The Agonist: Edwards: Electable and Progressive

[Catchawave]

Food for thought :) Also, "you don't have to agree with me" :patriot:


http://agonist.org/ian_welsh/20070811/edwards_electability

Via Left in the West, an article from Rolling Stone on Edwards:

Flying below the radar, the former vice-presidential candidate is pulling off a feat that Democratic consultants have long considered impossible: staking out the most progressive platform among the viable candidates while preserving an aura of electability. In head-to-head polling against the likes of Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, Clinton and Obama have managed to post only modest leads. Edwards, by contrast, not only bests every Republican candidate in the race, he trounces them -- by an average of twelve points.

At this point I really have no idea why more progressives aren't aligning behind Edwards. He's electable. He's staking out progressive positions. He doesn't want to expand the army. He talks about the poor and middle class all the time. He's put out the best health care plan of the big 3. Hilary will rule as a conservative Democrat - anyone who thinks otherwise simply hasn't paid attention. Obama seems to be trending the same way.

Edwards is highly progressive and electable. Not getting behind him makes me wonder if America's progressives really are serious about seeing policies they favor ever be enacted or if they're so used to being used and abused by conservative Dems that they can't even conceive of someone who might agree with them... and win.

It's likely to be a self fulfilling prophecy if the refusal of many progressives to take sides strongly continues.

[saracat]

1. Please gods, let us be intelligent enough to nominate Edwards. We need to win

and Edwards is the one who can do it!And as always, others may disgaree.Nice post!

[Catchawave]

2. Thanks, I'm starting to agree with the blogger's point.....

...maybe we don't want to win :cry:

I mean, look how much money blogdom's made off the Bush Administration.

Scary thought, isn't it?

[coco77]

5. why is he electable?

Is it because the red staters want a good ole boy...or is there some other reason.Slannity is making sure the red staters go after him for his hair cut and being rich.

[Catchawave]

7. Thanks for repeating more RW icky stuff.....

A better question for you....Why is he NOT electable?

Better yet, why is "your" candidate more electable?

[coco77]

11. I don't think that he is not electable...

they all are electable from what I have seen in the past few years in this country. I don't have a candidate but I will vote for Biden in the primaries. I have heard everything possible so far about each candidate and they all have something that anyone can make an issue of..

[Catchawave]

12. But, but....why did you post a "new thread" saying you

were tired of Edwards ? After mine?

[coco77]

13. Because I am...

[Catchawave]

15. Why ?

I read your OP. "just because" ?

[coco77]

17. You haven't convinced me yet...

how long are you and his others gonna try. I don't see it..

[saltpoint]

26. It's not the OP's job to convince you. It's your job to cast an informed vote.

If you examine Edwards' detailed policies issued, posted on-line, and detailed for all to see during this campaign, and find no immutable virtues, then the fault is in your set.

You might run a 2-column notebook exercise on any of our Democrats next to any of the Republican candidates.

You'd not only learn our candidates' strengths much better than you know them now, you'd also see how spiritually vacuous the GOP's field really is.

I think it would be a useful undertaking.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

62. They think Edwards is somehow responsible for Clark's spectacular failure in 2003-2004

They remain bitter and broken about that four years later.

[saltpoint]

64. Well, they have a point of course. John and Elizabeth Edwards snuck into

Wes Clark's house during that week before the primary season even started and they poisoned the food in the refrigerator. They laced the milk, the beer, the pop, the chicken salad, the Jello, and a couple of homemade things that bore a resemblence to Rice Krispie treats. Who knows what the hell they were? They were laced with poison by John Edwards and that radical feminist wife of his.

On the way out they shot the dog 6 times and set the toolshed ablaze with kerosense and a match.

You can hardy blame the General's fans for being upset.

[Catchawave]

9. You started a thread 3 minutes after this post ?

:rofl:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3507842

No problem, you can answer my question here or there :banghead:

[coco77]

16. You are so funny ,not...

Can I laugh too:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: You can post anything you want I am have yet to see what is so fantastic about Edwards.

[Catchawave]

36. I wasn't trying to be funny......

You're not even answering any of my questions :shrug:

Here, or on your hit thread? I should be flattered.

[saltpoint]

10. You ought to be smarter than to be listening for 2 seconds to Sean Hannity.

Why would you have that crap on in the first place?

[coco77]

19. Have you ever heard the saying...

about keeping your enemies close, even though if that asshole was close to me I would want to slap the shit out of him...

[saltpoint]

27. I prefer John Edwards' example regarding FOX News. He told them

he had better uses for his time than to appear on their propaganda network.

I think that's an excellent model to follow.

[robinlynne]

21. because all the polls say that when pitted against each republican candidate, Edwards wins by a

wider margin than clinton or obama.

[coco77]

24. Was one of the polls Fox news?

[saltpoint]

29. You tell us. You're the one watching Sean Hannity.

[robinlynne]

33. doubt it. but you are being sarcastic there aren't you.

ALL the geenral polls have been coming out that way.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

61. No, Fox News has Edwards far lower (6%) than any other poll nt

[robinlynne]

65. I wouldn't know. no reason to watch fox.

[Clark2008]

53. And the difference between Edwards and a Republican would be?

Sorry. I go by the guy's record, not all that purdy stuff he says.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

60. This coming from a supporter of someone who keynoted a Republican fund-raiser in 2001!

Then in a span of 2 years he magically became a progressive Democrat--just in time to run for president as a Democrat. "I go by a guy's record, not all that purdy stuff he says." Yeah, right. :eyes: When Edwards and other Democrats were fighting the * agenda in Washington Clark was raising money for the Republican Party. I am glad he magically saw the light in just 2 years and liberal positions on issue after issue suddenly came raining down from the sky as Clark got a whiff of the White House. :eyes:

==Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, the most unwavering supporter of the Iraq war among candidates in the Democratic field, said he was "very disappointed" by Clark's "various positions" on the war.

"A few days before the vote in Congress, he said he would have recommended it and would have supported the resolution. After the war, he wrote a piece in the Times of London praising President Bush and Tony Blair for their resolve. When he became a candidate, he said he probably would have voted for the resolution. There was an uproar. Then he said, 'I never would have voted for the resolution.'" ==

==Clark was also hit by his rivals over his praise of Bush and his national security team in May 2001, at a Republican fund-raiser in his home state of Arkansas.

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts noted that Clark's comments about the Bush administration came just days before Vermont Sen. Jim Jeffords bolted the GOP, turning control of the Senate to the Democrats, "because of what they were doing to this country."

"At that moment, the general was prepared to say they are the right people. At that moment, those of us who were fighting for Democratic principles, and have been for 35 years or more, were fighting against what they were doing to this country. And we had no lack of clarity about what compassionate conservative meant to this nation." ==

==But Clark's comment about having "hope" for the Bush administration in its early days prompted a dig from Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

"I have stood up to this president over and over and over, including back in 2001 when some on this stage had hope for President Bush," Edwards said. "I did not have hope for President Bush."==

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/elec04.prez.democrats.debate/index.html

==NASHUA, New Hampshire (CNN) -- Democratic presidential front-runner Howard Dean trained his rhetorical guns on New Hampshire primary rival Wesley Clark Wednesday, questioning Clark's credentials as a Democrat.

"He is a good guy, but I truly believe he is a Republican," Dean said of the retired Army general and former NATO supreme commander who declared himself a Democrat shortly before entering the presidential race last year.

If Clark were to win the Democratic presidential nomination, Dean said, the general election would be "the Republican primary." ==

=="When I got out of the military I was courted by both parties. I chose to become a Democrat," Clark said in Concord, New Hampshire, adding that he has voted for Al Gore and Bill Clinton in the past.==

What Clark didn't mention was it took him 2 years (just when an opening for the Dem nomination appeared for him...) to choose to become a Democrat. What progressive principles! It only took him 2 years to reject the GOP philosophy and magically morphed into a progressive overnight when he put on that presidential slipper...

[JNelson6563]

63. What's that I hear?

*crickets*

[last_texas_dem]

68. Even if all you're going by is his record

(by which I'm assuming you mean his record in the Senate), the differences between him and a Republican are obvious.

[saltpoint]

45. There are a lot of liberal Democrats in those red states.

I think their votes are good and true and I'm glad we have them. They are often outnumbered but still put that vote through for Democrats against the Republicans.

[Triana]

43. My sentiments exactly (n/t)

[saltpoint]

3. I would love to hear a private conversation between David Bonior and

John Edwards and their team.

This is a truly committed and obviously prepared bunch of folks, and I'm very impressed with them.

I notice how John Edwards makes the media squirm. He brashly and quite justifiably told FOX News to cram it. That statement read, in effect, "Senator Edwards feels that there are more productive uses for his time." Outstanding. It was high time someone called FOX News a cheap-shot propaganda front-office for the Republican Party.

Edwards has more union support than his Democratic colleagues (http://www.bluehampshire.com/frontPage.do) and his detailed proposals are likely very intimidating to any potential Republican candidate. They're used to coasting through an election with idiots like Bush and Reagan. Against Edwards, they'd have to actually work at it.

Tangential to my thoughts on the mainstream media, it might be interesting to see if Maureen Dowd runs a hit piece on Senator Clinton or if her anti-Democratic columns are reserved for male Democrats only.

Edwards would change the points of reference for social issues. Bush has blurred them generally so they cannot BE discussed, so that they are removed from public discourse. Social problems? The faith-based initiative people are handling that. Not my problem, says Bush. U.S. citizens destitute in post-Katrina New Orleans? Not my problem, says Bush. I was down in Crawford brush-clearin' at the time.

The claims of electability for John Edwards, it seems to me, are not persuasively disputed. I see him carrying all of the states Kerry/Edwards carried in 04 and picking up a good handful of others. With such a weak Republican field anyway, the wind would be at his back and proper, respectful attention could be paid to the issue of poverty in this country -- something that has not happened in our society since 1968, IMO.

I could jump very enthusiastically aboard an Edwards Express to the White House.

[Catchawave]

18. Today's MoDo had an Edwards quote in it :)

http://freedemocracy.blogspot.com/2007/09/maureen-dowd-old-school-inanity.html

As always, such a lovely honor to see you respond in one of my threads :toast:

We got a lot of work to do, may our best candidate grab that nom !

[coco77]

20. Is this elizabeth?

I'm still not convinced...

[Catchawave]

30. Who me ?

I wish...:rofl:

...or you don't know who Maureen Dowd is?

[saltpoint]

67. There was a song a while back called 'I'm Not Lisa."

Not exactly the same as "I'm Not Elizabeth."

But still.

[saltpoint]

25. The pleasure is mine. Your threads are show-stoppers on DU and

I make a point to read them.

Bravo, and good wishes.

I like the way the Edwards team is running their campaign and feel they've positioned themselves for maximum dividend. I'm hoping the voters out in primary land will be receptive to the emphasis on long-abandoned social crises like poverty.

[Catchawave]

34. Thank you dear, especially for supporting

all the great DUers who post here. You add so much to the discussions :hi:

[Nutmegger]

4. R&K for Edwards

:thumbsup::kick:

[jillan]

6. Edwards has been extremely impressive.

He has moved away from the campaign talk, and has
begun to show what he is made of.

I had previously written him off - but no more.
He has my attention.

[saltpoint]

8. Speaking of gracious posts on DU, I think #6 in this thread more than

meets criteria.

Thank you.

[Catchawave]

14. Ditto that.....

:hi:

[maximusveritas]

22. What is this? A random blog post from a month ago?

And it gets 10 recommends?
Whatever it takes to keep your head in the sand I guess.

[Catchawave]

31. No sweetie, it's someone's opinion I found on a blog....

thought it would be great to discuss here. I think 10 DUers agreed with me?

I hope there will be more :loveya:

[gnvresident]

23. John Edward is the best of our choices.

Edwards is highly progressive and electable.
I 100% agree- Edwards is progressive and electable. He is by far our best choice. He has excellent ideas and I think he would truly drive some of the change we need. I hope the Democratic party is smart enough to stand behind him. We need to win with no shadow of doubt, no recount, no stolen election. There are too many people, Democrats included that have sworn never to vote a woman into office. Yet the majority of the Democrats are stubbornly standing with Hillary. We have to let Hillary go. She is no Bill. We need to move on and move on to Edwards!

[Catchawave]

32. Nicely stated, and Welcome to DU !

:toast:

I've been an Edwards supporter since '03 :hi:

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

28. Still unsure, though I've been warming to Edwards

I had been very angry at Edwards, especially over the Iraq War. His mea culpa soothed me somewhat though I still had major doubts. But I've been warming to him-- he's much more progressive than I'd thought before. Especially on economic issues, he seems like he may be the best friend of labor among the major candidates. Still waiting and seeing.

[okamichan13]

35. For those on the sidelines

its time to make choices. Or once the nominee is chosen after primaries, you don't have a choice. For me the clear choice for progressives is Edwards.

[Catchawave]

37. He's obviously the most electable....

No, he IS the most electable :hi:

[saltpoint]

42. Welcome to the DU boards, okamichan13. Hope to run into you

on many threads.

[Clark2008]

54. I am on the sidelines - but I do know I won't even vote for

Edwards in the general election.

I'll go Green or something.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

59. The bitterness from Clark's spectacular demise 4 years ago will cause you to leave the party?

That is pretty sad, especially since Edwards had nothing to do with Clark blowing the most auspicious entry (remember, he went straight to 1st when he joined) into the presidential race of any newcomer in years...

[Milo_Bloom]

38. The reason progressives won't get behind him is most are too smart...

to fall for a cheap snake oil salesman.

Says he is for the poor, BUT voted for and supported the bankrupcy bill and worked for funds that profited from Katrina and then offers a tax plan that will do absolutely NOTHING to help the real poor.

Voted for the war AND in 2004 stated that he didn't regret his vote AND would vote the same way even if he knew everything that had been revealed.

Attacked Howard Dean for attacking the republicans.

Supported and voted for the energy bill, reducing liability to nuclear power plants in the case of accidents For those who will whine about links, here...(http://www.mentata.com/ds/retrieve/congress/person/John+Edwards)

Claims all candidates should not accept lobbyist money BUT took 13,500 from lobbyists so far this primary season and then made some big deal about giving back only 3,500 of it.

This is a person who can't be trusted... If there is a supreme court vacancy, would he put a liberal on the court, or would he do what John Edwards does best and try to appeal the squeekiest wheel and then have one of his pattended "oops, I did it again" moments when his nominee turned out to be more conservative than he tried to sell them.

[Catchawave]

40. What a bunch of horse caca.....

Do you eat with those typing fingers?

[Milo_Bloom]

44. Its reality...

The question asked in the article is why aren't progressives flocking to Edwards... the answer is most of them are smart enough to not buy snake oil from a con man.

[Catchawave]

46. So is this:

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/09/how-we-win.html

[Milo_Bloom]

47. You mean Edwards idiotic terrorism speech?

If he wasn't already unelectable, that would have been the nail in his proverbial coffin.

In this crazy little speech he advocates not using the tools we currently have, BUT a whole new level, one which will place "unmentioned" REQUIREMENTS on other nations and "call them out" if they are not doing what they are supposed to.

If Edwards wasn't easy to beat before, his ill-advised foreign policy approach ended all doubt about his unelectability.

Thanks for pointing that out, I had almost forgotten about it.

[Catchawave]

48. LOL....and

There's more....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/9/17552/73489

Nice roundup, you might enjoy it. I'm sure the Edwards supporters would welcome your presence very much :hi:

[Milo_Bloom]

49. You mean the suckers who bought snake oil?

Sorry, but I look at Edwards supporters the same I look at those who fall for cults, just poor saps who are being taken in by a common con man.

So, I have no doubt a group of cult followers will extoll the virtues when their candidate fumbles, the same way Scientologists rush to defend Tom Cruise when he makes his next idiotic statement in the news.

However, it doesn't change the reality that those currently following Edwards are buying into a carefully calculated scam, one asked them to believe that between 2004 and today Edwards has had some type of miracle change of heart and suddenly become a champion of the poor, anti-war activist and a believer in all things progressive.

I could not think of a worse leader for this country or the Democratic party than John Edwards. His well documented history of capitulation would be the first step towards democratic obscurity for the new millennium.

[Clark2008]

55. Edwardians don't have the ability to see this, Milo.

I don't know why.

[Catchawave]

56. Maybe we consider the sources ?

Creepy, anonymous and hatefilled posts on public blogs tend to make one go "Hmmmmm, that's a creepy, anonymous hatefilled comment", wonder what their agenda is? It's certainly not debate? It's certainly not moving the discussion along?

Surely you have better things to do than parrot Edwards haters? I put about 800 miles on my stroller when I had two kids under 2 stumping and canvassing for Jimmy Carter in '76. Looking at the beautiful photo of your children, I think you can find better things to do with your time :hi:

[smalll]

39. I sincerely believe Edwards is unelectable -

That's why I ridicule him so often.

Nothing that rank-and-file Democrats can say here or elsewhere will ever give the Repubs any ammo that they won't have dug up for themselves in their oppo research if Edwards becomes our nominee.

I contend that his H-issues, tied to his and his wife's tendency to gaffe (viz, the mandatory health care thing, the I-joined-a-hedge-fund-to-learn-about-poverty, etc.) mean that the Republicans would make Edwards a laughingstock and could actually find a way to WIN the White House in 2008: we can't let that happen.

Think about Kerry. No one's perfect, but to me he seemed a lot more serious and defensible than today's Edwards, but the Republicans beat Kerry essentially by finding a way to make Kerry seem ridiculous to too many Americans. In my opinion, it would be so EASY for them to do that to Edwards.

So yes, I disagree with you, but I respect your opinion. We are talking a lot on this board right now about the tone at DU now that the primaries impend, and I understand many people's dismay at friction and conflict. We shouldn't really attack each OTHER, but I say, we should "bring it on" when it comes to the candidates out there. We need to make sure to pick a winner this time, and we need to "destroy" potential candidacies before the Republicans have a chance to do the same and ride into the White House One :banghead: More :banghead: Time. :banghead:

[Catchawave]

41. LOL....best one yet....

Um, okay, I'm still supporting him, because lil'Karl talking points don't impress me any more.

Nice try :hi:

[creeksneakers2]

50. Edwards isn't my choice

but he has some ideas that deserve more attention than they get. I'd like to see Edwards and Kucinich team up since their proposals are similar and together they can form a big enough block to get them discussed.

While I still like Edwards, he tests me when he makes outrageous statements like Hillary is the candidate of corporations. Edwards should make his best case and disagree with Hillary when it suits him, but he has to keep the ball in bounds or I'll start posting nasty things about him on the Internet.

[Mythsaje]

52. Well, she IS the most blatantly pro-corporate candidate

on the Dem side. I don't even think SHE would argue the point.

[Catchawave]

57. Edwards is right....you have to look at the Clinton history....

I adore Hillary, one of the best First Ladies ever, even though she pissed me off sometimes when I was a SAHM baking cookies and standing by my man :D

I think she dropped the ball when given the Health Care system to overall and failed miserably....that's okay, I'm not holding that against her, but what has she learned? That's what Edwards is saying.

I look forward to your "nasty things on the internet" comments. :hi:

P.S. Aren't you concerned that the Kuch is being challenged now for his CD seat? That doesn't bode well for a Presidential candidate....or VP :hi:

[creeksneakers2]

58. I didn't know Kucinich was being challenged for his seat

I hope its not a serious challenge.

[Catchawave]

66. I'm not sure....just dribbles from the tubes.....

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/15/antiwar-challenge-to-kucinich/

Paul Hackett endorsed his challenger already? I did read somewhere, there's about 5 now in that primary?

[Mythsaje]

51. That "you don't have to agree with me" has become an important caveat...

There are those who don't quite get that unless you spell it out.