More dribble!

[ProSense]

Edwards more liberal than Kerry, one of the most liberal Senators in Congress.

Snip...

In Democratic politics, as in much of American life, it's money that matters. So it looks like Dems will choose between Bayh, Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, and Warner. There are several ways to compare them. One would be their electability. Many Democrats believe that neither Clinton nor Kerry is electable in 2008; that neither could beat John McCain, for example. Hiding behind this is the belief that to win the presidency, Democrats have to reach beyond blue states and capture traditionally red states like Montana. Many rank-and-file Dems don't think that Clinton or Kerry can do this. Many believe that Bayh, Edwards, and Warner can.

Pundits claim that Clinton and Kerry lack electability because they are too "liberal." But they aren't liberals; they are centrist Democrats, as are Bayh and Warner. Edwards is the most liberal of the probable candidates (and Feingold is the most liberal of those considering a run.)

Another basis for comparison would be Iraq. Edwards and Kerry have taken a stand for withdrawal. Bayh wants a plan. And Clinton and Warner want "to win." Their lack of a clear stance on Iraq would hurt Clinton and Warner with many segments of the Party, particularly the netroots. The deep distrust of Hillary stems more from her seeming inability to take a stand on tough issues than it does from her gender.

A critical dimension should be leadership. When George Bush leaves office, America will be in a mess: losing the war on terror, staggering under a mountain of debt, and without a plan for critical challenges such as global climate change. To win, the Democratic candidate must first bring together the multiple personalities of the Party and elicit support from "purple" voters--independents. But to mount an effective response to the challenges confronting America, a Democratic President would have to reunite a deeply divided America, reach across culture and class to build a new consensus.

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/if-not-hillary-then-who_b_21855.html

Never mind that Edwards is more hawkish and favors the death penalty. He's liberal, but why would anyone try to frame him as more liberal than Kerry. Then the writer lumps Kerry in with Clinton.

[blm]

1. The writer THINKS he knows alot and proves he DOESN'T know much.

.

[TayTay]

2. Hahahahahaha! How funny is that.

The writer is correct when assessing the money situation. However, Kerry and Edwards do not have equivalent voting records. Hahahahahaha!

[ProSense]

3. I'm sensing

a strategy here: These people know Kerry can woo the center, so they are trying to paint him as centrist in the hopes of siphoning his support among liberals.

Let's talk issues!

[blm]

6. Correct him - he'll probably thank you.

.

[TayTay]

7. Sen. Edwards has gone populist

But that is not the same as a liberal voting record. In fact, under the right conditions, they can be polar opposites. Funny that.

[blm]

8. I always say that these candidates should be judged on what they did

when they were IN power. What were their priorities? Their votes? The battles they chose to take on then?

[JohnKleeb]

9. Yeah populism and liberalism aren't syninoms (sp?)

Which is why I always found the people who say "we need a populist" when it's obvious to me that they want a liberal or leftist. I think I brought up the book I got at the campus library about Right wing populism and it's been around since Jamestown and I would call the minutemen right wing populists too for that matter.

[rox63]

4. Wasn't Edwards a co-sponsor of the IWR?

I recall hearing that a while back, and it suprised me.

[JohnKleeb]

5. Yeah I think so

and in fact many people who didn't back Kerry on the boards in the primaries said they were voting for Edwards in the primaries because they felt he was at least "principled" in being consistent on the war. :sarcasm: anything to beat that awful John Kerry he beat my candidate and my candidate is St. Francis of Assissi :eyes: how dare he. I get the feeling they would have backed Lieberman because of that. I like Edwards and Kerry both but as a facts first person, emotions later this is laughable. Kerry is a death penalty opponent and Edwards was a supporter, Edwards could be considered a hawk and Kerry while I don't know what you'd call him but not a hawk not a total dove either, Kerry's much better on the environment than Edwards was. I bet even Edwards would tell you that he's more moderate than Kerry. I love how people spin the facts on both sides to bash Kerry.

[wisteria]

10. This is the old way of thinking we need a Southerner to gain the

White House. And, the writer must think we all have short memories. Edwards was a "Southern" candidate for president last election. Can he really raise the money needed? What would he do this time that he didn't last time. the "Two America's" theme is old.
IMO, Kerry could do well in the South and even better in the Mid-West, he just has to campaign more in those areas.
I have said it before and I will say it again, none of those mentioned, Bayh,Warner,Edwards,and Clinton show the same combined level of competence and leadership that Kerry does. As the writer says, we will need someone to clean up the mess Bush leaves- Kerry's the guy!!

[karynnj]

11. It could also backfire badly

The South is more conservative, so a Southern liberal may be not honored in his own state. In 2004, Kerry actually benefited by people thinking that Dean was more liberal. With Edwards, it could even be worse.

1) The South could reject him as a liberal - as well as a trial lawyer with nice hair. Remember Edwards did not set the Southern primaries on fire - The only places he beat Kerry were NC, SC, and OK (by 3 points). That was while running as the most conservative of the pack. In 2008, that will likely be Warner.

2) In the liberal states, especially those early in the primary process, they considered Edwards and formed some opinion of him. He runs the risk of losing those who liked him before, while those who thought he was too conservative (me, for one) aren't likely tosee him as a committed liberal. The slide in positions also brings up the short resume, the lack of political involvement before running for the Senate and may cause beople to think that he simply plays roles. (a short record makes it easier to change your image, but the cost is that you have nothing to stake the new image on.)

3) He was weak in the debates because he doesn't have depth in many issues. I think that more people that want to admit it were disappointed that he didn't kill Cheney in the debates.