Democrats prefer Edwards in new poll

[waiting for hope]

By JONATHAN ROOS
REGISTER STAFF WRITER
Des Moines Register and Tribune Company

May 19, 2007

Presidential candidate John Edwards leads rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in a new Des Moines Register poll of Iowans likely to take part in the Democratic caucuses.

The Iowa Poll shows Edwards, a former U.S. senator from North Carolina, is the first choice of 29 percent of those who say they definitely or probably will attend the January caucuses, which kick off the nominating process for the nation.

Obama, a U.S. senator from Illinois, edges out Clinton for second place in the poll — 23 percent to 21 percent.

~Snip~

While Clinton leads the field in national polls of Democratic voters, the New York senator and former first lady has her work cut out for her in Iowa. Edwards, a dogged campaigner, has almost made Iowa his second home since first making a bid for the White House four years ago. Edwards surged to a second-place finish in the 2004 Democratic caucuses and went on to become the running mate of John Kerry in their losing campaign against Republican incumbent George W. Bush.

Edwards’ familiarity to Iowa Democrats appears to have bred much more respect than contempt. Eight in 10 likely caucus participants have favorable feelings about the candidate, according to the Iowa Poll. They include Dean Hundahl, a retired salesman from Iowa Falls who observed Edwards campaigning there four years ago.

~Snip~

Edwards also has an edge over his competitors in Iowa for the labor vote, a key Democratic constituency. He is the first choice of 36 percent of likely caucus participants from households with a union member. Clinton captures the support of 26 percent of that group and Obama gets 21 percent. Obama, one of the new faces in the 2008 presidential race, enjoys favor-ability ratings nearly as high as Edwards in the poll. He’s also the most popular second choice of likely caucus participants, cited by 25 percent. That compares with 22 percent for Edwards and 19 percent for Clinton.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070519/NEWS/70519028/1001

I know there is a ton of time between now and the primary, but Edwards has been laying some solid groundwork and I believe it's going to give him the edge.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[musiclawyer]

1. Good

He needs to win there , or he's finished and that's a terrible thing Becase he's the only one that will have little trouble beating any rebub in the end.

[waiting for hope]

3. I know...all the other

polls have him beating McCain, Rudy and Mitt -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=851528

[DesertRat]

2. I can't support Edwards because of his IWR vote

A vote which he STILL defended during the 2004 campaign.
``The vote on the resolution was the right vote, even in hindsight,'' Edwards, a first-term U.S. senator from North Carolina, said in an interview aboard his campaign plane on Oct. 8 (2004). ``It was the right vote to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein,'' he said.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=apXyrHjc4RSs&refer=us

That and the fact that he helped write the Patriot Act. :eyes:

[w4rma]

6. He wrote the sunset provision of the Patriot Act. **SUNSET PROVISION**

It forces a new vote to keep large portions of the Patriot Act as a law.

[waiting for hope]

9. Thanks w4rma -

You always come back with the right stuff....

:hi:

[w4rma]

12. Thank you, waiting for hope.

That's really nice of you to say. :hi:

[Clark2008]

15. He still voted for the WHOLE thing, though.

[w4rma]

22. Sen. Fiengold was the **only** Senator that voted against the whole thing.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313

[LWolf]

25. Which makes him the ONLY

Senator to have a shot at my vote, except he isn't running.

[1932]

28. What happens when Feingold enthusiastically endorses Edwards?

[LWolf]

31. Do you mean...

what happens to my vote, or what happens with other Democrats?

I can't speak for anyone else. If Feingold enthusiastically endorses Edwards, then he does so.

It has nothing to do with my voting decisions. I like to make those myself. I don't cast a vote, or decide who to support, based on someone else's endorsement. Endorsements are a last resort.

Are current members of Congress who are not in the race going to be lining up to endorse various candidates? If so, I think they are doing so for future political favor, rather than because voters are going to follow their lead like obedient little lambs.

For the record, I do look at who various groups endorse if I can't find enough info on a candidate, or if I'm unsure in any way. That usually happens in local, sometimes state, elections where there there is not as much history available for every candidate. In national elections, including the 'o8 primaries, that is certainly not the case.

[1932]

35. Why would...

...Feingold's hypothetical support for Edwards be something that you're convinced would be insincere, buy his votes on legislation are something that you'd use as your litmus test for support?

If you think Senators have so little character in one case, why would you care about how they act in the other case?

[LWolf]

38. I didn't say it was insincere.

I said it is irrelevant to my vote.

I'm not really interested in judging the sincerity of any endorsement; I'm sure many of them are sincere on some level, for whatever reason the endorsement is made.

[1932]

39. I still don't see how you could say Feingold has credibility with regard to his vote

but not with regard to his endorsements.

[LWolf]

40. I didn't say that, either.

Is claiming words and thoughts for others that they don't speak or think part of normal procedure for you? What are you not getting here?

I have not criticized Feingold. I'm not going to. Neither am I going to make of him a figurehead that I will follow unquestioningly into an election or anywhere else.

I don't follow anyone unquestioningly. I make up my own mind. What is it about this that you don't "get?"

Or is it that you are seeking something else?

[jobycom]

7. He co-sponsored the IWR bill, but that's not why I'm weak on Edwards

A lot of Democrats voted for the IWR to limit Bush, who had already said he had the authority to invade even without that bill. For many Democrats (Clinton and Kerry, for instance, made this clear when they voted for the bill), the bill was a chance to slow down the rush to war, with the hope of letting diplomacy and common sense avert it altogether. The invasion was going to happen with or without the bill. Some Democrats just beleived that if they threw up a few obstacles to Bush (the need for UN negotiations, for instance), that they had a chance to stop it. Clark supporters hate this (and don't understand it, I don't think), but Clark himself had asked Congress to pass such a resolution as nearly unanimously as possible, and even some of those who voted against the IWR were wanting to vote for something similar, but with more restrictions. THAT was a moot point, though, since the IWR was the most favorable bill the Republicans would allow, so it was either take the couple of limits the IWR put on Bush, or reject it and give Bush unfettered authority to invade on his whim.

The part that bothers me is Edwards's strong support not only of the IWR, but of the invasion itself. He did several voluntary interviews praising the invasion, before, during, and after. He attacked Dean for being against it, and when Kerry began to publicly voice opposition to the invasion, Edwards attacked him, claiming that the Dems were cutting their own throats by not supporting the invasion.

Whether Edwards really was tricked into believing all the gung-ho "we must destroy Hussein" nonsense, or whether he was really against it but went along for electability reasons, it still makes me wonder about his decision-making ability, and his experience when it comes to international diplomatic manipulation. He was manipulated, whether in agreement with or in opposition to his personal convictions. That's my problem with Edwards. He either has weak convictions, or he has too little experience to understand how is being used. He has to work hard to overcome those for me to support him, and so far, he's been working in the wrong direction, by pretending he's somehow the anti-invasion candidate. To me, so far, he's the "I'll say whatever you tell me to" candidate, and that makes me wonder what he's really about. If he just wants to be president and has no real care about ideology, I don't want him. If he's got some strong agenda but feels it's too unappealing to get him elected, I still don't want him. I want at least some indication of what he really is, and so far, I don't have it.

But it's a long campaign, and I'm still open-minded about it. Just barely, with Edwards, but I haven't turned into an Edwards opponent yet.

[dave_p]

26. He's repeating it with Iran ... and more

From January (his hard foreign-policy pronouncements are few):

"To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."

Don't negotiate, just threaten:

"Syria needs to be held accountable. Syria has recently called for peace talks with Israel. Talk is cheap."

Europe should be allied to Israel, dragging it into furure regional wars:

"It is only natural that NATO seeks to include Israel"

[stevedeshazer]

16. Better school up on the author of the Patriot Act. Edwards had nothing to do with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_D._Dinh



<snip>
Viet D. Dinh (Vietnamese: Đinh Đồng Phụng Việt; born February 22, 1968) was the Assistant Attorney General of the United States from 2001 to 2003, under the presidency of George W. Bush. Born in Saigon, South Vietnam he was the chief architect of the USA PATRIOT Act.

And here: http://www.asianam.org/viet%20dinh.htm

<snip>

Dinh was the chief architect of the USA Patriot Act, the legislation approved by Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks that gives law enforcement agencies vastly expanded powers to track terror suspects. He has been the official responsible for crafting a series of anti-terrorism initiatives that would, among other things, require the fingerprinting of potentially tens of thousands of visiting foreigners from Middle East countries and would put foreign students on a much tighter leash.

He revamped the law enforcement guidelines that Ashcroft announced in May to give FBI agents new powers to snoop in mosques and surf the Internet. And he is now working on a plan to promote better coordination within the Justice Department and with agencies such as the CIA, a task aimed at preventing the communication breakdowns that preceded Sept. 11.

"I did not sign up for a war," Dinh said in an interview. "But it's a privilege, a profound honor really, to serve your country in a time of crisis. I can't imagine a better place for me to be right now."

What is perhaps most surprising to Justice Department observers is that Dinh has achieved such influence as one of 11 assistant attorneys general in charge of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy. The office was once a low-profile, somewhat nebulous operation chiefly concerned with federal judicial nominations--''a backwater,'' one former employee, who worked for the department during Janet Reno's tenure, called it. But with Ashcroft's blessing, Dinh has expanded the office's reach into areas once considered far outside its domain.

Ashcroft's a Fan

Dinh, a wiry, energetic man who spews out ideas and legal theory at a furious staccato clip, has turned his boss into one of his biggest fans.

"It's hard to point to a part of this department," Ashcroft said in an interview, "that isn't related to sound legal policy, so has become an integral part of virtually every decision we make.... He operates on a gold-medal level."

---

Don't spread lies about Edwards. You're better than that.

[DesertRat]

18. He had nothing to do with it?

John Edwards voted for and authored portions of the Patriot Act.

"Better school up."

[stevedeshazer]

19. At least I provided a link and information

You?

[DesertRat]

20. Here you go

your link had no mention of John Edwards.

John Edwards' On The Patriot Act
Excerpts From the Senate Floor Debate, 10/11/01:

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1510, the Uniting and
Strengthening America Act. In the aftermath of September 11, we face two difficult and delicate tasks: to strengthen our security in order to prevent future terrorist attacks, and at the same time, to safeguard the individual liberties that make America a beacon of freedom to all the world. I believe that when the President signs this `anti-terrorism` legislation into law, we will have achieved those two goals as best we now can. The act is a `far-reaching` bill.

I will mention just a few key aspects of that bill. First, the legislation brings our surveillance laws into the 21st century. Here are two of many examples. Under current law, the FBI can use a basic search warrant to access answering machine messages, but the FBI needs a different kind of warrant to get to voice mail. This law says the FBI can use a traditional warrant for both. Another example: Under current law, a Federal court can authorize many electronic surveillance warrants only within the court's limited jurisdiction. If the target of the investigation is in the judge's jurisdiction, but the subject of the warrant is technically an internet service provider located elsewhere, the warrant is no good as to that ISP. This bill allows the court overseeing an investigation to issue valid warrants nationwide.

Second, the act gives law enforcement officers and the foreign intelligence
community the ability to share intelligence information with each other in
defined contexts. For example, the act says that under specified conditions, the FBI may share wiretap and grand jury information related to foreign- and `counter-intelligence`. I appreciate concerns that this `information-sharing` authority could be abused. Like Chairman Leahy, I would have preferred to see greater judicial oversight of these data exchanges. But I also believe we simply cannot prevail in the battle against terrorism if the right hand of our government has no idea what the left hand is doing.

Third, the act enhances intelligence authorities under the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). When I met with FBI agents in North
Carolina shortly after September 11, they told me their number one priority was to streamline the FISA process. We've done that. We've said, for example, that the renewal periods of certain key FISA orders may be longer than the initial periods. This makes sure the FBI can focus on
investigations, not duplicative court applications. A more controversial change concerns the purpose of FISA surveillance. Under current law, a FISA wiretap order may only enter if the primary purpose of the surveillance is foreign intelligence gathering. The administration
initially proposed changing the "primary purpose'' requirement to a
requirement of "a purpose,'' any foreign intelligence purpose.

At a recent Intelligence Committee hearing, I was one of several Senators to raise constitutional questions about the Administration's initial proposal. The last thing we want is to see FISA investigations lost, and convictions overturned, because the surveillance is not constitutional. S. 1510 says that FISA surveillance requires not just "a purpose,"' but "a significant purpose,'' of foreign intelligence gathering. That new language is a substantial improvement that I support. In applying this "significant purpose'' requirement, the FISA court will still need to be careful to enter FISA orders only when the requirements of the Constitution as well as the statute are satisfied. As the Department of Justice has stated in its letter
regarding the proposed FISA change, the FISA court has "an obligation,'' whatever the statutory standard, "to reject FISA applications that do not truly qualify'' as constitutional. I anticipate continued close congressional oversight and inquiry in this area.

A fourth step taken by this legislation is to triple the number of Border
Patrol, INS inspectors, and Customs Service agents along our 4,`000-mile`
northern border. Today there are just 300 border patrol agents to guard
those 4,000 miles. Orange cones are too often our only defenses against
illegal entries. This bill will change that.

Fifth, the bill expedites the hiring of translators by the FBI. It is unthinkable that our law enforcement agents could have critical raw intelligence that they simply cannot understand because they do not know the relevant language. This statute will help to change that state of affairs.

Finally, the bill makes the criminal law tougher on terrorists. We make it a crime to possess a biological agent or toxin in an amount with no reasonable, peaceful purpose, a crime to harbor a terrorist, a crime to provide material support to terrorism. And we say that when you commit a crime of terrorism, you can be prosecuted for that crime for the rest of your life, with no limitations period. Statutes of limitations guarantee what lawyers call "repose.'' Terrorists deserve no repose.

As Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch have both said, this legislation is not perfect, and the `House-Senate` Conference may yet make improvements. For example, the Conference might clarify that, as to aliens detained as national security threats, the law will secure the due process protections and judicial review required by the Constitution and by the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Zadvydas v. Davis and INS v. St. Cyr.

The Conference might also sensibly include a sunset of the new surveillance authorities, ensuring that Congress will reconsider this bill's provisions, which touch such cherished liberties, in light of further experience and reflection. The bill is not perfect, but it is a good bill, it is important for the Nation, and I am pleased to support it.

Sources:
http://www.cdt.org/security/011011senate.txt
http://www.senate.gov
http://dotpeople.com/archives/000034.html

From the Democratic Presidential 2004 Primary Debate in Detroit Oct 27, 2003:

Q: The PATRIOT Act is two years old. There has been criticism of John Ashcroft for enforcement of legislation you authored. Shouldn't those who wrote the legislation take responsibility?

EDWARDS: There are provisions, which get no attention, which did good things. The reason we need changes is because it gave too much discretion to an attorney general who does not deserve it. The attorney general told us that he would not abuse his discretion. He has abused his discretion. We know that now.

[stevedeshazer]

21. Thanks, sorry for the reactive post

You backed up your assertion. I appreciate it, and I learned something I did not know.

[w4rma]

23. Again. He authored the sunset provision of the Patriot Act. **SUNSET PROVISION**

It forces a new vote to keep large portions of the Patriot Act as a law.

[DesertRat]

30. Again. He Supported and Voted for the entire **Patriot Act.**

And the **IWR**. It's one thing to vote for it, it's another to step forward, as Edward did, to embrace Bush's entire reasoning.

That's a deal breaker for me. It speaks to his judgement.

I think that John Edwards is a good man and there are many other ways that he can live a life of meaning and service, just not as president.

Edited to add: Plus he voted for NCLB which I can tell you as a public school teacher has been a DISASTER. Another bill that Sen. Feingold, and 9 other Senators, had the good judgement and foresight to vote against.

Sorry, but that makes Edwards 0 for 3 in my book.

[w4rma]

34. Again. And so did every other Senator, except Sen. Feingold, who was holding office. (nt)

[jobycom]

4. Edwards is the kind of candidate who does well in caucauses.

The poll questioned those "likely" to attend the caucaus, so it says nothing about Iowa voters. Caucauses tend to attract party activists and loyal supporters of candidates more than it attracts the average primary voters. The poll demonstrates that Edwards has hit the right issues with the most motivated Dem voters, and that his supporters are loyal and organized (at least in Iowa).

It's good news for Edwards, in that it shows his base is sticking with him, and they are somewhat rabid (in a good way) about their support. That implies that Clinton and Obama may have softer support--people who are still waiting to see how things shake out before getting too involved. It can have a bit of a downside for Edwards, though. Sometimes to get such a rabid base you have to craft a message very tightly, and that gives you less flexibility in the primaries. Given that Edwards's message has changed so drastically since 2004, that really handcuffs him. Those outside of his base may see him as an opportunistic flip-flopper (like Jerry Brown, for instance), and, if he does try to slide his view towards the larger party, he may anger some of his base without picking up as many voters from the middle of the party, some of whom will see him as shifting his message again. Such radical shifts in position make people question whether a candidate has any solid core.

Then again, it worked for JFK, and Edwards is sometimes compared to JFK by supporters. Still a long campaign.

And since people get upset at my neutral posts and try to guess who I'm supporting, I'll just say I haven't decided on anyone, I'm leaning softly towards Clinton, considering Obama, wondering what will happen if Gore jumps in, and as of now think it would take a miracle for me to vote for Edwards--though I'm not opposed to him in general. Yet.

[Geek_Girl]

5. Edward's is our best shot at '08

I really don't think Hillary or Obama can win.

[jobycom]

8. Heh.

Better start grooming someone for 2012, then.

[Thickasabrick]

10. I totally agree with you n/t

[Joanne98]

11. Hurray! K&R!

[William769]

13. Funny this poll says otherwise (also from Iowa)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/18/12402/2589

[Catchawave]

14. I like hope's poll better....

:evilgrin:

:kick: 'n' Rrrr

[edwardsdefender]

27. Is that a Zogby poll? Edwards hasn't done well in a Zogby poll since 2003, for whatever reason

[usregimechange]

17. Go John...

[upi402]

24. good! k/r n/t

[sheerjoy]

29. Works for me! n/t

[Beaverhausen]

32. Edwards has the best chance of winning the general election IMHO

He could pick up more votes in the south than Obama or Hillary.

[Forkboy]

36. I think so too.

He's not my first pick but I think he has more experience than Obama,and less baggage than Hillary.

[laura888]

33. So obviously the best choice

The MSM is trying to force-feed us Obama and Hillary.

What are their policies?

Clearly, in comparison, John Edwards' policies reflect DU's values:

- end the war
- bring the troops home
- figure out a workable health care system

[waiting for hope]

37. So true - It's always Obama/Hillary...

When they talk about the Repukes, they include all three, Rudy, McCrazy and Mitt...Edwards can beat all three easily. Edwards speaks for me, and he's not afraid to come right out and tell it like it is.