Do you believe folks that don't back Hillary need to get behind Edwards ASAP?

[RiverStone]

Compromise.

Real tough to ponder when I see Dennis as the only candidate who has unequivocally represented my views.

Realistic.

Dennis Kucinich has not the name recognition, M$M attention, or financial capability to win the presidency. Al Gore will not be running for president in 2008. I dearly wish both realities were not true, but they are.

Strategy

It has come down to either Clinton or Edwards, IMHO. Obama, with all his inspiring rhetoric of change has disappointed many with his pandering to the evangelicals and wimpy stand on impeachment. Trying to play to the right has cost him the left; I think Obama is toast. I believe Edwards is our only chance to have a Hillary alternative.

Action

Lower tier candidates drop out and endorse Edwards and fast. Some have said doing so before Iowa would be disloyal to their constituents, but can they afford to wait till mid-January with Super Tuesday fast approaching on February 5th?

Opinion

We need to see some dramatic and sweeping changes in the primary landscape to shake things up. An Iowa victory for Edwards is critical to upset the donkey cart. I advocate that any candidate who plans to NOT eventually endorse HRC decide what is ultimately in the best interest of the Party and act accordingly to unify an alternative to Hillary vote.

Perspective

I'd value yours!





peace~:)

[acmavm]

1. John Edwards is nobody's 'rebound' candidate. His campaign and his

stand on the issues speak for themselves. He's gotten more union endorsements that the 'top two' corporate panderers.

[rwheeler31]

2. I agree.

[OzarkDem]

3. Its worth considering

I haven't made my choice yet and the candidate I think I prefer still isn't in the race.

[undeterred]

4. Kucinich supporter here

who will get behind Edwards and hope he picks him as VP and draws on his courage, integrity, and spiritual values.

I do like Edwards very much, and if Dennis Kucinich did not exist, he would be my top choice. But there is a qualitative difference between Dennis and all the rest. He has political courage. He's the Feingold of the House. I realize he isn't a big enough player for the presidency, but he's still the best candidate in terms of vision and values.

[robinlynne]

8. You are right. I'm voting for edwards, and I think edwards can take the presidency

and will restore civil liberties and end the war.

[johnaries]

49. Edwards/Kucinich is an excellent ticket! nt

[john_jons]

66. Kucinich is the only candidate for real change.

No other candidate embodies my own belief of what needs to change in this country to make it again a place I am proud of having defended.

[Snotcicles]

5. I've been supporting Edwards from the beginning, and that support has only grown. nt

[Trajan]

6. I will vote for the Democratic Party nominee ....

Even if I am not completely pleased with that nominee .... So, in the end, it won't really matter much who
takes that baton and runs ....

I will support any of them .....

[RiverStone]

9. Do you see Edwards as different than Clinton?

I'm with you in that I'll be voting Dem in the General; however, I see JE as much more progressive.

Hillary is basically rethug-lite in my view; though still a far better alternative then Rudy/Mitt/Fred.

[Trajan]

38. I see both as quite similar ....

Edwards is less progressive than claimed, and Hillary is more progressive than claimed: BOTH are FAR more progressive than a GOP nominee ....

I love Edwards, and would gladly vote for him ..... I will vote for Clinton, but with more reservations ...

[annabanana]

7. As the chances of Gore running fade,

the more I am looking at Edwards. (But my heart will always be with Dennis)

[daninthemoon]

31. If your heart is with dennis, why not your vote?

Kucinich tops leading Dems in key CA straw poll http://www.dennis4president.com/go/newsroom/kucinich-tops-leading-dems-in-key-ca-straw-poll/
SAN MATEO, CA - Despite millions of campaign dollars being spent by the poll-leading Democratic Presidential candidates to woo California voters, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich scored a stunning second-place finish in a bellwether Presidential straw poll here today.

This is clear and compelling evidence of the strong and rising undercurrent of grassroots support for our campaign, not just in California, but all across the country," Kucinich said. "When independent-minded Democratic voters and activists have the chance to vote their beliefs and their consciences, celebrity and campaign war chests don’t matter."

[RiverStone]

33. My heart stays with Dennis, my head is more pragmatic

Rarely in life do we get everything we ask for.

In 08 - for me that would be an Al Gore or DK presidency!

Thats not happening.

My head says if I'm to get some of what I want, I need to compromise my wishful thinking. John Edwards is a far better alternative to rethug-lite Hillary.

In fact, maybe John would appoint Dennis to head up the Dept. of Peace. Hillary is too beholden to the corporates to do something so sensible. Remember the Rolling Stone song...ya can't always get want ya want, but if you try sometimes -you just might find -you get what ya need!

[daninthemoon]

35. I'm still "wishin and a hopin". If , when the time comes, it looks like

it's either/or Clinton/Edwards, then we may have to be pragmatic. Until some actual votes get cast, this is still anybody's race. Ask Dr. Dean.

[mike from ri]

10. no, the answer is richardson

as the only real contender who is not part of the most distrusted institution in america -- the us congress -- he can combine both the politics of hope and the politics of realism.

[tkmorris]

11. Well, he's not much of a progressive

He's got a resume to die for, but he just doesn't inspire in front of the cameras. I like the guy ok but we can do tons better. No matter what you are looking for in a candidate it seems there is a better option than Bill, unless you are just looking for experience and a non-Congress guy.

[hfojvt]

22. especially if you want a progressive

Richardson quickly got crossed off my list when I saw him in an Iowa forum. First, because of all his blathering and bowing before the idea of "economic growth". He also jumped right up to disavow removing the ceiling on social security because it would "be a 15% tax increase on the middle class and the small business owner". To be concerned about those making over $95,000 a year just does not seem progressive to me.

Of course, Edwards waffled on that too, saying that there should be a gap in there for the $95,000 - $200,000 crowd and then tax incomes above $200,000. Clinton said the same thing privately according to recent posts on DU and from Obama. Hey candidates, if there is gonna be a gap where income is not hit with social security taxes, why not make it on the first $10,000 in income? As for those making over $95,000 - here's the world's smallest fiddle playing 'my heart doesn't bleed for you' :nopity:

[RiverStone]

17. with all due respect...

I really do like Richardson, though I believe he has as much chance of being Pres as Dennis.

The question I'm pondering and I ask you is: Would you be willing for your candidate to endorse Edwards IF it meant he had a real shot at catching Hillary?

I'm simply looking at some limited options...I DO NOT want Clinton as our nominee! Time to stop this from happening grows short and a compelling shake up is the only way.

[mike from ri]

62. richardson is probably doing as well as carter in '76

and bill clinton in '92 at this point in the cycle. as a gov, his name recog is naturally concentrated in his home state. but once a gov breaks out, he breaks out big.

[TheFarseer]

52. He's not alot better than Hillary IMO

although I would cast a vote for him in the GE, so he's at least that much better than Clinton as far as I'm concerned.

[JMDEM]

12. I would agree, but I bet a lot of people think the obvious choice is...

Obama or
Kucinich or
Richardson or
Biden or
Dodd or
Gravel

etc.

[Milo_Bloom]

13. No, Edwards and Clinton are the same.

[Rhiannon12866]

18. Edwards has acknowledged his mistakes. Hillary is still pandering to the right. n/t

[Milo_Bloom]

19. When it counted, Edwards pandered as much as Clinton.

I throw out anything he says on the campaign trail and only pay attention to what he actually DID and they are IDENTICAL, thus, both useless.

[RiverStone]

24. Then does it matter to you if HRC is our nominee?

I respect your view - but if you see them as identical; what do you see as the best course for the Dem party to take in naming a nominee? Who do you prefer?



peace~

[Milo_Bloom]

42. I wouldn't vote for either of them.

If this is the course the dem party chooses to take, I will not be supporting them this fall.

[RiverStone]

46. One word...SCOTUS

Or acronym to be exact:

SCOTUS

As much as I do not want Hillary, I do believe that even she would appoint someone not likely to further erode our personal liberties.

If nothing else, I'd encourage you to think about what would happen if a RW wacko got the presidency --- the SCOTUS could go RIGHT for a generation or more. I respect your choice, an offer the SCOTUS appointments (and there could be two during the next President's term) as the best rational to vote DEM.


Of course, it is your vote to use or lose.




peace~

[Milo_Bloom]

48. On Word Response SOUTER.

Basically, just because a particular party is in the white house, doesn't mean they get the nominee they think they are going to get.

Clinton, Edwards.. both have a history of seriously compromising their values when things are on the line, so I have absolutely no reason to believe they would be able to stand up to a GOP fillibuster of a nominee and thus, putting one of these sell out dems in office, doesn't give us a progressive nominee... in fact, it pretty much guarantees a "compromise" candidate, who will wind up pushing the court further to the right.

So, yes, I am thinking strongly about the court when I state that I would not vote for either of these people and would work very hard to keep either of these two out of the whitehouse.

[Rhiannon12866]

25. I also count what he has done since the 2004 campaign.

I liked what he had to say in 2004, thought that his speech was the best of the convention, but thought that VP would give him necessary experience. Since then, he has really stepped up to the plate and I respect his hard work and his honesty. Tim Russert was pretty rough on him in his hour-long MTP appearance, but he didn't backpedal or make excuses, but answered some pretty tough questions head-on. This is a guy who could easily sit back, and perhaps should, with his wife's illness. But I believe that he has felt a calling and I respect him for the choices that he's made. This is one guy who has been there and one of the few candidates who gets it. I could support him easily and with enthusiasm. :-)

[Milo_Bloom]

43. Everything has been rhetoric...

And his rhetoric is contradictory. He speaks out against poverty, but releases a tax plan that contains the same basic inequities towards the poor and favors money making money over income from labor. He releases a health care plan that functions as a gift to the insurance industry.

Yes, he gets it. People do not pay attention to what he has done, or continues to do, but only listen to what he says... so I agree, he "gets it" in that he doesn't have to do anything to trick people into voting for him.

[Rhiannon12866]

64. Well, I guess that a major difference between us is that I believe that Edwards is sincere.

I believe that he truly cares about the poor, since he's been there, and reducing the inequities between the haves and have-nots in this country has become his signature issue. He addressed this in his 2004 convention speech, and has since dedicated his time and energy towards this issue since then. I do pay attention to what Edwards has done, as well as what he says...

And it's Hillary who has ties to the health care industry. Edwards has criticized her on that. Edwards has acknowledged his mistakes from the past, like his Iraq war vote, while Hillary has yet to do even that and continues to vote with the right on way too many issues for me to feel comfortable in supporting her. But if she gets the nomination, she'll get both my support and my vote.

But I still prefer John Edwards. DK may be my first choice, always has been, but I'm realistic. I think that Edwards is our best chance for a win in 2008. I care about a lot of issues, for sure, but nothing's going to get done without a win and until we take back the government...

[Rhiannon12866]

14. I've already gotten behind Edwards, have since he spoke out on MTP a few months ago.

Dennis will always have my heart, as he has since 2003, but I agree with Bill Maher that Edwards has the best chance for a Democratic win in 2008 and I think that winning has to be our first priority. But it's also still tough for me...;(

[AzDar]

15. In a word... YES.

:)

[KaptBunnyPants]

16. If Hillary is to be stopped, an anti-Hillary candidate will need to crystallize.

She will win if she's running against a split opposition. I like Edwards, so it would be nice if it were him.

[RiverStone]

20. Yes - but who will show enough wisdom to drop out first?

For the bigger picture...

Like you said, a split Dem opposition ensures a Hillary victory.

[rhett o rick]

21. My feeling exactly. nm

[pnwmom]

23. I doubt that most of Obama's supporters feel that way. n/t

[RiverStone]

28. agreed - though that may change the day after Iowa .. n/t

[uppityperson]

26. It depends on your goal, and each of us must decide on our own.

Sort of like picking a romantic partner, or what your religious/spiritual beliefs are. Is your goal to make sure Repub candidate doesn't get elected, is your goal to attempt to work on longer term slower change (and having the current suffering go on longer, but having the theory that humanity is capable of becoming better)? I can't tell anyone else how to feel about this, and have been torn in both directions. When I was younger I voted 3rd party because I thought then, as now, that having just the 2 parties was not good enough, while they have differences they do not represent me often. Now I am older, pragmatic, looking at another 30 yrs if I'm lucky, and am voting to slow down the decay. I also have lost faith in believing humanity will get better or survive as a species for much longer.

Kucinich has a chance to shake things up, perhaps we have not suffered enough for enough people to see, to believe, that things are as bad as they are and that change is possible. I'm not advocating more destruction, but just stating how I see it. But that's just me.

As far as comparing Edwards with Clinton, I don't think my saying "support candidate X" will do much for getting anyone in particular on the ballot. I donate money and time, but really feel mostly powerless. I am not giving up, but that's how I feel, here, where I live. Of course last election my county heavily supported Kucinich, am not in a swing vote area.

[RiverStone]

56. think globally - act locally

So the bumper sticker says.

It is the only solution I see for the powerless feeling you expressed uppityperson. Little changes that come about through our efforts in our daily lives add up to bigger changes in everyones' lives. As far as who to support in the General, it seems Edwards at least has a compass bearing in the right direction. And we must have a Dem on the Hill to keep the SCOTUS from slipping even more right.

Though JE is a huge leap from the "walk you talk" integrity that Dennis displays - though like you said, people need to see it like it is and there are so many distractions (reality TV).

I hold out hope still - or maybe I chose not the alternative because I want my 2 teenagers to grow up in a better place then I.



peace~:)

[riverdeep]

27. I'd def support Edwards.

What Hillary supporters don't get, even if she gets elected President, she's going to have a target on her back from the beginning, no 'honeymoon' period whatsoever. For some reason, Hillary is red meat to the right, and her ability to govern will be severely compromised.

I still like Obama. Sure he's sold out some, but he saw where people who don't compromise land, at 2% support, which sucks, but there it is. But it's becoming more clear he probably can't win-there are still too many people who won't vote for a black man, even if he was giving them $1000/month for life.

Edwards is the most pragmatic choice. I think he would do better in the South than Gore did, and he's got the Q factor that superficial Americans, who say they don't like superficiality, pick again and again. He's also got the least targets. When your opposition talks about your haircut, they've got nothing.

I'd love to see President Kucinich, but it ain't gonna happen, without the time-space continuum taking a major shift. However, if Hillary gets it, I'll back her all the way.

[LWolf]

29. No.

I believe that Democrats should back the candidate who most truly, consistently, represents them on issues. If that is Kucinich, as it is for many, then he should get your support.

If everyone who likes DK's positions best actually supported him, he would be just as viable as the rest. That process starts with one voter at a time. I think think that the best strategy for seeing his positions make greater advances are to support him, and them, with as many primary votes as possible.

[Individualist]

54. Well said

After the first 25 or so "I like Dennis, but he isn't electable" posts, one has to wonder...

[SmokingJacket]

68. I see what you're saying, but.

I've come to realize that most people -- most Democrats, even -- are nowhere near as far left as I am. And I can be idealistic as I truly am when writing letters to senators and donating money to causes.

But there is something to be said for compromising and uniting behind the candidate that *most Democrats* can live with. Democrats have a tendency toward idealism that divides us something awful. We don't mind being a righteous minority so much -- there's a real streak of "I don't care if we win, as long as we're right!" that might make us sleep better at night but for this next election, I don't think we can afford it.

Nobody's ever good enough for us... but sheesh, after Bush, ANY Democrat should be good enough.

THOUGH -- if we didn't have such an entrenched two-party system, or if we had run-off voting, I'd be squawking a different tune.

[Yael]

30. I like the strategic thinking route you are taking

Yes, in order to make a difference, we need to be realistic. Idealistically, Kuch, Richardson and Biden all have their strong points and who can argue that Dodd took an impressive stand last week?

Realistically, it is about who can win this thing. Yes, the evil 'electibility' thing, but the goal is the GE, which leads to the cabinet, the SCOTUS and hopefully downticket sweeps.

If roles were reversed and it was Edwards in the Obama position (too many rookie mistakes, IMO), I would about face and stand behind the candidate that I think can win it.

I believe John Edwards is the man who can do this and I have been supporting the Senator in his efforts for months now.

We would certainly appreciate your support.

[RiverStone]

32. The question is, do the campaign consultants like it?

Thanks Yael.

I have not heard a peep from any other candidates on said strategy. It is all too easy to banter about our ideas on DU - and we have some damn good ideas at that - yet I wonder when folks OUT THERE will pick this ball up?

Have you seen or heard anything to suggest a unified approach behind a singular candidate or JE specifically (as the winnable Hillary alternative)?

[Yael]

34. Nothing from the candidates

They still have time and money -- and a place for their voices to be heard. I wouldn't see the camps backing one another until after Iowa and NH. Not as long as they still have an invite to the debates. Once those contests are over, I would think that the ones with the least showing would back the others both in word and in work.

From the grassroots though, I would think that we can back these men for their messages -- while at the same time working to promote a candidate that they think can take this thing all the way.

It is up to each of us to determine who/how to go about this though.

[cuke]

36. Think

Do you think Obama's consultants want their client to drop out? Biden's consultants?

[MethuenProgressive]

37. "Lower tier candidates drop out and endorse Edwards and fast" Edwards is in 4th place!

Behind a guy not even running. You propose Edwards drop out and endorse Edwards? :rofl:

[Qutzupalotl]

53. Where's Richardson?

[JustAnotherGen]

39. Hmm

No. And I'm a huge Edwards supporter.

One - I think people should look at all the issues . . . and vote their conscience.

Two - Not mentioned by the original poster - but I've caught *I think* all of the debates. We/the left and our candidate pool - they're shaping the debate this election. If you really read the papers/web sites etc. etc. after the debates (and can keep your head from exploding at the stupidity the Republicans spout time and time again)- they keep focusing on how reactionary the Republican candidates are being. And it's not just to HRC - it's to everything our pool is saying.

I want them all in for as long as they can take the pain. I want Gravell screaming about the war, Kucinich talking about the blue collar men and women who only have their collars left - because they lost their shirts, Biden talking about Darfur . . . DARING to even say the word, Edwards talking about Health Care, Obama talking about what we can do as opposed to how our government sucks, etc. etc.


The people running on the right? I think they are running scared. We don't have it in the bag - but the more voices we have appealing to one thing or another to those in the middle - the better. I'd like their minds made up by June 2008 (that's when I believe my state holds the primary) that they don't care who it is - they are voting for a Democrat.

Hope that nonsense I've written makes sense - I'm drugged on sinus meds right now!

[FatDave]

55. What sinus meds are those?

And did the box say "side effects include eloquence and rationality"?

Yet I do agree with the OP. I'd like to see a united "not Hilary" front. But then again, I don't buy into the "inevitable" hype necessarily either.

[NNN0LHI]

40. Edwards would be just dandy for me

But so would Obama, Biden or any of the other Dem candidates.

Don

[B Calm]

41. Edwards is 100 times better candidate than Hillary..

[rjones2818]

44. Edwards is at the bottom of my list

along with HRC and Obama. I don't trust him to make the right decisions when the pressure is on.

[monmouth]

45. I wouldn't vote for Edwards under any circumstances...n/t

[Inspired]

47. That is too bad but I understand.

I feel the same way about Hillary Clinton.

[sendero]

50. I'd be happy with Edwards..

... but I'm afraid this contest is pretty much over already. We'll see.

[TheFarseer]

51. I have said for a while

that Obama people need to get behind Edwards or vice versa and the rest need to get behind the anti-Hillary also. If Hillary wins the nomination, I see no reason to get behind a job outsourcer that doesn't care about anyone but lobbyists and corporate donors. I hope we can all agree on an alternative candidate before it's too late.

[jpgray]

57. I think he's a great candidate, but being in MN Kucinich will get my caucus vote

Unless it's reasonably close between Hillary and a major candidate -still- by the time we vote.

[Romulox]

58. I find Edwards and Clinton *equally* unappealing, not the least because both are chameleons...

In particular, I have not been convinced Edwards' putative conversion from a corporate/DLC democrat to a crusader for the poor in a few short months is genuine, especially when he still embraces key components of the DLC platform--e.g. "free trade" with China.

[Toasterlad]

59. No, I Don't. And I Believe "Compromise" Is What Got Us in the Shape We're in Today.

I'm voting for Kucinich because Kucinich represents me and what I believe. None of the other candidates do. I believe we need a change in government, and that there will be no change if Clinton/Obama/Edwards et al are elected. I believe that a person should vote with conviction, and that a vote is never to be compromised. I believe that people who let themselves be bullied into voting for corporate-selected candidates are cowards who don't understand the power that the people of this country, en masse, still hold.

You can swallow the kool-aid, or you can vote with your heart. If you want change, there's only one choice.

[info being]

60. I'm with you

[renie408]

61. I'm in.

I supported Edwards in '04 and have always liked him on a gut level.

[tritsofme]

63. No thanks

Edwards comes in second to last on the list of candidates I support.

[tom_paine]

65. Unquestionably.

[john_jons]

67. We should not back down. Dennis is the only candidate for change.

This country must have a major change. An upheaval if you will. In fact. I don't really believe there is anything that can be done to fix what is wrong with our country at this time. The corruption is far too entrenched. The American people control nothing.

I really think only the second American Revolution will succeed. I'm afraid we are going to have to tear this country down completely and start over again.