Top 10 reasons Edwards is the most Electable

[katieforeman]

Ok. Let me make clear, I like John Kerry too and will vote for him and work for him if he is the nominee. However, I truly believe in Edwards and think he is infinitely more electable. These are the positive reasons Edwards is the most electable.

Please if you want Bush out in Novemeber go to www.johnedwards.com and make a contribution.


Top 10 Reasons
John Edwards is the Most Electable Democrat

1.) John Edwards connects with ordinary Americans.
In my home state of Ohio, a very important state for Democrats to win, moderate Republicans and Democrats alike tell me, “You know who I like, John Edwards.” In a general election, people vote for the candidate they like and trust, not for the candidate with the longest resume.

2.) John Edwards has a positive and optimistic message.
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton have two things in common: They are the only two Presidents to have been elected and re-elected in the past 30 years and they are both famous optimists. In the general election, negativity turns people off. John Edwards gives people something to vote for not against.

3.) John Edwards has a compelling vision for One America.
John Edwards is the best candidate at articulating what the Democratic Party is all about. With his One America speech, he frames a debate the Republicans cannot win. For once Democrats would be on offense, not defense. We must not continue to let Republicans set the agenda.

4.) John Edwards makes a powerful case.
John Edwards is legendary for his ability to persuade. He made a career of convincing juries to vote his way. Many of the members on those juries in North Carolina were undoubtedly Republicans with a mistrust of attorneys. Yet he won them over nearly every time. He was the most feared attorney in the state, and he is the most feared Democrat in the Bush White House. Just imagine him on the stage with Bush.

5.) John Edwards will compete with George W. Bush in every state.
John Edwards would force George Bush to spend resources in the South. He is competitive in every region of the country and in every demographic group and he would help Democrats hold onto congressional seats in the South.

6.) John Edwards is the son of a mill worker.
John Edwards’ life story contrasts sharply with the background of wealth and privilege of George W. Bush. Unlike Bush, Edwards understands the problems of ordinary Americans. Republicans will not be able to paint Edwards as an out-of-touch, liberal elitist.

7.) John Edwards is strong on national security issues.
A military record alone does not make a candidate strong on national security. Remember Democratic Senator Max Cleland who lost three limbs in Vietnam, and then lost to a Republican draft-dodger in 2002. The Republicans distorted Cleland’s voting record to attack him on national security, even going so far as to picture him with Osama Bin Laden. And it worked!

Ronald Reagan was perceived by many Americans to be strong on defense, yet the closest he came to
combat was making army training films during WWII. When it comes to National Security, Americans
are looking for good judgment, leadership, and integrity. They will not trust someone who appears to be wishy-washy or who appears to change positions to go with the political tide. Again, it comes down to trust. John Edwards is competent and honest. People will trust him to make the right decisions on their behalf.

Furthermore, with his five years as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, John Edwards already has more foreign policy experience than Reagan, Clinton, or George W. Bush when they were elected. John Edwards has traveled to places like Afghanistan and Pakistan and met with leaders there. (Remember during the 2000 campaign George W. Bush was unable to name the leader of Pakistan. It will be difficult for them to attack Edwards for lack of experience.) He has a detailed plan to increase security at our ports, our chemical plants, and our nuclear plants, as well as, plans to reform our intelligence community and increase the readiness of our first responders. He understands the importance of America taking a leadership role in securing loose nukes in the former Soviet Union and working with other nations to stop the proliferation of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. He will effectively make the case that the Bush Administration’s unilateralism is very
dangerous.

8.) John Edwards has the charisma, good looks, and vision of John Kennedy combined with the intellect, energy, and raw political talent of Bill Clinton.
These are the qualities that win elections for Democrats.

9.) John Edwards is not too young, he just looks too young.
I know he doesn’t look it, but John Edwards is 50 years old. John Kennedy was only 44 when he was elected President and that was during the height of the Cold War. Bill Clinton was only 46.

10.) If experience won elections, Arnold Schwarzenegger would not be Governor of California and Al Gore would have won in a landslide.
With his five years in the Senate, John Edwards has enough experience to be credible on domestic and foreign policy issues but not enough experience to be labeled a career politician or Washington insider. He also does not have a long voting record to provide ammo to Republicans.

Remember people vote for President, not Vice-President. We have the best chance of beating George W. Bush with John Edwards at the top of the ticket.


Vote for John Edwards Tuesday, March 2nd.

If we give John Edwards the nomination, he’ll give us the White House

This is not a document put out by the Edwards campaign. To learn more about John Edwards, visit his website at www.JohnEdwards2004.com.

[caledesi]

1. Please convince my 89-year old mother from RI.

She isn't exactly crazy about Kerry, but hey, he's from Mass.

When I mentioned Edwards...she thinks he's too "smooth"...you know how these old New Englanders don't trust a Southern accent. I tried to appeal to her weak spots..."Gee Mom, did you know John Edwards lost a child?" She said "No, I didn't know that; it's awful."....so I am trying to make headway.

[katieforeman]

11. Did you try comparing Edwards to John Kennedy.

Kennedy was young, good looking and smooth. Did she like him?

Mayby talk about the way he talks about poverty and race as a moral issue in front of every audience even though these issues don't necessarily win votes.

He has been married 27 years. His wife is not a trophy wife. If you could get her to listen to Elizabeth Edwards, she might be won over.

These are my only ideas right now.

Good luck!

[PurityOfEssence]

15. Hey, I grew up in Rhode Island; how can I help?

Tell her you're gonna have another four years of that scav Junior if you don't go with the most electable candidate. Remind her how the rest of the country that's in play hates New England, yet Edwards will play well everywhere Kerry will.

Ask her to write him in on the ballot.

[drthais]

2. I don't buy all of it

but I must say
just saw Edwards on C-Span
a rally in Maryland
and he has gotten MUCH MUCH better on the stump
in the past week or two
:smoke:

[katieforeman]

5. I was there.

He was awesome.

Check out his website to get some information on his policies. There is a 90 some page pdf document with his wello thought out substantive policies.

[DjTj]

3. Very well said.

I like your number 10: Resumes doesn't win in elections. Charisma wins elections.

Also, Democrats don't beat Republican incumbents in the South. John Edwards does.

[katieforeman]

27. Thanks DjTj

I'll add your second point to my list.

[leyton]

4. I agree with most of these.

#1-4 Spot on. This is how the guy can win the election; on paper, he's not a great candidate, but campaigning, he can win over our hearts and minds.

#5 Competing w/Bush in every state - I worry about Edwards being able to compete in every state. Will he have much money at all? During the primaries, he has not been able to wage a national campaign, and as a result he's had to spend incredible amounts of time in Iowa, South Carolina, and Wisconsin to get those particular victories (or 2d place finishes). Even Gore had pretty good fundraising, yet at the end he had to pull out of several key states like Ohio.

#6 - the mill-working thing doesn't do anything for me, and it may not do much for a lot of mill workers either. But I think it's indicative of his political talent - he knows very well that if he keeps repeating it, people will think that they know him well, he will seem like a real person with a life story outside of Capitol hill.

#7 - I think foreign policy is a weakness for him, and while Senate Intel Cmte is good, it's not quite as good as what Kerry and Clark have. However, Edwards has minimized this to some extent by positioning himself in the center on national security issues, the effect being that assuming he wins the domestic issue debate (which he undoubtedly will) he's got the independent vote wrapped up because not too many voters will run away from him solely on national security.

#9 - I think his youth might be an asset. Clinton was youthful, and toppled the elder Bush (who looks old to me at least). Dole was old and boring, and so did not do so well. And his youth imparts a certain energy to his demeanor, which makes him much more exciting than Bush, Gore, or Kerry.

[katieforeman]

25. see post #9

#5)I think post #9 in this thread makes a good point about geography. Edwards has been limited by his lack of funds. As soon as Kerry was labelled "most electable" and "inevitable" he began receiving most of the free press and money. He also received a lot of what I think of as momentum votes. I really think that if Edwards is the nominee all of the money that had been flowing to Kerry will flow to Edwards instead. In the general election, we will have Soros' money through move-on, $75 million in government funds, and lots of free media.

#6) I agree that the mill worker thing doesn't make much of a difference to me, but it accentuates the fact that Bush has no clue about the problems most Americans face.

#7) Foreign policy is definitely not his main strength. But I think he doesn't have the liabilities of Kerry's voting for defense and intelligence cuts. (see my post about $200 million in ads against kerry)

#9) personally, I like his youth also. But I've heard some people say they like him but he's too young. Most people I've talked to son't realize he's 50.

I appreciate your input.

[atre]

6. I think it all comes down to this question

Do you think AWOL will have better traction with the swing voters or will the loss of jobs/ poor economy have more traction with those same voters?

[DjTj]

12. Edwards got a bounce from AWOL too...

...He was outpolling Bush this week just like Kerry.

[katieforeman]

Very true. Did you see the most recent CNN/ USAToday poll?

This poll found that 80% of voters will not be swayed by Bush's National Gaurd duty (or lack thereof) even though many of them think he was awol. The 15% who said this issue mattered to them were primarliy Democrats.

[katieforeman]

16. Very true. Did you see the most recent CNN/ USAToday poll?

This poll found that 80% of voters will not be swayed by Bush's National Gaurd duty (or lack thereof) even though many of them think he was awol. The 15% who said this issue mattered to them were primarliy Democrats.

[KissMyAsscroft]

7. That may all be true...

But elections are run on perception.

And the perception is that Edwards is a candy-ass...

All they have to do is paint him as soft on terror and the minions will run with the "pretty-boy, soft on terror" meme....

He will get crushed.

Like it or not, Kerry has the best chance of the remaining candidates.

[DjTj]

8. Where is this perception...

...that Edwards is a candy-ass?

Do you have any press clipping where somebody actually says this?

[atre]

14. Cute way to skirt the DU 2004 GE rules

I won't alert, but you should probably consider editting that comment out before someone else decides to.

[drthais]

22. and of course

there's the lack of experience on the foreign-policy front
thats' why it has to be Kerry (sorry)
I mean it could have been Clark, but thats water under the bridge.
Whoever our man is, he has to have a military background to sink this one.....

[DjTj]

28. Bush has no military background...

...in fact, in turns out he has AWOL background. So it's not like we'll be having any sort of debate about military credentials.

Edwards has been on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and can easily outshine Bush in a debate on foreign policy. With Kerry's votes against military and intelligence funding and against the first Iraq war, Bush will have ample ammo against either Kerry or Edwards in this department.

[katieforeman]

30. Max Cleland was a war hero. Bob Dole was a war hero.

Clinton was not a war hero. Reagan was not a war hero.

Military experience is not a necessary or sufficient condition for winning elections.

Please see my post about how the Republicans will destroy Kerry with their $200 million. Too much experience can be a huge liability.

[scheming daemons]

23. Of all the dumb-ass arguments I've ever heard....

Maybe YOUR perception of Edwards is a "candy-ass"...

I'm telling you, that's not the impression most of America has. Or will have, as they get to see and hear him.


Speaking of perceptions, Kerry creates the perception that he's a dry, boring, OLD, in-bed-with-lobbyist politician who changes his opinions based on the direction the wind is blowing.

Don't like where Kerry stands on an issue? Wait five minutes and his position will change....


Give me a guy who's made millions helping victims get due justice against "the man" over a guy who married his millions.

John Edwards went into politics in 1997 after his teenage son was killed in a car wreck. He could have still made millions of dollars helping individuals "one at a time" in the courtroom. But he decided that he had the ability and drive to help millions of people, and by joining the US senate he took a HUGE pay cut in order to make a difference. He dedicated the rest of his life to doing good in his son's memory. And you know what? You'll never hear that from him... when he's asked about his son, he softly says "no comment". Guys like Bush and Kerry wouldn't answer that way. Bush would shamelessly use it to generate sympathy votes. Kerry would spend 5 minutes giving an unemotional Dukakis-like answer. Edwards is oozing character, charisma, charm, and leadership. You can tell that this man is not in it for himself. If he was, he'd still be a practicing lawyer.

Candy-ass? The Democratic party has been handed an incredible gift in John Edwards, and jackasses that they are, they're going to piss it away and nominate our very own version of Bob Dole.

Kerry gives the impression that he's in this thing for himself... not you and me. He thinks it is "his turn" to run for President.

Kerry is an elitist, patrician, dry candidate who is hoping to ride the "AWOL" meme to the White House. By June, "AWOL" will be a distant story that nobody is talking about anymore.

...and Kerry's still 10 times better than Bush. ;-)

But Edwards is 10 times better than Kerry.

[DaisyUCSB]

24. No he doesn't. I could say the same thing about "running with" the gigolo/

on both sides of all arguments, including what was heroic about his Vietnam activities/dishonest/votes left of Ted Kennedy/gutted the CIA/ "meme"

[DaisyUCSB]

9. One more note about the south

If Edwards forces Bush to work for a handful of "real" southern states; Florida, but importantly states like NC, AR, and LA; it will force Bush to run a completley different kind of campaign, because in order to excite SOCIAL conservatives in those areas, because the voting base Bush gets votes from isn't very affluent like in more moderate states and regions, but in order to excite them he will have to do things which turn off moderate people from the voting groups he's getting votes from all around the country, particularly in places where republicans get more votes from libertine than social conservative/populist people.

[katieforeman]

18. Very astute.

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. Hahahaha!

8.) John Edwards has the charisma, good looks, and vision of John Kennedy combined with the intellect, energy, and raw political talent of Bill Clinton.
These are the qualities that win elections for Democrats.


Thanks for the laugh.

Raw political talent of BILL CLINTON????? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! NOT EVEN CLOSE!

Charisma??? Good looks???? Vision of JFK????!!! Hahahahahahahaha! OMG.......best laugh all day.

Qualities that win elections for Democrats???? You're kidding, right?

[atre]

17. What do you think this adds to the discussion?

[DjTj]

20. Laughter refutes all arguments...

...we can't respond to that. I guess he wins.

[DaisyUCSB]

21. he/she doesn't think it adds to the discussion

and he/she doesn't care about respecting people obviously

[spooky3]

13. Great post, katieforeman!

[katieforeman]

19. Thanks Spooky.

[draftee]

26. Also he is not a bonesman like Kerry.

No way Kerry will win. In fact if Kerry is the candidate
I will vote for Nader for sure.

But if Edwards is the candidate count me in.

[katieforeman]

29. Edwards is definitley the best but Kerry is better than Bush.

Let's work really hard to see that Edwards is the nominee so we don't end up with Bush.

[Jai4WKC08]

31. Sigh...

"10.) If experience won elections, Arnold Schwarzenegger would not be Governor of California and Al Gore would have won in a landslide."

Considering the quality of Schwarzenegger as a governor and Bush as a president, I don't find this a very compelling argument.

Oh that's right. We're not discussing whether Edwards would be a better president, only whether he's more electable.

[katieforeman]

33. My point is that Bush is the worst possible president.

If we want a good president we need to elect a Democrat. Edwards is the Democrat that will beat Bush.

Furthermore, experience does not equal competence. Right now George Bush has more experience being President than Kerry or Edwards. Do you think that means Bush would make the best President?

Edwards is extremely intelligent, sincere, and knowledgeable. He has more foreign policy experience than Clinton or Carter when they were elected. And I think they were good Presidents. Carter presided over the peace agreement between Egypt and Isreal. How did being Governor of Georgia prepare him for that?

Edwards also knows how to communicate with people which is an important part of effective leaedership. I could go on.

[Zookeeper]

36. We need to reverse right wing policies NOW

I do think Edwards is the best candidate and think he would make a great president (and consider that he could serve two terms and still be younger than Kerry is now...).

But, at this point, there is no shame in supporting the candidate you believe to be most electable. Our country is in seriously deep weeds due to the Bush administration. Perhaps you are young, and have lots of time to wait until you find just the right candidate. But lots of people have urgent concerns that need to be addressed NOW. Children in public schools, jobs being outsourced, lack of health insurance, cures for deadly diseases being held hostage by Bush's opposition to stem cell research, young American men and women dying in Iraq alongside thousands of Iraqis.

Kicking the right-wing out of the White House would go along way to solving these problems, however we do it.


Do you really believe Bush is superior to ANY of the Democratic candidates?!?

[katieforeman]

37. Totally!

[edzontar]

32. I like Tweedle Dum better than Tweedle Dee

And "Electability" is the reason why!!!!

[cryofan]

34. More and more, Democratic talking head pundits are saying that...

...Edwards is the premiere political talent in the Democratic party today. In fact, that is basically a paraphrase of one of the talking heads on one of the PBS political shows this evening.

I agree. Edwards should be the nominee. He seems a bit of a social conservative, but I suspect that his economics philosophy will be a bit populist.

The main thing is that the Democratic party cannot AFFORD to let Edwards slip by. His time is now. Once you get him on the stage with Bush, and give him a VP with some military experience, he will take Bush. Is there a better salesman to sell liberal and progressive ideas to America?

[katieforeman]

35. Thank you.

Why do you think there are so many people who still don't see this?