Newsweek poll: Edwards is our strongest candidate

[ruggerson]

Of Clinton, Obama and Edwards, the only one who outpolls BOTH McCain and Giuliani is John Edwards.

Giuliani beats both Clinton and Obama in the poll but loses to Edwards.

This lends yet more evidence to the thesis that Edwards is a very serious bet to take the White House back in '08.

Right now, the press is not yet giving him his due, largely because of the mania surrounding Hillary and Obama.

But, when it becomes clearer that John Edwards just may win two or three out of the first primary/caucuses, watch for all of that to change.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16712630/site/newsweek/

Suppose you had to choose between John McCain, the Republican, and John Edwards, the Democrat. Who would you be more likely to vote for? As of today, do you lean more toward McCain, the Republican; or Edwards, the Democrat?
Total Edwards 48%
Total McCain 43%
Undec./Other 9%

Suppose you had to choose between Rudy Giuliani, the Republican; and John Edwards, the Democrat. Who would you be more likely to vote for? As of today, do you lean more toward Giuliani, the Republican; or Edwards, the Democrat?

Total Edwards 48%
Total Giuliani 45%
Undec./Other 7%

[Dawgs]

1. Nice try, but way too early.

Try again a year from now-sorry.

[EVDebs]

42. Nope, Edwards stands for fiscal sanity much like Clinton did in '92

E J Dionne's column Two Taxed Americas
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070119_ej_dionne_two_taxed_americas

""On the one side, a president who campaigned on a balanced-budget pledge, then dug the country hundreds of billions of dollars deeper into debt with huge tax cuts and an unpaid-for war, and now promises a balanced budget four years after he leaves office. On the other side, a former senator who says that while he wants to contain the deficit, he has higher priorities than a perfectly balanced budget, specifically universal health insurance coverage and substantial investments in alternative energy. That is the choice offered by George W. Bush and John Edwards, the North Carolina Democrat whose left-of-center presidential candidacy will have the salutary effect of challenging Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton to respond with specifics of their own.

Edwards’ ideas on the budget have the additional virtue of reminding us that the argument over arriving at a balanced budget by 2012 is largely phony. The real issue, given the burgeoning costs of healthcare and the retirement of the baby boomers, is how to put policies in place now that achieve sustainable fiscal balance—meaning low if not zero deficits—over the next 30 years.


Edwards shows us that he knows it's still "It's the economy, stupid". By the way, he also knows that average Americans are being screwed royally by our well-insulated upper crust one and a half percent of the wealthiest. This and the corporatocracy that requires permanent bases by our military in Iraq is what is causing the country from going full speed ahead on alternative fuels. While Hilary and Barack cogitate, Edwards will act and I know this from his record.

Who will stand with the Quakers and expose the war in Iraq for what it really is ? Only Edwards can tie it all together:

14 Permanent Base in Iraq
http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm

Nixon plans to seize Saudi Oil Fields '73 (substitute "Iraq" nowadays)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/02/MNG8G427D61.DTL

Now Edwards/Obama ticket ... that makes sense.

[FrenchieCat]

2. He's the only "conventional" Southern White man candidate for the time being.....

out of the media generated "frontrunners".

The media will throw in Richardson for good measure very shortly.
The plan is to split the minority and woman vote and all that will be left is the biggest "block" vote; the white guy vote. A few of them will split off to other candidates, but a large chunk will go Edwards until other credible White Guys (some with National Security Experience) enters the race (sorry but Kucinich only gets the far left votes....Biden gets the "I'm crazy" vote, and Dodd and Vilsak get no votes).

But when Wes Clark comes in, Well the southern white guy vote will get split as well......between the military, the folks who want competency and credibility, and those who want a solution to this war and not a slogan....in particular from someone that's been there.

But John Edwards still has a very good shot...but he won't be a shoo in, that's for sure!

[venable]

10. I don't think the division will be as you suggest

I think that the biggest pull is NOT going to be from betwixt white guys...i think this comes down to Edwards and Obama, both of them fantastic candidates, both with wide appeal across gender, race, party lines, and both are progressive deep in their bones.

I think Richardson, Biden, Vilsack, Dodd, and HRC will fade (unless HRC's husband steps way forward and does his stump magic).

As for Clark - I admire him, but as wonderful as he is, his experience is in the planning and execution of military campaigns. I don't believe the 'General ' label reads 'National Security', I think it means what it means: strategist and executor of military operations. Doesn't mean he's not a good guy, brilliant mind, but his experience is just not political or even diplomatic.

I think he would be a good President, I just don't believe he brings enough to the process of becoming President. Same can be said of tens of thousands of good Americans.

as for the MSM: I loathe them like you do, but the idea that "They" are 'planning' to split the women and minority voting - well, that gives them much more strategery and foresight than they actually have. I think they are despicable, pathetic, careerist obfuscators, but THEY are not PLANNING anything.

[FrenchieCat]

14. you are wrong about a lot of things in that post, and I'll point out a few....

To begin with Clark isn't "just" a General, which is what you are implying.

Clark was, among many things, the director of Strategic planning for the Joint Chief of staff during the Clinton administration ....which you obviously don't know about....which means that you know jack about Clark!

In fact, Clark is who drew up a plan for intervention in Rwanda while he was Director of Strategic planning.
The United States, however, wouldn't invade Rwanda, although Clark pushed his mentor, General John Shalikashvili, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, to push for an intervention. Shalikashvili declined after Clark told him twenty thousand troops would be required, and as Clark says now, "I watched as we stood by as eight hundred thousand people were hacked to death by machete."
http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2003/030801_mfe_clark_4.html

In addition, in 1995, Wes Clark was large part of the peace negotiating team which crafted the peace in Bosnia during the Dayton Peace Accords....and which has lasted to this day.

To add to that, Wes Clark did nothing but politics and negotiations with the 19 countries who were the NATO Members and who had to agree on everything that was done prior to it being done. That was Clark's job as NATO Supreme Allied Commander. You know who his bosses where when he was wearing that hat? All of the heads of state, but not the U.S. Defense department. That's who he talked to everyday..blair, clinton, et al.

Further, Wes Clark is an emergency prepardeness expert http://www.wittassociates.com/ which is what future NOLAs need....not someone digging dirt while attached to a microphone! :eyes:



and that's not to even mention the fact that yes....he planned and won a war without any american soldiers dying.

That is why Clark understood much more than Edwards will ever understand as to what the war would mean. Because precisely of the vast experience that he has that Edwards can only dream about.

Its one thing to say you like your candidate, it is another to make assumptions without reference to someone you know nothing about.

I believe that the supporters of candidates do often reflect who they support. I am informed, precise and detailed. You, on the other hand, are not.

[venable]

24. you are one aggressive person

and I am not interested in your problems. You seem to have a outsized personal displeasure with anybody who doesn't worship Clark. This psychological 'situation' is not worth engaging.

Also, I am not impressed with the volume of your posts, and the length and the sourness of them. I, and many others, find them so narrow, however long they are, as to be fundamentally dishonest. Why can't you support your guy without turning on those who don't. (And, fyi, I knew everything you said about Clark, and stand by my fair characterization of the fine man)

I agree entirely with you about one thing: You do get a sense of a candidate by the tenor of their supporters. Obama, Edwards, Kerry, Kucinich, and Gore supporters all impress. You Clark supporters ought to defer to Tom Rinaldi (and one other poster, can't remember who, but he/she has Clark in their username)...they rep your guy much, much more convincingly and less aggressively than do most of the others. .

Let's also go ahead and call Kosovo as, essentially, an 'air war', OK? Since you think of yourself as so precise.

[FrenchieCat]

27. You are simply not impressed with facts, and that's not really my problem....

because as you know, my posts aren't just meant for you, but for anyone who might read this thread.

My posts have voluminous because I attach sources to them, something you seldom do. People can skip over my copious evidence, and some can label "facts" as "narrow, if they so wish to.....you, on the other hand, give no such options. Besides that, sourness is relative. You don't like what I have to say about John Edwards, and you denote that as being "sour"...I don't.

At DU, which is not to be confused as "John Edwards election site", you are not able to just say whatever comes out of your ass, and have it not be responded to. You stated that you "believe" Clark not to be a strategist capable of "doing" national security and I proved you wrong....because that is precisely what his expertise is in. Folks don't come out of the army after 34 years, and all they know is war. That is a stereotype not worthy of you. I don't say that because Edwards was an attorney all of his adult life, all he knows how to do is try cases.

In reference to the fact that Edwards is wearing a microphone on his very white shirt as he toils the grounds for his Prez announcement is what the picture illustrates. I posted the picture; I didn't take it.

Kosovo was an "Air war"...so yes, that is precise. And so, what is your point? please espound on that. You may want to read this first though.....
"Boots on the Ground" not High Altitude Bombing in Kosovo was favored by Clark!
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/11/wes_clark_wanted_boots_on_the.html#more

In terms of my personality, you may not like it, but plenty people do, including my husband of 26 years (geeze, I must be doing something right, LOL) who happens to be a Baptist Minister. However, I'm not one to allow others to pull the wool over my eyes. Just cause you say it, doesn't make it so...is always my standard reproach. I'm not here to win friends, I'm here to provide facts and perspective and help provide information for others who will decide as they will based on all that they choose to look into. Those who reject my "Long and tedious" posts can continue to do so......because I do not have a say in that decision.

I have answered your post as best I could, and whatever sourness you choose to read into it is your call. In a liberal democracy, that's how it works. I don't determine your motives or your tone and I also don't consider that as the reason that I am here at DU. My mission is to enlightened, not to sweep any questions asked under the rug.

[venable]

30. much more reasonable post

other than: 'you are not able to say whatever comes out of your ass'

see, I don't know why your otherwise reasonable post has to have tones like that.

I appreciate the lead that Clark wanted boots on the ground. that's what I would have preferred, as air wars seem especially brutal and inhuman. All war is, of course, and I didn't want any NATO forces to die stopping what was, most likely, genocidal attacks, but I, personally, have a particular distaste for wealthy and militarized nations playing video games with civilians, who actually die from the explosions dropped from on high.

I think NATO soldiers fighting against genocide would have been willing to put their boots on the ground. So, I appreciate the link.

As to Edwards being only a lawyer, in the way that I say Clark is only a military man - yes, you're right.

It's Edwards time in the Senate (even if you believe he did nothing but vote for the IWR) and on the campaign trail that I admire.

I also admire the things he did in the courtroom, in the same way that I admire the broader-than-purely-military activities of General Clark.

My point was not that I did not appreciate Clark. If you read my post again (don't bother) it says that I don't believe that VOTERS will choose someone who is, rightly or wrongly, assumed to be mainly a General. I was not saying he was all this or all that or neither this not that...I was saying that he will be treated as a decorated and important military man (Hence the characterization, General). As I said, I know all the things you posted (except for the link in the last post about his preferred strategy for Kosovo).

I also believe, to repeat, that as despicable as the MSM is, and they are despicable, they are not a cabal planning anything. It's not that organized or monolithic.

[Clark2008]

40. Of course he isn't interested in facts.

That's the only reason any Democrat who hates the war could be in favor of Edwards.

[chimpymustgo]

44. It absolutely is not. And this jealous bitterness towards Edwards is unbecoming

for the man you support.

Edwwards has said he made a mistake. He is a good man, and would be a great President - and has a great deal of support from many people of VARIOUS political stripes. And regardless how many times haters post reams and reams of the same vitriol IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE OUR MINDS. You may call us names, and attempt to belittle us. It is you who look foolish.

I will cut and paste this very thoughtful reply to you...so you can read it AGAIN.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3067109&mesg_id=3067403

mnhtnbb (1000+ posts) Sun Jan-21-07 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #22

24. Clark2008, you're not missing something, you're refusing to

acknowledge that people can come to a different conclusion presented with the same information.

I was against Iraq from the start. Having read everything I could get my hands on about Florida, I knew the Bushies had lied, cheated, and stolen that election. BUSH WAS NOT TO BE TRUSTED!! If you acknowledge that, it means you have to take action. That helps to explain why so many pols didn't want to acknowledge that Bush was a pathological liar.

OK. I supported Howard Dean from early 2003. I'm a constituent of John Edwards. Edwards and Kerry both, watching Dean, started rephrasing
his positions and attempting to make Dean's positions their own.
They both attacked Dean and made snide comments about him.

So, how in hell can I come to the conclusion four years later than John Edwards should be the Dem nominee?


I look around at the field, look at what Edwards has been doing for the last 4 years, look at the mess the Bushies have made, and conclude
that just because Edwards didn't get it right four years ago doesn't mean he can't be getting it right now.

So, there you are. People do change--that's what you're missing.
The people who can acknowledge their mistakes will learn and grow, and to me that's a desirable trait in a leader.

mnhtnbb

[Clark2008]

47. First - my dislike for Edwards has absolutely NOTHING

to do with who I support. I haven't liked him since his shenanigans after 9/11. Clark wasn't even considered a candidate back then. I also don't like him because of the way in which he ignored his constituents. I don't know how many times or how many ways I have to say this - I even did an entire thread on it three weeks ago.

And, there's absolutely no jealously there. Clark was against the Iraqi War from the start, he beat Edwards five of the eight times in which they both competed against one another. Five of nine total. And he was requested more than Edwards by 2006 candidates hoping to shore up support in their redder districts. There's nothing to be jealous about.

For the record, Edwards' changing opinion is EXACTLY why I distrust him. Edwards, in my opinion, seems to change to meet whatever is politically expedient for HIM - not for you, not for me, not for the country. I've seen him do it too many times - and you should have to, being a constituent (or maybe you refuse to see that - I don't know).

But, the truth remains this: I don't trust him. I won't vote for him and it has nothing to do with Clark, who may not even RUN this time around.

If you want another foreign policy puff-piece like Bush, that's YOUR problem. And, yes, I think Edwards is very much like Bush in this regard - he doesn't know enough not to be cajoled by others. You're not going to change my mind about that, either, because his past record speaks far louder than what he says today or the many times he'll change his mind as polls change tomorrow. I don't like him and WILL NOT vote for him and neither will anyone in my personal sphere of influence.

I find it very unbecoming of DUers to attempt to throw Edwards' 3,000-dead "oopsie" back in my face in shallow attempts to try to get me to support him. For the millioneth time: my dislike of Edwards has to do with HIM and not anyone else, including Clark, Gore, Kucinich, Dean, Clinton or Obama.

[chimpymustgo]

48. It's your right to support whomever you please. But you have no right to denigrate

people who decide otherwise.

[Clark2008]

49. I do when they keep ignoring facts that have been spelled out

for them over and over and over again.

Isn't that why we denigrate Bush?

[chimpymustgo]

50. Why you must be the DECIDER. People can look at the same set of facts and

form a different opinion than YOURS.

So quit browbeating. It's offensive.

[Clark2008]

51. It's offensive when people can't see the forest for the trees.

But, you can have your opinion and that's fine.

I, however, cannot understand why a war-supporting DLCer is so popular on DU. Edwards is cut from the same triangulating mold as HRC and his record speaks to it.

Unfortunately, I'm NOT the decider. In fact, I fully suspect that my decision will have little to no effect on this upcoming race, if polls are to be believed. It very much saddens me that, for the first time since I was old enough to vote in a presidential election, that I probably will not be able to support the Democratic nominee.

[chimpymustgo]

56. It's offensive when people won't allow others to have an opinion different from theirs.

I'm sorry you don't think you'll support the Democratic nominee. Later.

[1932]

61. It's offensive when people promise to find Pelosi Jr's quote and never do.

[ananda]

3. Kewl! Go Edwards!

nt

[baldingrockwarlord2]

7. No to Edwards!

Edwards and Kerry did not fight hard enough last time around. For all that "I've got your back America" crap and all the lawyers they supposedly had on retainer to fight vote fraud or irregularities-whatever, and to just simply lay down and croak so easily and not fight for that election sickens me. I trusted them and was let down. Let someone else try this time. I'd rather give someone else a shot at it. Smiles and hair-helmuts don't matter any more. For me it's this simple. I liked John Edwards and put my trust and hopes into him and John Kerry. I trusted and believed in them before and was tremendously let down in how easy they rolled over and didn't contest anything. Not just post election, but during the campaign. How the hell does a decorated war veteran(s!) let themselves get smeared to such depths, and the duty dodging @#$%s who are behind it still get away with it? Neither Kerry, nor Edwards were aggressive enough, and I haven't seen enough of a change in either of them to warrant a 2nd chance......yet.

[venable]

25. Take a look at Mark Crispin Miller's book

on the stolen election. I think you might change your mind about Edwards' fight.

[grytpype]

12. EDWARDS / CLARK 08!!!! THE RIGHT CHOICE FOR AMERICA

With Edwards/Clark, we win.

With Clinton or Obama, we have a mountain to climb before we can win.

I know who I'm backing.

[Clark2008]

39. That will never happen.

Sorry.

[Pithy Cherub]

55. Friday on Dkos, Wes Clark Jr.

made sure Edwards supporters got that point loud and clear. Why would Clark work for a personal injury attorney was his statement. :rofl:

[mnhtnbb]

4. Given what happened to Dean, it may be dangerous to be the front-runner

[Mark E. Smith]

5. I don't think there is much doubt that our nominee ..

.. will be Edwards.

[Clark2008]

52. Then my husband, my parents, his parents and I will be voting

third party.

I wish you all knew how much that saddens me. I have never voted for anyone but the Democrat in a presidential race.

[Mark E. Smith]

58. Cool.

The GOP thanks you.

[NJCher]

6. Edwards will be our next president

It's so clear to me.

One word: charisma. He's got it; few of the others do and if they have any at all, iti is a scintilla.



Cher

[FrenchieCat]

8. Well there are a lot of folks who think that Romney's got charisma too....

so is that what makes Dems a "shoo-in" to take the White house; Charisma?

What about this below? Will Charisma handle it? 2008 is a ways away. I'd not get too confident about what it will take to win just yet! Let's not get so into the election 2008, till we don't check to see what is brewing!

This is Reuters!

U.S. plans envision broad attack on Iran: analyst
Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:49pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. contingency planning for military action against Iran's nuclear program goes beyond limited strikes and would effectively unleash a war against the country, a former U.S. intelligence analyst said on Friday.

"I've seen some of the planning ... You're not talking about a surgical strike," said Wayne White, who was a top Middle East analyst for the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research until March 2005.

"You're talking about a war against Iran" that likely would destabilize the Middle East for years, White told the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington think tank.

"We're not talking about just surgical strikes against an array of targets inside Iran. We're talking about clearing a path to the targets" by taking out much of the Iranian Air Force, Kilo submarines, anti-ship missiles that could target commerce or U.S. warships in the Gulf, and maybe even Iran's ballistic missile capability, White said.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2007-01-20T004912Z_01_N19368342_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAN-USA-EXPERTS.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage2

[jcrew2001]

15. yes

I agree, Edwards can beat both Obama and Hillary in the debates.

[kevsand]

18. Edwards lost every debate he was in last time.

I like the guy a lot, but he was awful in the debates. There were too many times when it was obvious he didn't understand the issue, and too many awkward moments for such a successful trial lawyer.

Both Obama and Hillary are going to be a lot better on stage than anyone Edwards faced last time. He's come a long way since then, but he's going to have to be two or three times as good this time to even tread water in the debates.

[Pithy Cherub]

19. Plus Obama

as the only semi-declared candidate can point to his good judgment in not supporting the Iraq debacle and say he has nothing to apologize for on his conduct regarding the biggest issue facing the nation. Obama will be formidable and has more natural charisma than the current field.

[venable]

26. I respect your opinion regarding his performance in debates

but should point out that many came to his camp precisely because of the debates.

(I agree that Obama is going to be a great debater)

The Cheney debate was frustrating because we all wanted Darth Vader unmasked, but, in fact, Edwards did pretty well.

I wanted blood and didn't get it, but he did pretty well by estimations at the time.

[kevsand]

31. There was clearly a lot to like

in all of his appearances, but the number of miscues in the debates was very surprising to me, not just because of his rep as a trial lawyer, but also because I knew from direct experience how incredibly amazing he was in person. He was the absolute best, bar none, out on the trail last time.

The competition this time out will more than match him in their ability to work the crowd, so he is going to have to learn how to transfer that stump speech magic to the debate formats, and be much better at thinking on his feet...

[Inspired]

36. That is simply an untrue statement

and based on your own opinion. Edwards was very impressive in many of the debates leading to the '04 Iowa caucus. That is one of the reasons he came in a close 2nd place.

Awful?

Many folks feel he won the debate with Cheney.

[kevsand]

41. "Many folks feel he won the debate with Cheney."

And many folks feel that Saddam had something to do with 9-11. That doesn't make it true. The national consensus after the Cheney debate was that Edwards lost. That also is no guarantee of truth.

People see and hear what they want to. I try to cut through my hopes for one side or the other, to try to be objective regardless of my sympathies. I'm not always successful.

You are correct that "Edwards was very impressive in many of the debates leading to the '04 Iowa caucus." I already said the exact same thing in this very thread. But as much as I liked Edwards, I was very disappointed with the number of gaffes he made in those same Democratic debates.

I doubt very much that I can convince you of that. Neither should you expect to significantly alter my very clear memories and impressions of the events. I suppose if neither of us had real lives one of us could go back and find the actual transcripts from the seemingly dozens of Democratic debates and go through them line by line looking for that AHA! moment.

I don't really see the point in that. Howsabout I just respect your opinion, and you respect mine?

[EVDebs]

43. Excuse me but in any upcoming '08 debate the R candidate will have to

stand behind all that conservative claptrap. Debating while standing in a stinking pile of dogshit reality ... anyone with a flair for the obvious will be holding their nose while listening to 'more of the same' from that poisoned well.

[Clark2008]

53. Well, in all fairness, being a good personal injury attorney

isn't really the same as being a good debater in the type of media debates we currently have.

Edwards' political positions change with polls, so he has difficulty hammering down on a stance. It's easy for him (or anyone else) to hammer down on a stance in a personal injury case when it's clear the manufacturer of faulty equipment is at fault.

[Red Zelda]

9. He will be...

the 44th president of the United States. Even as much of the media ignore him.

[FrenchieCat]

23. The media is not ignoring Edwards....give me a break.....

The media Pundits always makes sure to include Edwards in there somewhere....and his has had appearances on a lot of shows, and has had a lot of ink written up about him!

and in fact, the media is giving Edwards exactly the kind of attention that he should want this early in the game. He would prefer that the media have Obama and Clinton go after each other...while he gets a pass...whether it is on the fact that he never stood for poverty during his actual senate days or that he was as wrong as he was on something as important as the Iraq war until last year. And as I said before, being the only white guy out of the three, and southern at that, Edwards' strategy is to win by default. That ain't going past me, you know! Richardson is getting in there too.....taking away any hispanic votes that could have helped either Hillary or Obama. He only hurts Edwards with the "Experience" vote. However, Richardson has too many items in his closet that will make many of the voters who want experience to turn away from him.

[1932]

62. It's all Obama and Clinton, unless the Washington Post puts on A1 a story

trying to make a scandal out of the fact that Edwards sold his house for $500K less than asking price during a Republican administration to one of the few people who could afford to buy an expensive house in DC, who happened to be a Republican criminal.

Yeah, Edwards gets great press.

[Skwmom]

57. The media ignores Edwards?

What have you been watching? Campaign finance is a mute point when you can have the media campaign on your behalf.

[Alhena]

11. Disagree, a "poverty" platform isn't a vote-getter

[EVDebs]

45. That's a laugh. It's still the economy, stupid. That's Edwards ticket just like '92

with the GHWB run. What derailed Bush 1 was pictures of Bush 1 viewing the LA riots in a limosine. Contrast that with GWB's flyover of NOLA and you have the like-father-like-son attack ad, whomever the R's put up for '08. The poison well of Republican party gives the same poisoned kool-aid drinkers.

[Skwmom]

13. Worthless poll.

Show me the results of a focus group after the Republicans introduce Edwards to the public.

[blm]

16. Those polls also said Elizabeth Dole will beat Gore at this point.

.

[Pithy Cherub]

17. Good thing its early and the campaign has not started yet

as once they show their differences there will be many changes from today's order. More people are getting their news from the internet so controlling the message through MSM becomes less important and candidates ahead today are tomorrow's roadkill if they have records that get examined closely. IWR voters will be spending a lot of time explaining and the lone presidential wannabe co-sponsor, Edwards has even more to expound upon as his judgment and leadership abilities were not at all apparent in his lonesome hawk disaster of a legislative experience.

[ArnoldLayne]

20. I have to agree with that especially with

Barack Obama as his running mate.

[karynnj]

21. The results against Guilliani

are all within the confidence limits - there is no significant difference.

(I support none of these 3, though if forced to pick prefer Obama)

[election_2004]

22. I agree it's too early

For both Edwards and Hillary.

There are probably still a couple of candidates who have yet to announce.

[BenDavid]

28. Well, if you believe all this early

stuff then all the candidates should just fold up their tents and go home. Hell, our best chance to win is in HRC. She has the mind of her hubby Bill when it comes to knowing national as well as international events. She might not be the orator as Bill but when it comes to issues and the ability to strike back and strike back hard she will be the grizzley like Bill and his War Room was in the 1992 campaign....I will not bad mouth or demean any of our candidates and I hope others here at the DU will follow suit....I do thank you...

[butterfly77]

29. Nobody is the strongest candidate...

until after the media and fox news plays their spin game and brainwashes the unknowing...

[Catchawave]

32. Edwards is a marathon runner !

Literally :D Go Johnny Go !!!

[w4rma]

33. Agreed. Edwards or Clark. Or Gore if Gore runs. (nt)

[EVDebs]

46. Gore ain't gonna endorse Hilary, I can put money on that. nt

[Apollo11]

65. Gore is keeping his options open

The Washington Post -- Sunday, September 17, 2006

Gore's 2008 Plans May Become Clearer After Release of Book

By John F. Harris and Shailagh Murray

Although saying he has no plans to run for president in 2008, former vice president Al Gore has nonetheless left the door ever so slightly ajar. It's a good bet that door will swing open a good bit wider come next May.

That is when Gore is scheduled to publish his next book. With no fanfare, he signed a few weeks ago with Penguin Press to write "The Assault on Reason."

As described by editor Scott Moyers, the book is a meditation on how "the public arena has grown more hostile to reason," and how solving problems such as global warming is impeded by a political culture with a pervasive "unwillingness to let facts drive decisions."

While that may sound abstract, both the subject matter and the timing of the release have an unmistakable subtext. In 2004, Gore cheered liberals when he lashed at President Bush for allegedly falling captive to right-wing special interests and taking flight from "fact-based analysis." If the book strikes a chord, it will produce new momentum for Gore to make another bid for the White House, presumably fueled in large part by anti-Iraq-war Democrats.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/16/AR2006091600877.html

Let's all find ways to show our support for Al Gore!

In Gore We Trust :)
www.algore.com
www.algore.org
www.draftgore.com - Sign the petition!
www.draftgore2008.org
www.patriotsforgore.com

[patricia92243]

34. In my own mind, I have narrowed it down to Edwards or Hillary. Still have not decided which one

that I want.

[rhombus]

35. Yeah, a generic poll two years out means everything.... yep

Buckle up, the polls are going to be moving up and down for all candidates. Nothing is set in stone. Brings back a lot of sad memories of Dean.

[election_2004]

37. Why is it that....

....whenever a poll shows someone's candidate leading, they point to that as "evidence" of their candidate's superiority. But when a poll shows that same candidate trailing others, suddenly political polls become "meaningless"?

I say that polls in general are unreliable and suspect, even if it's my ideal candidate leading with healthy numbers.

[Clark2008]

54. Sadly, I don't believe this poll is meaningless and Edwards

isn't even in my ballpark, much less my candidate of choice.

I think this poll, along with several others, is a clear indication of how easily the public is manipulated by the media.

Heck, even DUers are manipulated by the media, whether they know it or not.

[tbyg52]

38. At this point, I really don't think these polls mean anything at all. nt

[AJH032]

59. oh god no

Why do southern white men have a monopoly on the Presidency?

Obama or Clinton over Edwards, please.

[antiimperialist]

60. Yet the Washington Poll didn't even include Edwards in its poll

They asked those surveyed to choose between Obama, Clinton, Giulini and McCain.
Contact the WAPO and tell them to give Edwards the coverage he deserves.
Express your opinion in the comments section here:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/01/postabc_poll_clinton_giuliani.html

[Imagevision]

63. Edwards or Obama - Hillary? don't want two for one...this time!

[Clarkie1]

64. Trying to determine the "strongest candidate" from poll numbers this far out is silly.

Actually, it's ludicrous.