poor ain't what I call a qualification. Now if an Edwards supporter can point me to some kind of legislation he introduced for and fought for in regards to the poor while he was in the Senate, I'd like a look at that.


Until the feeling of unease I have about John Edwards' sincerity abates, he is not a contenter in my book.

[Nedsdag]

64. Frenchie, I've been dying to ask you this question.

Just in case Clark doesn't run, would you set out 2008?

[FrenchieCat]

66. If Clark doesn't run, then I will research the other candidates

to see who has the best platform (meaning I need to read their positions and their proposals as candidates); the best proven track record; who has best demonstrated via concrete action their leadership qualities now and when they weren't running; Who proposes the best detailed solutions for the plank they will put up; and who can prove to my taste to be the most authentic in their concerns for this country as opposed to their concerns for their personal legacy.

It won't most likely be John Edwards unless someone can provide me with proof of his sincerity...cause right now, what he says doesn't jive with what he did when he could have done something.....and to date, no Edwards supporter has pointed me to how Edwards actually tried to champion for poor folks when he could.....during his 6 years in the senate.

In other words, I will be undecided until I see some concrete data.....and not some packaged candidate pushed in my face by the media.......

Trying to sell me for the sake of making it to a highest office is gonna take some real effort on the part of any candidate as they will have to get through my "set on high" BS meter......and considering that I don't go for the Okey-Dokey....it will take quite a bit of skill from the candidate. If Edwards can do this...then more power to him, it means that he will be a great candidate not just to those who want their idea of Camelot back (watching a dimpled chin on TV isn't my idea of what I look forward to when we elect a Democratic President).

[Clark2008]

75. Exactly.

I wrote my one soliloquy two weeks back and shan't do it again, but you can speak for me.

I don't trust the man. I don't find him sincere and I disagree with most of what he stood for when he was a senator; therefore, I won't be voting for him.

Should Clark not run, I, too, will take a hard look at other candidates. I love Gore. I like Obama, even though I don't think he has a shot in hell of winning in a general election. Biden's OK (at least he has a clue about foreign policy, even if I don't always agree with him). Vilsack - eh.. kind of vanilia. Who are the others? Hillary? :rofl: She won't flip one red state. Obama has a better shot at that than she does.

Sadly, of most of the candidates, there isn't a whole hell of a lot to like about them. Most are DLC, including Edwards, who was a HUGE DLCer when was a senator. Gore has abandoned that type of thinking - I don't think Edwards has.

It's pretty sad when the choices are so limiting.

[DaveinMD]

79. real economic populism

is as far from DLC thinking as one could get. There are a ton of great choices. I like all our candidates. Every single one of them will be a huge improvement over what we have now.

[ultraist]

81. Martin Luther King III gave high praise to Edwards

At Riverside Church, yesterday, where John Edwards delivered the keynote address, Martin Luther King III, a well respected advocate for those in poverty, introduced John Edwards with glowing remarks about his work for those in poverty, as did Marien Wright Edeleman.

With endorsements like those, from highly respected advocates for those in poverty, I'd seriously consider heeding what they have said and research the work that John Edwards has done for people in poverty, before I'd consider a remark about a microphone and a very disrespectful comment about "working next to poor people."

I was there that day in New Orleans and met those children that John Edwards worked with, for the entire day and I can assure you, that they, along with the President of the state NAACP chapter and everyone else who was there did not have the same views on that day as a poster here.

[madmunchie]

71. Frenchie, you and I are on the same boat here!

Edwards is not qualified nor does he have the character to be POTUS. Edwards knows how to campaign and dream big and gives a decent speech (although he does need new material).

I see Edwards as being overly egotistical, arrogant and more self serving than others.

[ChiciB1]

65. I'm WITH You! Only Thing That Will Stop Him Will Be

BIG AL!!!

[ultraist]

80. Yes, Edwards will be the frontrunner

He is polling number one in Iowa and will win SC again. He's also got very strong union ties, as he's been fighting to expand and strengthen unions, intensively over the last two years, which will help him in Nevada.

Keep your eye on John Edwards... you won't be disappointed!

[Hippo_Tron]

82. Early frontrunners always do great in democratic primaries...

Just ask President Muskie, President Hart, President Tsongas, and President Dean.

[geiger]

83. Hillary and Obama need to stay in the Senate

Hillary could be Majority Leader and Obama could figure out what he believes in (besides himself).