Would you vote for John Edwards for President?

[Pryderi]

[Little Star]

1. Where is the Hell No! choice?

[elleng]

2. Same thought here, Star!!!

:hi:

[Solomon]

53. +2 That was the first thought on my mind.

Hell no. The man risked disaster for us all. Just think if he had been the nominee and then the scandal broke. Why anyone would consider someone so foolhardy and selfish, I have no clue.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. Why are you asking this now? The primaries are OVER.

[okieinpain]

65. hah, john edwards is over. n/t.

[gateley]

4. No. For some reason I never liked/trusted him when he was running with Kerry, and I

continued to not like him when he was running for President.

[ecstatic]

5. In 2016? no. The man is a liar nt

[joentokyo]

21. Do you know a politician who is not a liar?

[karynnj]

34. There are degrees of lying - and Edwards is at the extreme end

He was exactly what I worried he was in 2004. He was someone who had the ability with his words to get others, and maybe even himself, to believe he was anything he needed to be to win. This was a key skill in his legal career. In 2004, I reassured myself that it might not be true because of Elizabeth. Still, he was my last choice out of the viable candidates.

As to a politician who does not lie, there are actually several. Lying is actually not helpful over a long career - you need to remember all the lies. One politician I have not found an outright lie from is John Kerry and I have read everything for years since the election. That does not mean that that his comments on everything are 100% constant, but he is an honest guy.

Among people without the ambition of becoming President, there are many who I don't think lie - Bernie Sanders, Frank Lautenberg, and Dick Durbin come immediately to mind. Among Republicans, I don't think Lugar is a liar. (Mentioning just these, does not mean that I limit it to just these.)

[ecstatic]

48. Good points nt

[Plucketeer]

76. And how would you have felt about Clinton

if his Lewinsky thing had happened and come to light BEFORE he was elected???

[Pisces]

6. Fuck NO!!

[Webster Green]

7. Greetings, time traveler!

Welcome back! You ain't gonna believe what's transpired while you were gone. :hi:

[Pryderi]

8. Interesting. Why can Gingrich be forgiven by repugs but we can't forgive Edwards? n/t

[karynnj]

12. I don't think most people have forgiven Gingrich, which is why in a year of very weak Republican

candidates, he won't win.

In addition, Newt wrote the Contract for America and is credited as a leading policy wonk of the Republican party. Edwards' main asset was that he was seen as a nice, wholesome guy, good family man with good looks and a charismatic speaker.

The fact that each were creeps toward their wives hurts Edwards more - as it destroys the main thing he had going for him. In addition, in his 2008 run, everything he said he was for had NO resemblance to his Senate record. People took that he believed in what he said ON FAITH. In addition to the loss of likability, there is the loss of trust. With Edwards, that leaves him with very little.

In Mewt's case, he was never seen as a good guy. He was seen as a smart, ultra conservative politician. What he did disgusted many people, but there are likely many in the Republican party that can compartmentalize that action from what he does as a leader. (The closest counterpart is Bill Clinton, who was nowhere near as despicable in his private life.

[Spider Jerusalem]

23. Bad argument there, honestly.

"Gingrich is a scumbag too!" Which doesn't change the fact that Edwards is still a scumbag. And I don't think that Gingrich was ever accused of misappropriating considerable sums in campaign funding and turning around and spending the money on his mistress. Edwards should be in jail for that (and may be yet).

[Mass]

49. Because we have higher standards than the GOP?

(though I dont think Gingrich will get the nomination anyway).

[tledford]

52. Ding ding ding ding ding! Give the man a cigar! eom

[karynnj]

9. Are you insane? He could not win a race for dog catcher

Are you in a time warp?

If the reason is that you want someone who actually has worked on helping people in the poorer America, you could pick someone with integrity and a real record doing it - like Bernie Sanders or many other Senators - or even Dennis Kucinich - all of whom are more viable than John Edwards.

I think it is pretty safe to assume that he will never again run for a state or national office - much less the Presidency.

[Shiver]

71. Off topic, but has there ever actually been an election for dog catcher?

[northoftheborder]

10. What is the point of this poll?

[GoCubsGo]

11. Depends.

Who is he running against?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

13. That you John? n/t

[onpatrol98]

15. Lol

My thoughts exactly....lol...is John floating feelers for another campaign attempt. I doubt it. He can survive on his meager savings and investments.

[jenmito]

14. NO WAY! I knew he was a phony before he was caught cheating! Yuck! n/t

[TheCowsCameHome]

16. Of what?

Nothing important, that's for sure.

[On the Road]

17. Not in the Primaries

but definitely in the general. He was the only candidate running last election who took the approach: "You can't achieve your political goals by compromise. You have to use your political capital to take it."

[liskddksil]

18. Hell Yes!

On corporate lobbyists "You give them a seat at the table, they eat all the food". Truer words were never spoken.

[AtomicKitten]

19. His reputation is going to need some more time to air out.

[dionysus]

45. there's not enough febreeze in the world...

[BlueIris]

20. Sure. At least he actually wants this job.

Yes, he had an affair. Big deal. I do not, and never have, cared about candidates' personal lives.

It's interesting this should come up today. I think Edwards is a more viable future president than some here might think.

[damntexdem]

22. Why post such an inane poll?

Why at this time, after he long ago totally disgraced himself?

[Historic NY]

24. He's done...

like Gary Hart.

[karynnj]

35. Interesting comparison

Hart was NOWHERE near as bad as Edwards. At worst, he had a mindless affair and then worked to hold his marriage together. His wife also was not dying of cancer. Another difference was that Hart had far more achievements behind him than Edwards did. Yet, he currently heads a foreign policy think tank (associated with John Kerry). In 2001, he was the author of a report on the threat of terrorism with former Senator Rudman that the Bush administration should have read. (I actually think that Kerry should have picked Hart in 2004 over Edwards, emphasizing their common prescience on non-state terror threats. He sure would have been a stronger defender of the nominee, who he respected - more than Edwards did. )

[Freddie Stubbs]

39. Hart's problem was much bigger than infidelity

It was his reckless hubris. He actually challenged the press to follow him around when the issue of his womanizing was brought up. So they did, and he was caught.

[karynnj]

44. I agree that that was pretty arrogant, but it doesn't rise, IMO, to the level

Of Edwards, posing as the ultra devoted family man, in EE's book suggesting he shave his hair because she lost hers, when, in fact, he was starting his affair. Not to mention the ultimate chutzpah of putting her on his campaign, even though she really had no experience in filming - when there are kids in several excellent college (and even High school) programs who are incredible and who would have done a far better job for far less. How did he think that Elizabeth, the staff and the media would not find out?

Not to mention, he lied in his emotional confession to the country - saying that the timing precluded him being the father of the baby. I would bet that the reason for that lie - which disowned his daughter - was that the timing meant that he continued the affair, not only after he told his wife, but they were on a few months after the awful diagnosis. So, while this was happening, Elizabeth was bravely dealing with the likelihood that she would not live to see her kids graduate high school and out in Iowa campaigning for him. Maybe the lie means he knew how despicable what he had done was, but again it takes chutzpah to think that it wouldn't come out. (Not to mention, how it would affect long term the daughter who he denied.)

As I said, support for Edwards was based on trust in what he said far more than for most candidates. How can anyone trust anything he says now, not supported by a huge amount of proof, after he lied straight faced when he was supposedly coming clean.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

25. stupid enough to make a sex tape is far too stupid to be president

While Newt Gingrich getting blowjobs in parking lots is horribly inappropriate, he did have the intelligence not to videotape it.

[Zoeisright]

26. Against any repuke? Of course.

I don't have a stick up my butt.

[jillan]

27. Not even if you paid me. I wasn't impressed with him even before he cheated on Elizabeth.

[tritsofme]

28. lol, president of what?

I wouldn't vote for that phony for dogcatcher.

[frazzled]

29. Would I stick my finger in a meat grinder?

No.

And I declined to vote for him in the 2004 and 2008 primaries. I pegged him as a fraud from Day 1. Why would I have wanted to vote for someone who cosponsored the Iraq War Resolution and was a founding member of the Senate Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).

[krawhitham]

30. If he is the democratic candidate, YES ....but

no way in hell would I vote for him in a primary, even before his baby issues

[ecstatic]

31. Amazingly, JE still has fans here

OMG. Is it the same 21% who always votes "no" on Obama? :shrug: LOL.

[karynnj]

36. From my observation there is probably some correlation between

the people who consistently start negative Obama threads and supporting Edwards in the past. (I have used "search" in some cases trying to understand where the poster is coming from.) However, many are people who were for Kucinich, or too left for anyone. In addition, there are a few who have still not forgiven him for beating Hillary - and a few who were ardent Obama supporters, who have been disappointed. It does seem that the former Edwards people are more likely than others to be unhappy with Obama. This likely is easily explained because of the issues that drew them to Edwards - and their disappointment in what Obama has been able to accomplish.

BUT, I do not think that Edwards is supported by 21% the entire DU population. (I also suspect that some yeses are the people who are saying 'if he were the Democratic candidate'.) In addition, it highly likely that people who still care about Edwards were much more likely to click on this. This type of poll cannot produce statistically defensible results.

[JTFrog]

32. Double Fuck No.

There are Two Americas and neither one is voting for him.

[LWolf]

33. Who is he running against?

According to conventional D wisdom, I should vote for him because he's a Democrat, over any other party represented on my ballot.

[Marrah_G]

37. I'm left wondering what the point of this poll is

[WI_DEM]

38. Why even ask? His political career is over

he's seen by many people as being the unfaithful husband of an woman slowly dying of cancer (whatever the truth of the matter as to when the affair began it doesn't matter--people think he was cheating on his dying spouse). Furthermore he's a liar who lied about his own child. When is he suddenly going to run for president again?

[karynnj]

47. Given when his youngest daughter was born, he was still with Rielle

after Elizabeth's stage 4 diagnosis. He WAS cheating when Elizabeth most needed his support - and per her time line, after he told her abut his affair and said it was over.

Even before anyone knew of the affair, his chances were zero - or near zero. He had run two times, winning exactly one primary - South Carolina - and that was in his first run. There was no way that he could raise anywhere near enough money again. After all this came out, it is not clear he could win an election for anything.

[slackmaster]

40. I wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher

:nuke:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

41. If necessary, but I'd never vote for him for a presidential candidate. N.T.

[dionysus]

42. bwahahahahahahaha... smoove johnny?

:rofl::spray:

[Phx_Dem]

43. I can't believe 34 people would actually vote for that lying sack of shit.

[Solomon]

54. Did we forget that he was conducting his affair during the

time he almost became the nominee? My God, he dissed us all. I can forgive a person for having an affair. But putting the best chance for a democrat to obtain the presidency at risk is something I can't forgive. Can you imagine if he had been the nominee? The scandal would have made us lose for several cycles. He's done.

[Unvanguard]

68. The Presidency is not the priesthood.

I'm not worried about the moral character of people in public office: I'm concerned about their public policy decisions. John Edwards is not a very good person, but he would be a much better president than a long list of people I could think of--including essentially every imaginable Republican candidate and a few Democrats too.

[GoCubsGo]

75. So....

If it was between him and Newt, or Palin, or Bachmann, or Trump..., you'd vote for Newt, or Palin, or Bachmann, or Trump... over him? Really?

[bigwillq]

46. No (nt)

[flpoljunkie]

50. Can you run for president if you've been indicted by the feds?

This is still a distinct possibility.

[whistler162]

51. About the same time I would vote for the Fig from Georgia!

[Myrina]

55. He's shown he's as sleazy as the Republicans, so we may have a chance ...

... to get some shit DONE with him in office. It's worth a shot, anyway ...


:shrug:

[zalinda]

56. He's not afraid to get his hands dirty

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1630323/john-edwards-wants-help-rebuild-haiti.jhtml

I cannot disagree on what he said about the issues of this country. He was the only candidate to talk about the haves and have mores. If you want to diss him because he didn't live what he 'preached', just look at what Obama 'preached' and now what he has done. I see no difference.

I fell in love with the issues, not the man. For me, it was never a popularity contest. If Edwards bashers don't understand that, then that's their problem.

zalinda

[ejbr]

57. +1 n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

79. Obama didn't impregnate a campaign staffer while his wife was dying

from cancer. I think that's the larger point. And for all his talk, Edwards wouldn't have been able to past near the legislation that this president has, especially once it became public knowledge that he was a lying sack of doo-doo.

[GentryDixon]

58. NO. I supported John Edwards with my retirement

income, ended up voting for Hillary in the primaries, and then fully supported the Dem nomination.

We so called Dems need to get behind our President. We do not need to look for alternative candidates. Unless, that is, we are willing to see a Republican in the White House and the Supreme Court controlled for our lifetime by the conservative movement.

[fishwax]

59. I'm not likely to ever have the opportunity in real life

I wouldn't vote for him in a primary and can't imagine he'd ever make it through to the general election ...

[Arkana]

60. Never in a million goddamn years.

I'd stay home if he became the Democratic nominee because I'd rather chew tinfoil than give my vote to a two-faced, disingenuous, lying scumpile who cheats on his dying wife.

He showed an amazing lack of foresight and an unbelievable arrogance in running for office with the Rielle Hunter affair over his head. Edwards wasn't dumb--he knew he'd be found out eventually, but he was gambling the country's future on not being found out until he was elected President.

I would never, EVER cast my ballot for that smarmy fuck.

[and-justice-for-all]

61. What he does on in his private life is none of my business...

[DrToast]

62. That depends. What is he running for?

Actually, it doesn't matter--no, I wouldn't.

[Fearless]

63. If he had the nomination then yes.

[Raine]

64. HELL NO I would NEVER vote for that lying piece of shit!!!!!! nt

:mad: :grr:

[Unvanguard]

66. If he were the Democratic candidate, yes, in a heartbeat.

:shrug:

[treestar]

67. No.

:rofl:

[Blasphemer]

69. Are we talking general election or primary?

Obviously, in a GE, the alternatives are most likely rabid right-wingers. In a primary, it would depend on his opponents. At any rate, I don't think he would do any worse than our past two Democratic presidents.

[Drunken Irishman]

70. If he somehow won the Democratic nomination, well yeah...

But before I could vote for him, I'd have to slap every Democrat who voted for him in the primary.

Let's be honest, though, there is no politician who's more toxic than Edwards.

[JI7]

72. if he somehow ended up Dem party Nominee yes, but not in a Primary

[Stoic]

73. No and I was on the ballot as an Edwards delegate.

This was, of course, before the revelations of his personal shittiness. OTOH, his politics were good. Very good.

[craigmatic]

74. No he just seems phoney now and heartless.

[caty]

77. If he couldn't be loyal

and honest with his own wife, how could ANYONE trust or respect him as our president.

[genna]

78. I wouldn't want John Edwards' judgement to impact the nation the way his choices

impacted his deceased wife and family or hoodwinked his previously loyal donors.

[Safetykitten]

80. Oddly, yes.

[Keith Bee]

81. Fiddle

:nopity:

[calimary]

82. I do NOT want that strumpet in the White House.

That's reason enough for me.

[struggle4progress]

83. I worked hard for Mr Edwards in several election cycles, beginning with his Senate run, so

I was probably in denial about the 2008 meltdown longer than most people here. I was very sorry that Mr Edwards blew his foot off while playing with his shotgun, so to speak, because I thought he had something to offer and gave time and money to support him, but I can't change what happened: it completely ruined him politically. The time I volunteered and the money I donated are gone, but I shrugged and moved on. It was years ago now: maybe we all should finally drop this sad story and consider the current fights we face