Edwards CAN Be the Democratic Party Nominee: Here Is How

[McCamy Taylor]

I have climbed out on some limbs before, but none as high or narrow as this one. For a long time, I have hoped that John Edwards would be the Democratic Party's nominee in 2008. Of all the candidates, he best exemplifies Democratic values. He is the nominee who is most likely to win the general election if nominated---all the match ups show him beating each of the potential Republican nominees easily. The mainstream corporate media is scared to death of him. They ignore him, except when they are writing about his hair or house or money.

However, the polls, which at this point reflect recognition more than anything else, have been favoring Hillary, then Obama, then Edwards for a long time. No surprises there. Hillary is a former first lady. And the press can not stop talking about Obama. His candidacy was dreamed up by the mainstream media, which anointed him a front runner almost before he decided to run. Based on recognizability, Edwards is dead in the water.

Funny thing about Democratic presidential candidates, though. If you look back at elections since 1972, we seldom nominate the candidate that was best known or highest in the polls in the years leading up to the primary (unless its an incumbent president or VP). McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, Kerry---no one could have guessed in advance that these men would be the party's nominees. Republicans are the ones who keep repeating a few famous names over and over again. Democrats tend to nominate the candidates who work the primary states. And Edwards is still ahead in Iowa.

However, the thing which now has me convinced that Edwards is the man whom the Democrats want and will eventually seize is the atrocious behavior of our supposedly Democratic controlled Congress. In a recent journal, I wrote about my theory that Democrats are not trying very hard to end the war in Iraq, because the American's hatred of W. and his War for Oil are two of the Democrats' best campaign tools in the upcoming 2008 election.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/60

This chicken shit behavior is the kind of thing I would expect from Republicans, not Democrats, and it is the reason why the Democratic controlled Congress has ratings that rival that of Dick Cheney. Indeed, everyone in the federal government right now is suspect to the majority of the American people. And guess where Hillary and Obama are? In Washington, DC. right in the middle of the Do Nothing Congress, doing nothing. It is in their best interest to see this war drag on until next fall. That way, they increase their chances of beating Republican nominees like Rudi whom the polls say they might not beat right now.

John Edwards can be the Democratic Party nominee if he can raise enough money to get his message on television, to remind the American people that not all Democrats are as worthless as the ones they see in Congress right now. If he can portray himself as an outsider who can get the job done and his opponents as Washington insiders who have been ineffectual, he can clean up the Democratic nomination (assuming no voting machine sleep overs, of course). Time after time, Democrats have chosen the candidate from outside the Washington establishment, the one who has worked the primary states, the one with the populist message.

Edwards, 2008

[Mark E. Smith]

1. From your lips to God's ear

Edwards is by far the most electable candidate we have.

I see the possibility of a reverse Red State strategy at work
here. Rudy becomes cast the Northern liberal, with Edwards
the Southern moderate.

[Speciesamused]

13. Separation of Church and State..Always

With all due respect to those of you
who believe their is a supreme being of some
form. I as a Democrat, am feed up with having religion
involved in the laws that run this country. Period.
Separation of Church and State. Bring it back and
keep religion out. From my lips to your ears.
That is a negative on Edwards for President.
Obama-Clinton is my ticket. Peace and Respect.

[PurityOfEssence]

18. Of the 3, Edwards is the ONLY one to be repeatedly and vocally for separation of church and state

If this is your issue, you should drop Obama and Clinton like the hottest of potatoes.

Clinton is a member of the Sojurners and openly states that religion should be used as a driver of policy. She even goes so far as putting words in Edwards' and Obama's mouths to this effect.

Obama openly courts the religious vote and repeatedly brings up the issue and tries to make hay from his deep religious convictions and active churchgoing.

Edwards literally brings up the issue of separation of church and state on a regular basis by using that term, and when asked about his own religion's role in his approach to gay marriage in the Logo forum, was unequivocal about it.

Of the three, he uses religion less (virtually not at all) as a justification for his actions or "proof" of his "goodness". You're completely off-base here, and if this is your criterion for not wanting him, then take it from a fairly militant agnostic: you NEED to stop the other two and support him.

Where on earth did you ever get this opinion?

Here's a bit from the Logo forum:

SOLMONESE:
And finally, Senator, you've expressed your opposition to same sex marriage, and you've raised your faith as part of the reason for your opposition. I'm
wondering if you could talk a little bit about what is it within your religion that's leading you to this position?
EDWARDS:
Well, you know, I have to tell you I shouldn't have said that, because first of all, I believe to my core in equality. My campaign for the presidency is about
equality across the board.
And I listened to your discussion with Senator Obama a few minutes ago. I was backstage, and I was able to hear what you were saying and what anyone
here was saying. And it makes perfect sense to me that gay and lesbian couples would say, "Civil unions -- great; 1,100 federal benefits -- great; you know, give
us these rights. We deserve these rights." And they're absolutely right about that. But it stops short of real equality.
It makes perfect sense to me that people would feel that way. I totally can understand it. It makes sense. And the only thing I would say about the faith
question is I think from my perspective it is wrong, because we have seen a president in the last six-plus years who tries to impose his faith on the American
people. And I think it is a mistake, and I will not impose my faith belief on the American people. I don't believe any president of the United States should do that.
I believe in the separation of church and state.
And these things that we have talked about -- all these substantive issues of equality, which is really what the discussion has been about, these are part of my
heart soul and core. And they are not just issues that I will answer when I am in front of you. They are things that I will fight for every day, both in the
presidential campaign and as president of the United States, because I think America desperately needs it, and I believe in it deeply.

[waiting for hope]

19. You may want to rethink that stance:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3535138&mesg_id=3535138

Where did you read that? He is most pro Separation of Church and State.

[Freedomofspeech]

2. Oh, I so hope you are right!!

[Bryan Buchan]

3. I would agree n/t

[Demeter]

4. I Expect Both Hillary and Obama Will Self-Destruct

either independently, or they will take each other out.

Then Edwards will be the only man standing.

[GoneOffShore]

26. We can only hope.

Then Edwards can grab either of them as VP.

That's a good team.

[Demeter]

27. Obama as VP, Hillary on Supreme Court

just because I want to see heads explode.

[calteacherguy]

5. I'm a Democrat, and he doesn't exemplify my values. nt

[jcrew2001]

9. Some Democrats want to get rich And help the poor

I don't think americans should take a vow of poverty or middle-income.

But what do i know, i earned my money the old-fashioned way, i inherited it.

[jaybeat]

15. What values, exactly? (nt)

[robinlynne]

6. I hate the fact that our leaders will vote the wrong way because they are gaging

the 2008 election. it makes me crazy! Thank you for saying it. How dare they do everything for an elciton, no matter what the cost? And they won't even secure our fraudulent elections to boot.

[McCamy Taylor]

7. The Florida Democratic primary scares me. I am convinced they moved it up

because political forces (probably Republican, but they can always subvert local Dems in Florida) plan to manipulate it the way that they have manipulated general (and maybe primary elections, I always wondered about Reno) since 2000 in that state. If they can skew the Democratic vote towards a candidate that the Dems do not really favor before the other states vote, that might influence voting in the early Democratic primaries. It would certainly create havoc at the convention, with a candidate that was not so popular having more than his/her share of the votes, leading to strife and discord. Attempting to influence the Democratic nominee is one of the oldest campaign tactics in the Republican play book. I expect we will see lots of Republicans crossing over to vote Dem this time in the primary. But how much easier if they can just switch a lever on e-voting systems that are not scheduled to be brought up to snuff until fall 2008?

I am leery of the primary vote in any of the red states that have invested heavily in hackable e-voting systems---like my own Texas.

[robinlynne]

8. agreed. Thank goodness for Dean! He's holding it together.

[jcrew2001]

10. I think Nelson is trying to get Hillary's VP pick

so he can "win" florida for her.

[Speciesamused]

17. Voting in this country..

Every state in this country
should vote on the same day! Stop all this Iowa,
Illinois Crap...Once and for all.

[Demeter]

28. I Too Favor a National Primary Day With Instant Runoff

it is the only way people can be heard equally.

[jcrew2001]

11. Edwards can win the nomination only if Hillary finishes 3rd in Iowa

then she will be exposed as a paper champion.

[Apollo11]

12. That makes no sense

I think Edwards almost certainly has to win Iowa if he is going to win the nomination.

But if he is going to win the nomination, many people who might be currently leaning towards Obama / Richardson / Kucinich will have to switch to Edwards, motivated partly by a wish to "Stop Hillary" (although there are many positive reasons to support Edwards).

So from Edwards point of view, it would be best if he would win Iowa with Hillary in second place.

This would help to set him up as "the only candidate who can stop Hillary".

But it will not be easy for Edwards. Obama has a lot of money, and he also understands that Iowa is important.

The Iowa primary will be a very tough fight right down to the wire - just like it was in 2003.

[jcrew2001]

22. Obama polls better in NH, where Edwards is weaker

Edwards only chance is to get one-on-one with Obama, and hope hillary finishes 3rd and is out of the picture after Iowa.

Then after NH, Edwards can sweep the southern states against Obama, even if Obama wins NH or ties him in Iowa.

[flpoljunkie]

14. Juan Cole's sober take on the Democrats' predicament in Iraq...

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Republicans vote Down Webb Plan for Troops
by Juan Cole

Republican senators succeeded in blocking the Webb plan to give US troops off as much time between deployments as they spent in Iraq. The Bush administration managed successfully to lobby Senate Republicans to defeat the measure, which would have resulted in a reduction of the number of US forces in the field (or a big increase in the use of National Guard units). The Dems needed 60 in the Senate to get a consensus, and could only muster 56. They could not, in any case, have over-ridden a presidential veto, which veto Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had urged on W.

This sort of outcome underlines my point last week that the Democrats in Congress are unlikely to be able to force significant troop drawdowns before Bush goes out of office. See below for an important argument that at least they should try to mandate preparations for troop withdrawals (preparations that appear not to have been made, much to the annoyance of a lot of endangered Americans in Iraq, including those in the Green Zone). I know some readers favor a sort of Democratic Gingrichism, using power over the budget to shut down the Defense Department, but realistically speaking such a strategy would likely boomerang big time and might well cost the Democrats the next election. The Republicans would blame every American death in Iraq on them from now to the election, on grounds of their 'irresponsibility.' They would be accused of being allies of 'al-Qaeda in Iraq,' helping kill US troops by defunding them in the face of a vicious enemy. Sitting Democrats in Congress are just not going to go this route, folks, and if they did they likely wouldn't be sitting there much longer. (All of the House of Representatives has to face the voters every two years!) I don't know why proponents of this tactic don't recognize that the war will actually be much prolonged if the Democrats act in ways that may rehabilitate the electoral chances of the Republicans in '08. At the least, it is a chance that has to be taken into serious account.

My guess is, the Republicans will go on standing up for an increasingly unpopular war until November, '08 and will take a bath. And then the new Democratic administration will swiftly move to draw down the troops, with most out by the end of 2009. This scenario contains extreme dangers for the Democrats, since 2010 could then be a very, uh, interesting year in the Middle East.

http://www.juancole.com/2007/09/republicans-vote-down-webb-plan-for.html

[McCamy Taylor]

21. That is no excuse for Congressional Dems to concede the media war to the GOP

The corporate media is portraying this is "Because they do not have 60 votes, the Dems will not even try." Or "Because W. is the president, the Dems are afraid to even try." In other words, the corporate media is painting Congressional Dems as a bunch of pussies in advance of the 2008 election, because the corporate media wants to get another Republican in the White House and keep the Dems from getting 60 seats in the Senate so that the corporate media can keep having unrestricted media mergers.

Congressional Democrats need to score a few victories, and they desperately need to show that they are fighting to the death every time one of their initiatives gets shot down by the Do Nothing Republican Minority or W. Politics is not just about passing legislation. In this day and age, it is about rallying people, giving them hope in a time (like now) when the GOP is attempting to inspire fear, apathy, despair. If the Democratic leaders appear to give up without a fight, what does that tell the voters?

[William769]

16. Edwards has a very good chance.

He just needs to to change his campaign strategy.

[Vinca]

20. If he would promote TRUE single payer, universal healthcare

he WOULD be the next nominee. Ixnay on the patchwork of health insurance company welfare at the cost of continuing to screw the people.

[maximusveritas]

23. Except Edwards has the same name recognition as Obama

and he's losing to Obama in just about every Democratic poll.
So I'm not sure how Edwards can expect to pass Obama, much less Clinton, just by getting his message out, especially when he has less money than they do.

And he can complain about the Democrats in Congress all he wants, but pretty soon people are going to start asking questions about what he did when he was in Congress and that's not going to be good for him.

The only way Edwards can win is by winning Iowa and the polls seem to show that he has lost his lead there (2 of the last 3 polls show Hillary leading now, with Obama close behind).

So it doesn't look good for Edwards.

[Laelth]

24. I consider this limb neither high nor narrow.

John Edwards should be the Democratic party's nominee, and I believe he will be. Since 1960, no Democrat has won the office of the President who did not come from the South. And I love the new, honest Edwards--the true populist. He has my primary vote.

:dem:

-Laelth

[GoneOffShore]

25. Go John!

If we had not "dropped our bottle" as we used to say in England, Howard Dean might well have been the President for the last four years.

Let's not drop the bottle this time. John Edwards is a true Democrat with a populist agenda. He can bring this country back and put it on the right track.

(As long as we get rid of some spineless congress critters)