I Like the John Edwards of 2007 a Lot More Than the John Edwards of 2003.

[David Zephyr]

Well, after kicking him more than just a few times here at the DU (only when he deserved it), I have to fess up that I am finding a new found appreciation of John Edwards and his candidacy lately. And it's because something has changed and I don't know exactly when it began, but...

John Edwards is finally finding his voice. He's finally letting us know who he really is, what makes him tick and he's showing us his leadership qualities that for some reason or another he played down.

This is the guy that was a genuine quarterback back when George W. Bush was a cheerleader. In many ways, John Edwards is George W. Bush in reverse:

- One was born into poverty with no influential friends or family to pull strings for him like the other one had.

- One went on to create financial successes for himself and his clients, while the other one went from one failed enterprise to another.

- One found great motivation throughout his life in compassion for others, while the other, in his 50's, apparently discovered the word "compassion" might be used in a cynical poltical slogan to further his own ambition.

- One is a true Southern gentleman of character, while the other is just a rich redneck brat.

John Edwards is the Anti-Bush Candidate. They are polar opposites.

I like this John Edwards, because I feel like we are seeing the real John Edwards.

Perhaps his dropping so much in the polls has liberated him from trying to play it safe anymore.

If Democrats want to play it safe in 2008, they already have lots of choices: Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. That territory is already taken.

Still, leaving all political strategies out of the equation...

John Edwards seems like he's found his wings now.

Something has changed in the last three weeks. You can see it in his eyes and you can hear it in his voice.

When John talks about the war in Iraq, the condition of health-care, taxes, education, poverty, he is at long last speaking straight from his heart and his message resounds.

Is it too late for Senator Edwards? I don't think so.

Don't be surprised if John Edwards doesn't start seeing a rise in his poll numbers. In fact, I am predicting it.

Something has happened within the Edwards camp. Maybe it's Elizabeth urging him to let it all go and just be himself. I don't know, But I like this John Edwards a lot. And it's not only a good thing for John, but it's also a good thing for the other candidates, too.

What's funny is that the very thing that Edwards gets ribbed about the most --- the fact that he is a nice guy --- may just be the thing that he now lets shine through: his great sense of fairness and decency.

Watch out, Democrats: The "nice" guy may actually finish FIRST. And wouldn't that be a refreshing sea-change in American politics?

[ruggerson]

1. I think he's going to be the nominee

I may be totally wrong, but that's what my gut says.

[David Zephyr]

8. I'm curious to see the polls that come out in the next few weeks.

Your gut may be right. Something is clicking with John Edwards. It's obvious even to me and I'm the guy that gave him so much shit here. I like that he's finding his voice and taking chances now.

[AtomicKitten]

2. me too

[Totally Committed]

7. So, you've given up the ghost on Al's running?

Damn!

The "Edwards of 2007" is giving me whiplash. I dunno. "shoulders:

TC

[AtomicKitten]

9. I really didn't care for the 2004 cycle Democratic campaign.

So, in comparison to that, I like what he says now better than before.

My choices remain below, in order. I have that photo not to cheer-lead but for full disclosure.

:patriot:

[Apollo11]

43. Didn't you change your photo?

AK - I think you mean the photo where you had Gore and Obama side by side.

I would agree that if Gore is the nominee then Obama should be his running mate.

But a Gore-Edwards ticket would be too much of a southern white-guy drawlathon.

Plus I don't think you can have 2 recycled (or "do-over") candidates on the same ticket.

Personally I think Obama should serve as VP first, then run for Prez in 2016.

I would be happy to see Obama on the ticket in 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020.

An Edwards-Obama ticket looks unlikely today, but you never know.

My choices, in order, are Gore followed by Clark and Edwards (tied for second).

:kick:

[AtomicKitten]

48. Yes, I did.

The new sig line appears in all posts, so the post here were I referenced my sig line was, as you correctly guessed, posted before the change but reflects the new graphic.

If Gore doesn't run (still have my fingers crossed), I will support Obama. Funny thing is that if he doesn't get the nod, he will almost certainly be on the short list for VP.

Wes Clark is someone I am also keeping an eye one.

Don't be a stranger. :hi:

[cleveramerican]

3. I was there for his acceptance speech ....

when he accepted the nomination for VP, and I can tell you he moved that crowd.
He was always good but he's gotten much better these last few weeks.
I also have seen a new ease in him that is very appealing.

[jgraz]

4. But...but...doesn't the fact the he woke up make him a hypocrite?

So much better to have a candidate who never changes their views, or -- even better -- a candidate who has no core beliefs.

:sarcasm:

[rwheeler31]

5. I agree.

Thom Hartman and Rachel Madow are supporting him, hope it helps.

[waiting for hope]

6. Bill Maher too -

things are looking pretty good in Edwards direction. :)

[MethuenProgressive]

10. The 2004 Edwards is the real Edwards

He added nothing to the ticket (we didn't even win his state), and failed to step up nationally and take on the swiftboaters and Rove.
He's a nice guy. But so was Mike Dukakis. And we don't really want another Dukakis, do we?

[CTyankee]

19. Edwards is no Dukakis. For one thing, he is not so insular. And he's savvy.

He has a good organization. Dukakis's was a disaster and he was tone deaf. Also Dukakis seemed "foreign" to the rest of the country. Being from Massachusetts didn't help. Kitty's drinking problem didn't help.

We may have to write off the South but now we may not need it to win enough electoral votes. John has charm but also exudes strength. He won't let the Republicans get away with sliming him. Elizabeth is an enormous asset. People, especially women, just love her. He won't be photographed in a funny wetsuit while windsurfing. Elizabeth will be strong and firm without telling heckler's to "shove it." I could go on and on as to why Edwards is a totally different candidate from Dukakis and Kerry.

I for one am enjoying this ride immensely...

[Inspired]

38. You are grasping. n/t

[CTyankee]

61. Well, my opinions have been shaped from my political watches over the last 40 years.

By now, I think I have a pretty good feel for political savvy. It took some time to get it through my thick head but I think I'm right.

[Inspired]

65. Oh, I agree with you.

I was replying to a different poster. I am an Edwards supporter 100%.

[LBJDemocrat]

11. Bush isn't a redneck

He's a New Englander.

[Lucinda]

18. Redneck is a state of mind

[AllieB]

24. There are rednecks in New England.

As the other poster said, it's a state of mind.

[Pawel K]

12. I'm not yet sold on supporting him over Kucinich but he has been impressing me lately. nt

[Broke Dad]

13. I was Kucinich then Dean in 2004 . . .

I was sooo tired of hearing the "son of a mill worker" speech in 2004.

Edwards has worked on a lot of Habitat for Humanity houses the last three years. He has spend a fair amount of time in New Orleans helping rebuild houses too. Most of the work in Iowa was done with no press around. Just local folks in need. I felt like he finally saw how 50 - 60 million of us struggle every day. The Democratic Party used to be the party of the blue collar worker and the working poor. I blame the Clintons, among others in the DLC, for throwing in with the corporate elite against the rest of us. NAFTA, GATT, the list goes on and on. After six years of more of the same and "stay the course" I want a president who can admit he was wrong, make corrections, and most of all remember that he is the voice for those of us without a lobbyist or a PAC. Jimmy Carter was the last president to talk about the "common good."

My problem with Dennis this cycle is that he is like John the Baptist in the desert. He is a prophet, but he is not a leader. If Dennis was a leader, he would have at least 225 other congresspersons backing his initiatives. Leadership is about bringing people to your point of view, it is about building consensus. Dennis is not doing this. It looks like he is not even trying. Seeing Dennis on the trail, it seems like it is more important to him to be right than to build a consensus.

I believe that John Edwards, and to a lesser extent, Barak Obama, have the skills to convince America to change, to build consensus and to return the Democratic Party to its roots.

[Ninga]

14. Wow Broke Dad, I like your analogy and take on the Edwards of '07. I know Dennis personally,

and he is exactly as you state, a prophet.

In many ways Dennis has been ahead of the curve his whole political career.... his perspective is one of a "shape maker" and visionary.....his inability to build consensus has followed him in each of his elected offices.

What one finds when in his company, is he has a bit of autocrat in him.....a do it my way or else.

In some cases that tenacity has served him and his congressional district well.....and in many it has not.

I really think his role in all of this, has been to elevate the discourse and make sure that health care, peace, and workers rights stay in the forefront of the debate.

Nothing less, nothing more.

[Pawel K]

15. I do agree with you. My problem is that Kucinich is very honest about his positions

and always has been. He is really the only one that shares what 99% of the people on this board share. The fact nobody on our team wants to get behind him is partly the fault of the DLC and partly the fault of the media. It seems like the only way he can get in to the mainstream (whatever that means) is to whore his positions, as most other candidates have already done, including edwards in many respects.

So its still early, lets see how Edwards does. I have been much more impressed with him lately and if he keeps it up maybe we can get all Kucinich supporters, such as myself, to actually switch over to Edwards if Kucinich doesn't grow his support within the next 4 months or so. In my opinion whatever we have to do to beat HRC should be done, Edwards might be a great choice to defeat her.

[David Zephyr]

21. You make an interesting observation.

"Leadership is about bringing people to your point of view." Discounting the advantage of money some candidates have and others don't, your point is a sound one.

[laureloak]

28. I don't think Edwards "finally saw" the struggles the poor

face every day. He has known all along because he grew up in the middle of it. May it's you who finally saw Edwards for what he really is.

[Auntie Bush]

55. He didn't impress me in 2004. He didn't do what the VP is suppose to do.

He's suppose to defend the presidential nominee and be his attack dog and let the PN stay above the fray. He didn't work as a team...he was all for John Edwards. I always felt his campaigning was practice or prep for his own 2008 campaign. I don't think that was being loyal to his running mate.He's been in campaign mode constantly for the past 8-12 years. He ought to have his speeches and policy down pat.

As far as the great speeches from the heart as the op referred to...don't forget he was a fantastic defense attorney and you need to be a good actor for that job. He's been practicing that kind of speech ever since he became a lawyer. Don't forget he's a politician too.

I frankly don't trust him and his own constituents in SC didn't like him either and he would have been beaten if he had run again. However, I'd certainly vote for him should he win the nomination.

[Pawel K]

56. So who do you trust?

None of them are perfect. If Kucinich doesn't bring more people to his side in the next few months Edwards might be the best out of all others running.

[maximusveritas]

16. This isn't the real John Edwards IMO

It's the John Edwards who realized he needed to move to the left in order to have a chance in the primaries.
This is his problem. While some like yourself will give him the benefit of the doubt, many will doubt his sincerity.
He's escaped serious scrutiny so far because he's in 3rd place, but if he ends up our nominee, he will be badly hurt by this.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

17. Empty labels will hardly be a big GE issue

The only place where some are concerned about his slight shift on issues, something all politicians have done (look at the series of changed positions your candidate has had within the last 12 months alone, with the shift coming when he has been running for prez each time), is on the netroots. Even here it is based on cherry picking a couple of votes out of a few hundred. The same can be done with any candidate. No candidate is immune from being called a flip-flopper. The difference between everyone else and Romney is he has flipped flop on numerous fundamental issues.

[DangerDave921]

30. Yup

Of course if I ever say anything negative about St. John, I get attacked. But I just don't trust the guy at all. He wants it so bad, and he will say just about anything to make it happen.

[sendero]

49. How is that different from Obama?

Or ESPECIALLY HRC, the original pandering triangulating stand-for-nothing candidate?

I'll tell you how it's different, at least Edwards' rhetoric matches the REALITIES in this country, not something you can say about Mr. Audacious Hope or Ms. Riding Bill.

[DangerDave921]

50. Distrust

I'm a trial attorney myself, which maybe makes be biased against Edwards. I've known too many people who make a living from adopting whatever position they need to adopt to win their case. And this is no different. Edwards is on the march to win the nomination, and he will say whatever he thinks will get him there.

That being said, I have a healthy distrust of ALL politicians. They are on a 2-year job interview where everything they say is tailored to their goal, i.e., win. It's as simple as that. Anyone who blindly accepts their darling candidate's words at face-value is naive.

[sendero]

51. I think all adults here..

... understand that ALL politician at this level are putting on an performance.

The question is, is the play good enough to stay for the third act?

At least Edwards is talking about the REAL problems facing America (and despite the accusations of some, the "two Americas" meme was a centerpiece of his 2004 campaign as well) and doing something valuable for this country - i.e. countering the Republican/convervative idea that THEIR way - less regulation, more tax cuts for the rich, etc is actually helping the average American.

It is NOT, it is doing EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE, and neither HRC nor Obama has the BALLS to say so.

Do I think Edwards will win the nomination? Not really. The entrenched interests REALLY don't like anyone dissing their grand scheme, especially when it is working so well. But if he just wakes a few million more Americans up to something resembling the reality of our country it will be more than either of the front runners have accomplished.

[TeamJordan23]

54. That's my problem with him. Where was all this populist/poverty talk in 2003? nm

[Radical Activist]

71. I also have to wonder what the Edwards of 2009 will be like.

I generally like Edwards but he changes too much.

[polichick]

20. I hope we're seeing the real John Edwards now...

This one seems to get it!

[Totally Committed]

23. That's my concern -- Which one is the REAL one?

Just as I'm about to settle on the 2007 JE, he supposedly comes out with plans to put Republicans in his Cabinet.

I'm holding off deciding for awhile longer, I think. This whole campaign is giving me whiplash.

TC

[polichick]

27. Lol, pretty hard to tell what's real these days!

Since my state has a late primary, it doesn't matter much who I like best ~ but I'd choose someone truly revolutionary (and evolutionary) if I had my druthers.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. TC, any prez will put 1 or 2 token members of the other party in his/her administration

Even * did it and so did Clinton. Edwards is just honest enough to tell you this up front.

[KoKo]

22. Agree! Thanks for this post! Brownies Law and "if you let lobbyist at the table they'll

eat everything."

He's making great points.

[rndmprsn]

25. thanks for this...

i have been seeing the same evolution in edwards...he and kucinich are my two leading candidates so far.

[LaPera]

26. You've got it, Edwards has evolved even more progressively and beautifully liberal - I love

Edwards health care ideas....republicans corporate pigs certainly don't want to see Edwards social ideas for the people implemented.

[calteacherguy]

40. "Evolved." Is that what pandering, redefining oneself, and hypocrisy is being called now? nt

[KoKo]

31. another kick for good stuff from Edwards... n/t

[Catchawave]

32. K&R for a nice, positive candidate diary :)

Nice change of pace around here :hi:

[rucky]

33. He's second on my list.

Obama was, but his support of the Bush Doctrine is a dealbreaker.

[cigsandcoffee]

34. What frightens me is the John Edwards of 2010.

Which one will he be? Are you sure?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. Name 1 candidate who has not changed positions. Thanks in advance nt

[cigsandcoffee]

37. From war-hawk to peace-dove is one hell of a position change.

I can forgive someone who was wavering then, but Edwards went so far as to call Iraq an "imminent threat." Did Bush even do that?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/24/le.00.html

But I do think that the more serious question going forward is, what are we going to do? I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.

Please tell me why I should trust him to not do another 180 in the future. The Iraq war became unpopular, and Edwards was a late arrival to the peace movement. If attacking Iran becomes popular in the future, I have a hard time trusting him to take the less popular stance.

What reason do you have to trust him? What he says now?

[JTFrog]

44. A hell of a lot

better to go from warhawk to peacedove than from warhawk to preparing for the next war.

[cigsandcoffee]

53. What convinces you he won't be a warhawk again?

The sound of conviction in his voice?

[CTyankee]

58. Was this said by Edwards BEFORE we knew there were no WMD's in Iraq?

In all fairness, before all the evidence we now know so well came out -- faux aluminum tubes, what Joe Wilson DIDN'T find in Africa, the Downing St. memo, etc, etc -- we couldn't be sure, tho many of us doubted it. If you look at the efforts by Clinton to keep WMD's out of Saddam's hands, you realize that at one time Saddam certainly had started work on them. Clinton's efforts proved to be successful, as we now know for sure. But then, we didn't.

[cigsandcoffee]

60. Most people on this forum were clever enough to doubt Bush and...

..oppose the war. Other folks gave it very lukewarm support. Edwards was a fucking cheerleader for it.

Now I'm supposed to believe this convenient dove won't change again in the future when popularity dictates he turn in to a hawk? Sorry, I just don't buy it. Edwards is trying to be the Howard Dean of 2008 by catering to the left. I believed and trusted Dean - I don't believe Edwards.

[CTyankee]

62. But we didn't know for sure that Saddam no longer had WMD's.

And he certainly wanted them, based on his earlier actions.

Also, Bush told Congress that he would let the UN inspectors stay and do their work before invading militarily. He went back on his word after the vote to which I think you refer.

As the saying goes, hindsight is 20/20...

[cigsandcoffee]

66. Anyone who says they didn't know Bush would go to war is a liar.

Everyone knew what that vote was for, and why it was happening. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Edwards - a co-sponsor of that bill - was as gung-ho about going in to Iraq as any neocon. If you want to let him slide now on a talking point that one might use while debating a Republican, that's your prerogative. But don't tell me that he didn't know what that vote was all about, and that he didn't ride the pro-war populism like Lance Armstrong on a ten speed.

[CTyankee]

67. "everyone".? Glad you're sure of what every single person knew when they knew it!

Actually, even tho I support him, I think he SHOULD be questioned on his vote more closely. At this point he has apologized for it, but I would like to know what he was thinking. Unlike you, I confess I just don't know.

So, if Edwards becomes our Dem candidate in the general, what will you do? From the tenor of your remarks, I get the feeling you equate him with Republicans, so you couldn't possibly vote for him, right?

[Cameron27]

73. We didn't know for a certainty that Saddam didn't have WMD

but Edwards would have if he bothered to read the NIE papers. He was on the Intelligence Committee, we weren't; he had access to closed door sessions that raised red flags for the all the other Democratic committee members except for him, and he was the only Democratic member of the committee who didn't read the NIE.

The NIE pointed to the lack of evidence for the Niger yellowcake story, the aluminum tubes and the entire bush claim of WMD. No one who took the time to thoroughly research these claims could doubt that the intel was being cooked to push us into an invasion. Look at what Durbin and Graham were warning their colleagues.

This grave lack of judgment in a time of crisis is the reason that I can never trust Edwards' judgment in the future.

[Radical Activist]

72. From DLC style Southern moderate to crusading liberal is another big one.

Which is the real Edwards?

[illinoisprogressive]

36. Though not my first choice (second) I think he is pretty cool.

[calteacherguy]

39. But are you "man enough" to vote for Hillary Clinton? nt

[eridani]

41. I think he noticed the applause Kucinich got for substance in 2003

--and moved in that direction this year. Then, he was just a goodlooking southerner with a nice "One America" theme, and no substance whatsoever. One of the local WA state advocates for him spoke at one of the Seattle luncheons, and didn't even MENTION "One America". She was all NASCAR dads yaddayadda this demographic we have to reach yaddayadda that demographic...etc. Not a single word of inspiration.

[Apollo11]

42. Maybe Al Gore will endorse Edwards?

It's just a hunch I have, that if Al Gore does not change his mind and jump into the race for 2008, then he might endorse John Edwards for President.

Here's what Al Gore said to Larry King on CNN back in May:

GORE on HILLARY
"She is running a very forceful campaign. She has earned the strong support of her constituents in New York."

GORE on OBAMA
"He is also running a very strong campaign. I think that he is appealing to a lot of people who like the sense that he's talking about issues in a fresh way. And, you know, he has a lot of support."

GORE on EDWARDS
"Likewise, running a strong campaign. Put out a lot of very thoughtful policy statements and positions. I think you can see the strength that he's gained from having been around the track last time."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/22/lkl.01.html

Of the candidates currently in the race, I like Edwards the best.

Part of me wishes Al Gore or Wes Clark could be the nominee.

On the other hand, Wes Clark could serve as Secretary of State or Sec. of Defense.

I know there is a 10-year rule, but Congress can over-ride it.

:kick:

[Clark2008]

46. Congress can override it, but probably won't.

Not without a compelling reason.

[Apollo11]

47. A compelling reason

What if our next President says that Wes Clark is the best person for the job?

Surely Congress members can understand that 8 years and 9 months is pretty close to 10 years.

According to wikipedia:

The United States Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) is the head of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), concerned with the armed services and military matters. The role of the Secretary of Defense is to be the principal defense policy advisor to the President and is responsible for the formulation of general defense policy and policy related to all matters of direct and primary concern to the DoD, and for the execution of approved policy. The Secretary is appointed by the President with the approval of the Senate, and is a member of the Cabinet. By statute the secretary must be a civilian who has not served in the active component of the armed forces for at least 10 years (10 USC Sec. 113 - Note that Congress had passed a law to allow George Marshall to be appointed in 1950 despite having only been a civilian since 1945). The Secretary of Defense is sixth in the presidential line of succession.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_Defense

In January 2009, Wes Clark will have been out of the military for almost 9 years.

Why would Congress not follow the precedent that was already set in 1950? :eyes:

[CTyankee]

68. While I understand the rationale of the precedent, when I look at George Marshall

andhow his Marshall Plan saved postwar western Europe from communism, I come down on the side of "best person for the job."

IMHO, Wes Clark could be another Marshall. I supported his candidacy early last time, signed up to work locally on his campaign and then was crestfallen when he withdrew from the race. I know we'll see more of him in the next, Democratic, administration!

[Apollo11]

52. Plus there is the LCV

The League of Conservation Voters, which has not yet endorsed a candidate for president, described Edwards' plan as the "most comprehensive global warming plan of any presidential candidate to date."

"Senator Edwards' plan demonstrates that he understands the magnitude of the challenge before us and the need for bold leadership to meet it," LCV President Gene Karpinski said.

http://johnedwards.com/issues/energy/

[Clark2008]

45. I don't because I don't trust that the Edwards of 2007 is any

different from the Edwards of 2003. I think he's the same - he just has a new campaign manager.

And, I find it ironic you say he's the anti-Bush. I find him to be very similar to Bush, only a lot smarter.

[goodhue]

57. me too

[Forkboy]

59. I think he's the most electable one running.

I don't like everything about him but he's still my second pick,and potentially my first,depending on how things shake out here in Mass.I think he'll trounce whichever goon the Repubs prop up.

[Freddie Stubbs]

63. Which John Edwards is the real John Edwards?

The John Edwards of 2003 or the John Edwards of 2007? And if elected, which one would we get? Or would he get yet another John Edwards?

[RevolutionStartsNow]

64. I agree

I don't blame people who are asking "Which one is the real JE?", but from what I've read, JE is coming into his own. No doubt Elizabeth has had a great influence.

Speaking of Elizabeth, I read an interview with her in The Progressive where she talks about being at the table when the IWR was first being discussed with John and a group of his advisors. She was extremely skeptical, as in "Where are the WMD? Where's the evidence?", but she kept it mostly to herself.

I was tenatively in the Obama camp, and while I will happily vote for either Barack or Hillary (both good Dems for the most part), I think JE is the best candidate. For this liberal anyway.

[Apollo11]

70. Elizabeth is great

Her phonecall to MSNBC when they had Anne Coulter - that for me was the highlight of the campaign up until now.

It's almost like it would be easier to vote for John Edwards if he promised to listen to his wife everyday! B-)

But unfortunately some old-fashioned types would say that means he is not a strong leader ...

Remember how they hated Hillary playing an active role in the Clinton-Gore Administration?

I think maybe Al Gore was one of the people who thought she was over-involved in some issues.

[Netbeavis]

69. Edwards is the GOP's nightmare.

Edwards is the GOP's nightmare. This is why Fox and others are going after him hard and fast. Have you ever heard a time when the other side went after the third place candidate? The GOP wants Edwards sunk now before he has a chance to take them on. The GOP have waited 8 plus years to go after Hillary and have a stockpile of nasty ads & swiftboats just waiting for her. They will also go after Obama just like they went after Harold Ford with racist and double entandra ads just bold enough to fool the typical Rush listener. It doesn't mean that HIllary or Barack can't handle the attacks, it just makes the contests tougher than they have to be. An Edwards win and nomination would really catch them off guard, unprepared and in a deep hole.

Edwards/Clinton ticket would be unbeatable in the general election. Barack would make a excellent Attorney General and restore hope, integrity and equality to our Justice Department.

[slick8790]

74. You're correct, he is the GOP's nightmare.

A charasmatic southern populist vs. a formerly faux-moderate massachusetts governor or a still faux-moderate new york mayor with 3 marriages? Aside from the culture clash in the south, it'll simply make many conservatives just stay home, and the last thing we need is a motivated republican base.

[Cameron27]

75. Not according to Elizabeth. She thinks it's Hillary who will energize

the GOP base. I don't see how they can continue to put out the message that the republicans fear John the most after that remark.

[Netbeavis]

76. I think your missing the point

The previous post was saying that the Democrats do not want to see an energized GOP base. If the GOP base is malaise, then most will probably stay home on election day or better yet, not contribute time, money & swiftboats to the campaigns. Over the years, Hillary has been turned into this "Right-wing Boogieman" by the GOP. From Rush on down, they have all instilled fear in their minions that if Hillary is elected, then the world will just end, therefore she must be stopped at all cost. All the GOP has to do is spook their people into thinking that life under Hillary will threaten their own little naive cocoon, and then the base will become active. This is something we definitely do not want to have happen. This is no dig against Hillary as I think she is a top tier candidate for the task at hand, but why make things easier for the GOP then they have to be? We have them on the ropes, its time to put them away.

Edwards on the other hand isn't even on the radar of most GOP. Those who are calling the shots now for the GOP are trying to slime the top 3 Dems as they know they have a long battle ahead of them. They have no retort for Edwards. They also know that if they try to run on their Family Values bulls**t, that Edwards is a White, Christian, Monogamous male who will be either running against 1) A 3 time married, publicly adulterous, quasi-christian, cross-dressing Liberal from NYC or 2) A really old, really bad impersonator of a politician and statesman with a wife half of his age. Mitt stands no chance in getting out of the gate.

Not a pretty choice and glad its not me who has to decide.

[Cameron27]

77. I disagree with your assessment.

It's been Edwards' character that's been attacked the most by the GOP, a case in point, Ann Coulter. That's what gets the base energized more than anything else IMO. Character, not issues. Look how they attacked Kerry; they demeaned his heroism & patriotism, while pushing the votes for idiot bush with the message, "the one you could enjoy a beer with."

I don't think Edwards can have it both ways on this issue. The base gets energized with fear and hate, and if Edwards manages to get his numbers up, he'll feel the full fury of their attack.

[Netbeavis]

78. OK, but

since when has anyone ever attacked a 3rd place candidate? Rule of thumb is to go after the perceived winner early and often. If that's the case then Coulter and others are just wasting their time talking about & trashing Edwards when they should be mucking it up over Hillary and being a distraction and total drag on her.

Besides, Coulter, Hannity and others don't tie their shoes with out orders from above. They are attacking Edwards now as they do not want to face him later after he has won several states and has serious momentum. That crowd so desprately wants Edwards to take the bait on one of their smeers and do something to possibly sink the campaign. Up til now, Edwards, (and the others for that matter) have shown good awareness and not fallen for it. The GOP so desperately wants Hillary to be the opposition so they can rally their base.

I have nothing against Hillary, Barack or Edwards. I'll take either one in the office. I just think that when it comes to matching up our candidates to theirs, Edwards does not have a rival and will give the GOP fits.