How can Edwards effectively compete with Obama?

[Clarkie1]

I mean, seriously folks. Edwards strengths are youth, charisma, and his "one America" message. Obama has youth, charisma, and an even stronger "One America" message that comes through clearly in his new book in his discussion of the aftermath of Katrina, for example. Obama worked several years in inner-city community development, understands poverty, and is dedicated to fighting racial and economic injustice.

How can Edwards offer his supporters anything that Obama doesn't? It seems to me they both will attract voters who have the same priorities, and are not concerned with their lack of executive leadershp experience and foreign policy credentials. Obama is on the rise, and Edwards and either static or slipping. I think most potential Edwards supporters will be drawn to Obama before they have a chance to cast a vote for Edwards.

Am I way off base here?

[Ninja Jordan]

1. Edwards will be seriously hindered should Obama enter the race.

Obama would then become the one, unifying anti-Hillary force.

[Clarkie1]

2. Maybe.

A lot will also depend on if Gore decides to run, and how much world events in 2007 make a Clark candidacy even more appealing, should Clark decide to run.

[Ninja Jordan]

3. Gore will not run; Clark is a marginal candidate.

Obama is neck and neck with Edwards in Iowa and he (Obama) hasn't even declared or been in the state to raise money. Edwards has been campaigning there for years. Obama has struck a chord with the grassroots of the party. He's basically tied with Hillary in NH as well, and she was supposed to win there easily. Edwards' success depends on either Obama or Hillary NOT running for president.

All my opnion of course. I'd like to think I am politically astute, though.

[illinoisprogressive]

4. If you check another Politics post

Lynne Sweet, of the sun times, today is reporting that Obama is announcing in Janurary that he is running.

[Ninja Jordan]

10. I figured as much; it would be idiotic for Obama not to run now.

The iron is as hot as it's ever going to be. 4-8 more years in the Senate will do nothing to help his prospects. Now is his best time. Re: Edwards, he better hope Hillary doesn't run (which may be true), because the mood out there is a preference for Obama over Edwards in a potential race vs. Hillary. Should Hillary stay out, Edwards may be able to garner some of her support. Edwards needs a battle against Obama, not a battle against Obama AND Hillary.

[fuzzyball]

72. You are correct...Obama is sucking all the oxygen out of Edwards

in every friggin state.

[Andromeda]

120. That could change.

Nothing is set in stone and full-fledged campaigning hasn't even started yet. Wait and see before you declare Obama or anybody else the winner.

[Clarkie1]

7. If Clark runs, he will pull votes away from supporters of other candidates

The supporters Clark pulls away will be voters concerned with experience, national security, foreign policy, and neutralizing the Republican propaganda machines messaage that Dems are weak on defense and indecisive in times of crises.

If Clark runs, I'm not so certain that effect will be marginal. I'm not that good of a fortune-teller.

[Ninja Jordan]

11. Marginal as it relates to his prospects of winning the nomination.

He IS high up there as far as prospective running-mates go, though. I don't have proof of this of course, but he seems to have the inside track on national security policy and he is quite eloquent on the subject. He will have a central role in the next Democratic administration.

[Clark2008]

61. Except I doubt he'd want to be vice president.

What a waste of his talents that chore would be.

If he's not president, he should be Secretary of State.

[chimpymustgo]

52. Clarkie1 - why not ask how can CLARK effectively compete with Obama?

That would seem to be a more interesting and pertinent question for a Clark supporter. Unless the point is to start YET another thread that pokes John
Edwards, looking to soften him up in any way possible - so that maybe Clark can grab another 1 or 2% of support - maybe hit that magic 5%!.

I sure wish we were all on the DEMOCRATIC team.

[Clark2008]

62. Because that's not what this thread is about.

Besides, even the most incompetent political observer can see that Obama and Edwards appeal to the same type of voter - those interested in charisma above policy - which is fine in a popularity battle like the presidential race (unfortunate, but true).

Clark appeals to national security/FP wonks, former Republicans, moderate voters, red-staters who vote blue and people used to living on less than $50,000 a year. He's not a media darling like Obama and Edwards. Clark's base wouldn't move to Obama, as a group (sure, maybe one or two would), because they're not the same type of candidate. Clark's base is all about flipping red states, FP creds and diplomatic experience - neither Edwards nor Obama offer them much as an alternative in all, if not most, of these issues.

That said, Obama is infinitely more appealing to me than Edwards. At least I think I can trust Obama and I think there's more to him than good looks. Edwards seems rather disingenuous to me.

But, that's me. I know too many people who are interested in both Edwards and Obama quite simply and only because the media tells them that's who they should be interested in and they believe it.

[beaconess]

80. Why don't YOU start a thread asking that question - this is the DU forum, not the Clark forum

[Clarkie1]

122. I think Clark and Edwards will appeal to different groups.

So I don't find that as interesting a question.

[Andromeda]

118. Gore will most likely not run

and Clark's standing at this time isn't clear except that his name hasn't been out there much for 2008. If he decides to run that may change.

Obama is hot right now, like Hillary, but it's to early in the game to predict who is going to win the nomination.

John Edwards is my favorite and I would like to see him get the nomination. It's really too early in the process to declare anybody the winner because you know how fast things can change.

[Bitwit1234]

5. There is no way Obama will win the nomination

Sadly the people in this country are not ready to vote for a black, or a woman either for that matter. Obama and Hillary would be good candidates but they won't make it. The republics and their slime machine are going to kick in to high gear to slur and spew crap on them. Just wait and see.

[Ninja Jordan]

6. You mean win the general election.

Obama very well could win the nomination of his party.

[Pirate Smile]

21. I agree. His race is certainly not a negative to winning the Democratic

nomination. These are Democrats who are doing the voting - and not the apathetic ones - these are people who vote in the primaries and caucuses. We love the underdog and the idea of breaking racial barriers.

I also don't agree with the idea that an African American can't win the general election. We don't get the bigot vote anyway,nor do we want it. They already know who is on their side (Republicans) and who isn't (Democrats).

[Clark2008]

63. Look, there are bigots who are Dems, particularly in the red/purple

states. My grandfather is one. He wouldn't vote for a Republican, but he's most certainly not going to vote for a black man or a woman. It's just his age and his upbringing and his curmudgeonly, if misguided, self. He's in Virginia - Northern Virginia, btw.

If you think Hillary or Obama are going to flip any red/purple states, I'm sorry - they're not. And we HAVE to do that to both win the election and unite the country once again.

[Solo_in_MD]

14. Disagree about the nomination

the repukes would love for one of them to win the nomination...and it would give them the time they need to get their slime cannons locked and loaded.

[Andromeda]

124. I don't believe that.

I don't think race or color will have any bearing on who wins the Democratic primary.

The general election will be influenced by unknown factors and we won't know yet what will happen.

The Republicans will vilify any Democrat who wins so be prepared for that.

[msongs]

8. edwards better start thumpin his bible if he has one nt

[no_hypocrisy]

9. This may be begging the question, but must they compete against each other?

Perhaps it would be more useful to force an alliance between them where they capitalize on issues and solutions upon which they agree and try to implement their ideas before 2008. It would demonstrate unity among democrats and a stance that reflects a goal of trying to repair the damage created since 2001 rather than winning the primaries and the general election. They would be formidable as a working pair.

[PretzelWarrior]

12. Edwards will do much better in the south

than Obama. THat, in addition to Iraq being one unholy cockup that has not been resolved could mean smooth sailing for an Edwards presidential run. I'd vote for him.

[Ninja Jordan]

15. A huge chunk of South Carolina's primary voting block is African-Americans

Will they vote for Edwards over the most popular black Democrat in American history?

[BluegrassDem]

18. Edwards can't even carry his own home state!

How will he do well in the rest of the south? The reason why Obama will do better in the south than Edwards is simply cause of the black vote. There will be a huge turnout that would be unprecedented. I'm not saying he would carry all the states, but he would do very well.

The south didn't vote for Gore, why would they vote for Edwards? Edwards offers nothing more than Gore did. Gore couldn't even carry Tennessee.

Edwards will make a fine Attorney General in the next administration though cause he won't win the nomination this time.

[Erika]

24. The South has been seen as "GOP right wing bigots"

because of their behavior lately. They are the theocrats
of the right wing.

[Moloch]

31. How does the Iraq being "one unholy cockup" help Edwards?

The man not only voted for the IWR, but also wrote an article in The Wall Street Journal (of all papers) supporting it.

Kerry/Edwards were defeated because they didn't offer a clear alternative.. and they never could explain their way out of voting for the IWR.

Edwards is finished. Its time for somebody new.

[ChiciB1]

76. I Certainly Agree With You About The South To Some Extent....

However with one exception. Many African Americans will go for Obama and it could mean problems for Edwards. Myself, I'm sticking with Edwards and don't intend to change my mind as far as I know right now. I do like Obama a lot, but think Edwards will be much better. I like Gore/Edwards or Edwards/Obama. I don't think Gore will run and I don't want to have to pick between Fore & Edwards, but I'd have to put Gore on top because of the past. On thing for sure, we will not make it with HILLARY!

I know, I sound like a broken record, but even I have serious serious problems with Hillary. I can only wish she would decided not to run because down here where I live in Florida.... many people who aren't activists are Hillary supporters and they just don't understand MY logic for NOT supporting her. I'm so ANTI-Hillary that I have even thought about NOT VOTING if she were the nominee!

That would be a FIRST for me and I'm not sure I could actually pull it off, but it's really how I feel. From the very beginning I've been against her, first because of the baggage she carries and how the Repukes would haul it all out, but now she's much too DINO for me!

[nevergiveup]

13. I totally agree with you

I like John Edwards but he can't carry a candle to Obama. Obama is fresh, dynamic, charismatic, and very very bright. I find it amusing when many here say "he doesn't have the experience". Just because someone has been an elected official for umpteen years doesn't necessarily mean he has leadership potential. The list goes on and on with such losers in both parties. One thing I really like about Obama is he, unlike many politicians, is a good listener. He may not be a perfect "liberal" but his early opposition to this war puts him ahead of most potential Democratic candidates, as far as I am concerned. I am reading his new book now and like his message. Only time will tell if he has what it takes to survive a grueling 2 year campaign but my gut feeling is that he does.

[Andromeda]

127. Obama can't carry a candle to John Edwards IMHO.

Edwards is by far the better candidate because he has established himself as an honest, intelligent, down-to-earth populist with outstanding leadership qualities.

I like Obama too but I don't think he's ready to be president. He has a lot of charisma but you need more than that to be president.

[Trajan]

16. Self delete ...

[madfloridian]

17. Well, a lot of people I know really like Edwards.

Even in this conservative area of Florida. I know one of our Republican sons would have voted for him gladly before, and the other Republican son finally asked about him recently. It took both a long time to become disillusioned with the GOP but they are.

They sincerely like him, they like his manner. They think he is honest. He is the only one they are that interested in so far.

[mntleo2]

19. Edwards And Obama Are My Dream Ticket

...I do not care which one runs for president and which for vice president, but I believe those two as a team could set the our country and the world on fire!

Cat In Seattle

[Erika]

22. Yep. I 100% agree

They are the new face of America.

[Erika]

20. Edwards is loved by the crowds.

W's foreign policy credentials has landed us in the biggest mess the U.S. has ever seen.

These men are both empathetic and hopeful.

[lwin]

23. Edwards is battle tested

Sorry, Obama is not.

I want to win back the White House, not conduct an experiment to see how badly we can get beat in the South & midwest again.

I went to an event a few weeks back that featured Edwards. 400 people showed up on a Monday night - it was standing room only, with overflow sent to other rooms to watch him speak on TV. He generated a LOT of heat and the buzz was significant.

[Erika]

26. He and Eizabeth are wonderful!

Either way, both Edwards and Obama talk "hope" rather than continous war, fear, and hate.

[question everything]

29. Agree. And we don't really know what Obama stands for

So far he has been using general terms and platitude and is smiling.. but why does he want to be president? What specifics does he offer? And even more - has he ever held an executive position where he demonstrated his ability to marshal resources efficiently to implement a plan? Has he ever been in charge of a budget? What is his knowledge of foreign affairs?

Yes, he was against the Iraq War. This is not the only issue, not unless we bring back the draft.

[beaconess]

55. What did you or anyone else know about Edwards in December of 2002?

Or of Bill Clinton in December of 2000?

[question everything]

134. I knew that he was a successful trial lawyer, meaning he is

a fighter. And this was even before the swifters.

But, yes, it was after he started his campaign, in Iowa, that I had a chance to listen to him and to be swayed by his reasons to be a president.

As I said, so far Obama has been talking in generalization and platitudes. If he wants to be an executive he needs to be able to present his plan and how to carry it, in clear, concise way the way... a CEO presents to his board of directors.

In December 2000 I knew that we came to an end of an era. That we had a successful president who presided over economic expansion that lifted every one, not just targeted strata. I knew that he survived one, perhaps the most - brutal attacks on him throughout his presidency and yet he was leaving with high approval. He came after two previous Republican presidents increased the budget deficit to one larger than all previous combined and he left with a budget surplus. And we knew that he was human.

[beaconess]

54. Edwards is battle tested because he ran for president in 2004

If he runs, by mid-2008, Obama will be battle-tested, too.

And the battle he'll have to fight will be tougher, harsher and more character-building than the fights any of the other White candidates will have to endure. That's a fact of life for most African Americans - we have to be three times as good to be seen as half as qualified as anyone else. If Obama makes it through the primaries, he will willh have proven himself more than worthy of the top prize.

[ChiciB1]

77. Of Late... His Maturity Is Really Beginning To SHINE Too!!!

And I think "Tweety" is quite smitten with John & Elizabeth Edwards. On the last college show Tweety tried everything in the book to play "hardball" but in the end he basically said, "I can't do hardball with you two!"

He may have seemed like he was trying to put him down, but I felt he really liked Edwards a LOT!!

[beaconess]

79. I agree - but these are qualities that weren't apparent until he ran for president

So far, we haven't really seen what Obama is made of - the presidential race is likely to bring out qualities that many people aren't aware of yet, just like it did with Edwards.

[ChiciB1]

91. This Is True... Obama Certainly Has A Comfort Zone That He

exudes. In reality... Edwards and Obama compliment each other. I realize many don't see this as I do, but given some serious thought I personally feel the youth and energy of these two are dynamic!

I also feel these two could be a beacon to the younger generation and would be attractive because of this. I recall my SUPER enthusiasm when I was very very young about John Kennedy even though I was unable to vote for him. My father introduced me into politics at a very early age and "Jack" was such an inspiration.

To have intelligence coupled with charisma is almost worth the leap into the unknown!!!

As a Boomer my feelings about America have become pretty stale, and my patriotism is most certainly at low tide!

[Counciltucky]

25. As an Iowan...

Edwards, believe it or not, has the edge over Obama in Iowa, and it doesn't have to do with either skin color or experience. Obama, with his immense and sudden surge of popularity, can't do the one-on-one politics which is necessary to connect with Iowans. Edwards can. He makes sure to talk with anyone who wants to talk to him. I know because I've done so. And that's not anti-Obama, that's simply pro-Edwards. I worry Obama will also peak too early (a la Howard Dean, pre-scream).

(Edited to add "in Iowa".)

[illinoisprogressive]

28. But, he has not been running...

Obama came there to do rallies for the Iowa politicans and was not planning on running at the time. If he runs he will go see our neighbors to the west and do the one on one. Just as he did here in 04 running for the senate.

[Counciltucky]

44. But at this point, is it possible?

Obama's so popular these days that it might not be possible for him to do a lot of one-on-one simply due to the crush of media and huge crowds. Not that it's fair, but it could really work against him.

[beaconess]

57. How do you know what Obama can and can't do in a campaign? He hasn't started yet!

People seem to forget that until he got the newspaper endorsement a couple of weeks before the Iowa caucuses, Edwards was trailing in third place and very few people gave him any chance.

It's reallyw way too early to say that Obama's not a good campaigner - you have not seen him in action.

[Imagevision]

74. I agree, barack Obama hasn't even begun to get all of his views opinons across yet!

Watch the hoopla when Obama actually tosses his hat into the ring, notice the weight loss of Hillary!!

[Moloch]

66. What about the poll that shows Edwards and Obama tied at...

22 percent? I would think that bodes very poorly for Edwards, who has campaigned there since 2003.

[illinoisprogressive]

27. Seems to me Obama transends many things.

I watch the Washington Journal and last week they were discussing Obama. There were a few republicans who were fed up. They called and said they heard Obama speak and were so moved they are going to support him. A few called and said that the times they watched him on Cspan giving a speech it brought tears to thier eyes (these were guys).
He moves people.
As an Illinois resident I know he can touch you and you are still a huge supporter 2 years later. The people here love him.
I think Obama goes beyond race. Yes, some good ol boys will still be the bigots they always were but, in southern Illinois, it's just like the south. He is extreemly popular and the old boys voted for him. It was amazing to see on the local news how in southern Illinois in 04 these republican southern guys were huge fans.

[Blue_In_AK]

30. I prefer Edwards personally...

although neither is my first choice.

[illinoisprogressive]

33. In time you will find someone to support fully

and that is good. everyone has thier own opinion. I have reasons not to support Edwards this time. I was leaning Richardson for awhile, myself.
I just hope nothing ends up in flame wars. We should all respect whoever the other supports.
I hope the best for the Edwards supporters. They are passionate and true believers.
And though I wish Edwards well, I do hope my candidate wins. of course.

[Blue_In_AK]

34. Of course. :-)

I look forward to the next 22 months and seeing how this all shakes out. So much can happen in that amount of time, as we all know. I just hope the "best" man (or woman) is our candidate.

[appal_jack]

32. Edwards could have competed (note PAST tense)

What I mean is that Edwards could HAVE built-up the necessary cred's to compete with Obama NOW, if he had only tried (at least) a little bit to act like he gave a damn about the people and issues of North Carolina once he got elected here as a Senator. Instead, he left a widespread impression here (among the several dozen people I've hashed this over with here: Repub's & Dem's), that he viewed the job of Senator merely as a springboard toward the office of the President.

During Edwards' brief tenure in the Senate, I called his office 5 or 6 times, wrote maybe a dozen e-mails, and sent 2 or 3 hand-written letters (I am an NC resident/registered Dem/constituent). In all of these contacts, my general theme was "please oppose Bush's patently unconstitutional (insert one) warmongering/environmental assaults/civil-liberty-shredding/etc. I never received so much as a form letter in reply. Neither did my neighbors whenever they contacted Edwards' office with concerns/needs/etc. Clearly, the man's lust to climb the power ladder clouded his ability to do his job well, even when it was something as simple as organizing an office to respond to constituent calls.

I hear from the few Illinoisians I know that Obama has taken his job as Senator seriously, even as the national spotlight has zeroed-in on him. I can respect that. We Americans should demand at least that much from our elected officials.

Finally, Edwards ran a mediocre campaign at best while vying for the VP slot. I really wanted to root for him all the way, but it was painful to watch him get all mealy-mouthed over the gay marriage issue, then have to ceded the high ground to Darth Cheney over the whole Lesbian-daughter flap. And, though I hate to admit it, Cheney pretty much wiped the floor with Edwards during the debate. Edwards should have swung much harder on issues such as Cheney's "other priorities" during Vietnam, Halliburton stock options, PNAC, Cheney's support for Apartheid through the very end of the South African regime, Iraq War bullshit, etc.

Edwards has had his chance(s) and he threw them away. 2008 is shaping-up to be Obama's chance. I hope he fights hard, picks a running mate that compliments his skills (Clark sure would be a fine VP candidate for Obama, and together they just might win some southern states), and when they WIN, I hope they dismantle the neo-imperium, and rebuild the American Democratic Republic.

-app

[illinoisprogressive]

35. I've heard this before about Edwards

Others from the state have said the same thing and that is why I am not supporting him this time. I was upset that he did not take this job too serious. His constituency deserved better. He was elected to serve them and do his job.
We have watched Obama since he got there and he has kept his nose to the grindstone. I've watched the senate and he's always there. Durbin is very impressed. He would not be like he is about Obama if he was not impressive. This is what pushed my support over. Everyone here respects Durbin's opinion as he is a very sincere senator.
We also know from Obama's record in the state that he takes his job very serious
Obama was not planning on running this time. It was when he was on the book tour and helping campaign for the dems during the election that so many people were begging him. So, he's tested the water and finds he has support.
The media thing amuses him more than anything. He has not asked for it. He jokes about it but, does not trust it. In reality, from all reports here, he is a sincere, hard working and very intellegent man who has a very good handle on the issues and policy.

[unc70]

48. These were/are most of the Repub talking points from 2004

Not saying that you are a Repub, but those points are almost word-for-word from the 2004 TPs used against Edwards. The questioning about what he had done for NC, the claims about constituent services, the framing of debate wrt Cheney's daughter, the assertions that he never did anything as Senator except run for President (your "lust for power") -- my Repub relatives all had exactly those talking points. (I haven't queried them on examples of how Dole and Burr are much better. Ha! BTW Helms probably had the most responsive staff operation. Doesn't change my dislike for him, though.)

I was unhappy that Edwards and other Dems voted for the IWR. I suspect that many of them really believed that, without the IWR Bush was ready to attack immediately and that the IWR might get the inspectors into Iraq and might prevent conflict, and possibly that the IWR required Bush to come back to Congress for concurrence with any actions. The "Secret" briefings that the Senators received in the run-up to the war were apparently grossly misleading. IMHO Edwards was not cynical enough when dealing with the Nixon retreads; he was a few years too young to have felt the full impact of Vietnam. I also think he might have benefited from the broader undergraduate education at UNC versus the more-focused one at NC State (showing my biases).

While Obama is an attractive candidate in many ways, I would be very surprised if he were to become our nominee this time (for lots of reasons, starting with how hard it is to win the Dem nomination on your first try). While Obama has some "buzz" over the last couple of years, I am suspicious of the super-hype of the last couple of months. The conservative pundits on the MSM are promoting him as about the only thing between HRC and the nomination. Why? Could it be an effort to make it harder for everyone except Obama and Clinton, neither of whom is beating the likely Repub candidates in recent polling?

Although the Edwards family lived around the corner from me last year, I personally would prefer Gore, if he were to run. Gore/Edwards would be quite an attractive ticket. Otherwise, I could enthusiastically support Edwards over Clinton or Obama. Obviously, I will support any Dem nominee over any Repub loser.

[Clark2008]

64. No they're not.

Edwards WASN'T well liked in his home state. I'm sorry, but he wasn't. I'm next door in Tennessee and have family in North Carolina. He was NOT well liked there. I can tell you from several horses mouths. They called him Senator Gone.

Please, not everything against someone is Right Wing Talking Points.

In this case, it's not.

Why do you think he opted not to run for Senator again? It wasn't because he was running for VP. That hadn't been decided by the time he could have filed.

[venable]

90. He was well-liked in NC, and is still

no matter how many horses you know in the state.

of course he has some enemies there, but most North Carolinians are proud of his national stature, not upset about it. The fact that someone coined a nickname for him doesn't mean more than one person shared that opinion of him.

It's a fact, friend.

peace

[chimpymustgo]

51. The GOP welcomes you to DU with this biased, unsubstantiated slander of Edwards.

no text needed - can't counter stuff like that.

[Catchawave]

56. Don't you love these threads ?

About as much fun as a cockfight :rofl:

Too bad they never use a Republican Rooster...sigh.

[appal_jack]

78. that's right chimpy: you CAN'T

Look, I'm glad that Edwards is talking-up measures to combat poverty now: I hope it does some good. But can you point to one anti-poverty bill that he introduced while "serving" as NC's Senator? I can't. Did he effectively use his Senate seat to put the brakes on Bush's rush to war? No, he enabled it with an IWR yes-vote. Any bills by Senator Edwards to halt the steamrolling of civil liberties? No again. An effective politician is one who uses all the tools at his/her reach for the most good at any given time. I see little evidence that Edwards has done that. Therefore, he has not earned my trust/support for a higher office. He has a year and a half to earn that trust somehow. I wish the man good luck, as I wish all Dem candidates at this early stage in the (pre)campaign.

You can stick your fingers in your ears and shout REPUB TALKING POINTS all you want; your shouting will not erase Edwards' record, which in my estimation, is lousy. I voted for him when he ran for Senate, and I voted for Kerry/Edwards in 2004. But I wish he'd racked-up a better record as Senator, and given his run, I wish he'd better capitalized on his & Kerry's considerable assets during the presidential campaign. But he didn't, and that reality is going to follow him around and bite him in the ass at inconvenient times, unless he racks-up a better, more recent record, in some public capacity.

I'm not criticizing Edwards because I'm some Repub mole on a mission to stoke discord here at DU. I'm a Democrat who desperately wants to help elect a candidate who will treat the Constitution and Bill of Rights as the supreme Law of the Land, steer our foreign policy toward effective multilateral cooperation, protect our environment, and not side with the top 1% in our ongoing class war. To be able to do all this, we need a candidate able to stand on his/her strong past record as part of the way they inspire the American people toward better future action. If I believed that Edwards could play that role, I'd be behind him 100%. As an NC resident who tried to pay attention when Edwards was in office, I feel it's valuable to air my perceptions, especially when some non-southerners assume that Edwards' (slight) drawl will help him sweep the South. Sorry folks, it won't.

peace,
-app

[chimpymustgo]

85. Well, opinions are like *ssholes. But you know that.

nt

[appal_jack]

137. oops, gotta correct my own statement

FWIW, I've got to 'fess up that I didn't in fact vote for Edwards when he was running for Senate. During that campaign, I was working a 2-year stint in CA, and voted for Dem's there. It wasn't until 2001 that I returned to NC. I voted for Erskine Bowles (Dem for Senate, lost to carpetbagger-Dole-crazymutha...) in 2002, and then Kerry/Edwards in 2004.

Anyway, I sincerely hope that Edwards can generate some momentum and credibility in the months ahead. With the right running mate and supporting team, who knows, he could be great. But he'll need to stake out some more substantive positions for me to get excited.

-app

[NCarolinawoman]

133. I never heard from John Edwards either.

I actually wrote by snail mail because I heard that was most effective. The letters I sent were on environmental matters. I was particularly anxious on the vote on off-shore oil drilling and the status of the Naval Base in Washington County disrupting migratory birds. I never heard anything from him or his staff; but I found out later he went to a fundraiser in Tennessee when the vote came up on off-shore oil drilling. I think this was back in June of 2003; and this was when my feelings toward him started to change.

I am convinced he lost the faith of the Bluedog Dems in Eastern NC when that area was ravaged by Hurricane Isabel; and he chose to fly out to California to attend a fundraiser rather than visit the Hurricane victims. A lot of these people were/are my relatives and I know they had originally voted for him. A lot was written up in the papers at the time concerning this.

[liberalpragmatist]

36. Edwards' platform

Edwards is pushing a much more aggressively progressive, anti-poverty platform.

I really like both of them; ideally, I'd like an Edwards/Obama ticket (simply b/c an Obama/Edwards ticket is impossible; Edwards has made it clear he's not running for Veep again).

At this point, I'd probably vote Edwards in a primary. I wouldn't be upset to see Obama come out on top, though.

[illinoisprogressive]

38. This is funny because

Obama made clear he isn't interested in vp. lol. I guess we wont see an O/E or vise versa.
I really hope whatever happens Edwards keeps at the anti poverty agenda. We need to address the problem as well as the middle class. It's just stupid that we cannot help the people who need it in this country.

[liberalpragmatist]

39. Well everyone always says they don't want VP

With Edwards I believe him because in this day and age it would be extremely unlikely for a party to nominate for VP someone who already lost.

Anyway, if Edwards does lose the primaries I hope that Hillary, Obama, or whoever is the nominee uses his policy ideas as a guide.

And if Edwards loses, I hope that either he or Elizabeth considers running for his old Senate seat against Richard Burr in 2010.

[talk hard]

37. I think Obama will move so far ahead

in the field that maybe Hillary will still see his dust but nobody else will be able to.

[illinoisprogressive]

40. I wish Hillary would stay in the Senate

I don't think her 'pals' read blogs or they would know the left hates her as much as the right.
No one wants her to get the nomination let alone the general.
I wish she would just stay in the senate and not run at all. Half her supporters are now supporting Obama anyway.

[talk hard]

42. Obama is moving supporters from lots of camps to his side

which is pretty amazing to watch.

[madfloridian]

41. Go back to the archives of 2003

Read some of the posts about the candidates.

This is getting to be just like that time, thinking of any way to diminish good candidates.

It's a shame.

[snowbear]

47. Florida.... how do you get in the archives from that far back?

I've tried to get into the archives before, and I always wind up with an error message..

What am I doing wrong?

[Crunchy Frog]

84. You can't get in prior to, I believe, July of 2003.

That was when DU moved to a completely different server, and all of those posts are archived somewhere else and are not searchable. When I tried recently, I couldn't even access most of the archived threads from the old DU. I hope the admins will eventually do something to upgrade the access to those archives, as they're pretty interesting.

Most of the really serious candidate wars didn't really get started till after DU moved to the new server though. You should be able to do searches from July '03 on without any problem. You have to use the Advanced Search option though; you can't just poke around in the archives like you used to. I guess it was just getting to be too much for the admins to maintain.

I don't think what we're seeing so far is anywhere near as bad as what we saw last time around, but there's still plenty of time for that. They do have civility rules in place now that they didn't have back then, that should help a little. I can remember being accused of being a Republican and a right-winger, just because I was a Clark supporter. The mods would not tolerate that kind of behavior now.

[earthlover]

43. it is obama's to lose

I don't think Hillary has the support that the media seem to assume she has. I feel that there is a hunkering for someone else.

Today's reality is shaped by Iraq. In a previous time, Hillary and Edwards thought the best way they could represent what is right is to vote for the Iraq War Resolution. Or maybe what they thought to be the best political vote. Surprise: kissing ass might have worked then but it doesn't help now!

Now the new kid on the block is Obama. Most people haven't yet heard of him and he is already making waves. His poll numbers have not peaked yet, not by a long shot.

Obama is the anti-bush. Furthermore, Obama takes Edward's message, couples it with the anti-Iraq position Edwards/Hillary didn't have the courage to have at the time, he has charisma, he can give a stump speech with the best of them....he is black, but his demeanor does not alienate anyone who wouldn't vote Republican anyway...

Quite frankly, he is not my first choice for Democratic nominee, but I think right now he is the most likely nominee in 08, and pretty hard for any republican to beat as well.

[Crunchy Frog]

86. If it comes down to Obama, Hillary and Edwards

it will be Obama hands down for me.

In terms of relevant experience, he's got more than Edwards, despite Edwards nominally few more years in the Senate. The fact that he opposed the Iraq invasion from the start demonstrates better judgement than either Hillary or Edwards.

[venable]

92. I don't share your choice (I like Edwards) but I love

your flickering window. it's gorgeous. really.

[Infinite Hope]

45. He combines everything Obama has to offer with a little bit more experience and track record. n/t

[ripple]

53. He comes across as less sincere than Obama, IMO

I think it's just his trial lawyer experience, but Edwards comes across as something of a slick salesman. Perhaps I'm overly skeptical , but if people are truly ready for a new breed of politician, I don't think Edwards' style will work to his advantage. His style seems learned and practiced, while Obama has what seems like an innate ability to connect with people.

Plus, not to beat a dead horse, but Edwards' track record includes voting "yes" on the IWR.

With all that said, I like Edwards. If he were to receive the nomination, I'd support him with gusto. I just don't think he and Obama are all that similar as candidates and I certainly don't believe Edwards is a stronger candidate than Obama.

[snowbear]

46. I think our top tier 3 will be Clark, Edwards and Obama

Not necessarily in that order ~~ but I have a feeling that these three will rise to the top quickly as people like Vilsack and Hillary wear off FAST.

The only one I'm really stumped with is Governor Richardson.. ... He's never run before so none of us know what will happen with his campaign..

He could wind up in the top three if he excels on the campaign trail... For all we know, he could really rock n' roll in Florida and the Southwest..

We have some excellent candidates if they all run ~~

[Hippo_Tron]

49. You forgot that Obama hasn't been on a losing national ticket, Edwards is damaged goods

Not nearly as much as Kerry, but it's a factor to consider.

[mtnsnake]

58. Bingo

One of Edwards' and Obama's common strengths is their ability as orators. However, Obama is even more inspiring when he speaks. Plus he's extremely intelligent. I'm not saying Edwards isn't intelligent, just that Obama is in a league of his own. I think he's going to be our winner.

[Digit]

50. I'd pick Edwards over Obama in a second

[grmamo]

60. I am with you on this one. n/t

[Imagevision]

75. Too early to call on Edwards or Obama, they've both just barely started...

[citizen snips]

59. Edwards has a bigger base to work with

Now that Warner is out Edwards has better chance of sweeping the south.

[Clark2008]

65. Well, my whole family of Southerners aren't voting for him.

So, it won't be a sweep of that nature.

There IS or WILL BE another Southerner who appeals more to Southerners in the mix, you know. But, I know who you like and you simply cannot see it.

[citizen snips]

67. I am sure your family represents the southern consensus.

[renie408]

69. Southerners aren't die cast. And when you consider how many YANKEES

there are down here now, trying to pigeonhole the South is getting harder and harder.

(but I would vote for Edwards. Or for Clark, for that matter.)

[venable]

95. I thought this was about Edwards and Obama

so why are you telling us, apropos of Edwards and Obama, that your southern family will vote for Clark?


What is your opinion of Edwards and Obama, cf the OP?

I bet you think Edwards doesn't have a prayer in the south, in spite of much polling data, for the last few years, to the contrary.

And that every southerner loves Clark.

Do you have any idea how many times Clark has been brought up on this thread?

Why?

I like the guy, but it's a little odd.

[Catchawave]

68. How can Clark effectively compete with Edwards and Obama?

:shrug:

[gulliver]

70. I think Edwards is better on TV than Obama.

Check out YouTube if you want to see for yourself. There is quite a bit of content on both men. It seems to me that Edwards is more on his toes than Obama. I realize it is subjective, but Obama occasionally appears tongue-tied and halting, like he has lost his train of thought or is groping for a political phrase. Edwards is starting to get an angry edge not unlike Gore, Clark, Dean, and (Bill) Clinton. Obama not as much.

Also, I haven't seen Obama's wife, but Elizabeth is a major asset for Edwards.

[renie408]

71. I agree about Elizabeth n/t

[Imagevision]

73. It's better for Edwards that Obama is running, if Edwards is the better man? he will win...

[beaconess]

81. Obama in the race will make Edwards a stronger and deeper candidate

[Dr Fate]

82. He can be himself and not worry about taking stances the media does not like.

In fact, I'm convinced that ANY DEM could beat all opponents, DEM primary or Republican general, if they would just cut the game-show-host/used car-salesman crap and just be blunt, 100% truthful, to-the-point and NORMAL.

[LWolf]

83. Off base?

I find your pov here more than discouraging. It postulates that issues don't matter; that "youth," "charisma," and rhetoric are what drive voters.

If so, what, exactly, is the point? We may as well elect Paris Hilton.

I would suggest that something more than superficialities will drive voters, if issues are presented as such. Real issues; gritty reality, with real solutions. Not an emotional appeal with a weak, "plan that won't piss off the corporate masters" presentation. Which of these two men has enough gravitas to serve the people who need them most, in spite of corporate and party demands for maintaining the current power structure? Which can PROVE that gravitas to voters satisfactorily without dramatic emotional rhetoric?

[durtee librul]

88. Charisma?

Paris Hilton? I don't think so....:hangover:

[renie408]

89. Yes, I think that the Bush Presidency proves how much gritty reality means to Americans.

That sounds very 'Founding Fathers' and all, but come on! We are going to have to have the total package in '08. Why can't someone have charisma and vitality AND a decent plan for running the country?? And why do you think that neither Edwards or Obama would be good Presidents or that they are not issue driven? I think that they would make GREAT candidates. Enough charisma to satisfy the BBQ voter and both willing to address issues with intelligence and thoughtfulness.

[LWolf]

114. As long as that's not a rhetorical question:

And why do you think that neither Edwards or Obama would be good Presidents or that they are not issue driven?

I assume you are interpreting my sig line, since I didn't state the above.

For the record: they might be ok presidents; I want more than "ok." For me the "total package" must include more than "charisma" and rhetoric. On the issues:

Edwards voted for the IWR. He helped write the cursed Patriot Act. Those actions speak much louder to me than anything he may say between now and November '08.

Obama has voted for every war funding bill, voted for free trade, voted for the bankruptcy bill, just to start with. Actions speak louder than words.

I don't find that those issues were addressed with intelligence and thoughtfulness. From my perspective.

Since you asked.

[venable]

96. well said

n/t

[Dinger]

87. Obama Is On The Rise FOR NOW. Hillary Is "Sliding," And Obama is Next, THEN

it will be Edwards, and whoever the next Dem "rising star" will be. It's horseshit. Sort of reminds me what they did to Dean in '04 - more horseshit. I liked Dean. They think it's some kind of game.:grr:

[AtomicKitten]

93. Obama is a newer, shinier candidate with that new car smell.

Edwards has the stigma of a prior failed candidacy.

[renie408]

94. Ahhh...but it was a failed candidacy once removed.

I like that thing about the 'new car smell', though. Its very apt.

[Catchawave]

97. So does Gore ?

I like Al, but what's your point :shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

98. just that Obama is a clean slate

compared to all former contenders. Including Gore.

[renie408]

100. I worry it might be a little TOO clean.

I like Obama and think he would be a powerful candidate, but I worry that he is a little too fresh. It's early, though, so that could change.

[AtomicKitten]

103. the MSM is already excavating dirt on Obama

from 1-hour ago: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600677.html

Obama has plenty of experience in the Illinois State legislature and, quite frankly, IMO too much time in the US Congress turns politicians into Velveeta.

[renie408]

105. I don't know about Velveeta, but it sure can give the other side

a lot of ammunition to twist to suit their needs. Maybe you are right, Obama could benefit from being perceived as an outsider.

[Catchawave]

112. So is Edwards....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16186985

Read/watch whatever :)

[AtomicKitten]

115. Obama is pristine comparatively.

He doesn't have the stench of the IWR vote on him. I know you disagree and support Edwards, but please understand I don't think any of the 28 Senators that voted yes on the IWR deserves a shot at the top job having already demonstrated poor judgment for whatever reason. That is just my opinion and resonates only in my world. My support goes to Gore, Obama, and Clark at this point.

[renie408]

117. $50 says Obama has been guilty of significant poor judgement at some point

I don't need somebody who is perfect or even pristine. I need somebody who A) can win and B) has enough chops to get the job done once he does. I am NOT saying that Edwards is that man over Obama. I am saying that FOR ME (and everybody has their own stand on this) the IWR vote is not a deal breaker. I understand that vote. Not support it, understand it.

edited to add:

And how fair is it to judge men who were not in a position to vote on the IWR against the men who were?

[AtomicKitten]

119. oh no doubt

there will be dirt excavated on him; but IMO nothing comes close to the IWR. That's a deal-breaker in my world.

[renie408]

128. Pax

Like I said earlier, everybody has a different stand on the IWR vote.

Besides, I am two minutes late for rendezvous with the mothership, I have to run.

[Catchawave]

121. Thank you :)

I've supported Edwards since he "tested the waters" in '03. IWR is NOT important to me, I've lived with a Republican (decorated warhawk VN vet/two tours) for 38 years, and if ya don't think this might lose for us in 2008, you might want to flick off the IWR too :hi: Believe me, those who "did not vote for the IWR" have no chance in hell.

The IWR is a dead issue for 2008 now, like the Clenis, move on !

[AtomicKitten]

125. thank you

for being nice about it. Sometimes people forget we all have separate brains that don't commune with a mothership. You may or may not be right about voting versus not voting for the IWR, but I don't have to cross that bridge with my support of Gore, Obama, and Clark. So, for now, it works for me. :)

On edit: I will give balls-out support in the general to whomever gets the Democratic nod.

[Catchawave]

132. See ya on the race track :)

I love all my Dems and their supporters! And like one of my favorite pundits, Craig Crawford said:

"Politics is the only sport that spectators can participate" which pretty much sums up DU :D

[renie408]

99. Gore didn't lose. I think that would be in his favor in other campaign.n/t

[AtomicKitten]

102. plus Gore has had sufficient time

to rehab the damage the MSM inflicted on him during his campaign. He has made a series of important speeches and his work on global warming particularly the recognition and awards have allowed him to reshape his persona in a very positive light.

He definitely could be a contender, and that would be orgasmic IMHO.

[renie408]

104. Yup

I think '08 could be Gore's time. There have to be a lot of people, not just us, pondering where we would be if things had gone just fractionally differently in 2000. Gore is the ONE Dem candidate who would genuinely benefit from Bush tanking so spectacularly. For everybody else, the opposition can say, "This isn't about Bush any more, he's outta here.' In Gore's case, it really WOULD be about how awful Bush is/was. I think he might get a sort of 'its time to make this the way it was supposed to be' kind of push.

[Catchawave]

111. So did Kerry/Edwards then ?

According to history, Gore LOST, he's a just as much a "retread" as most of the Dems throwing their hats in the ring right now. Kerry, Gore, Edwards, Biden, Kooch, McCain et al....this is all so silly, isn't it?

Let them freakin' ALL RUN ... we'll sort it out later...DU needs to focus more on defeating Republican agendas, not Dems'.

[renie408]

113. This reminds me of my daughter

If I tell my son, "You are so smart!", she'll say, "You don't think I'm smart??"

I didn't say anything about Kerry/Edwards. Just because I said Gore didn't lose, doesn't mean I am denigrating either Kerry or Edwards. I wasn't trying to 'defeat' any Dem's agenda.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Crunchy Frog]

106. I really don't see how Obama is a weak candidate

and I especially don't see where Edwards has anything on him where experience is concerned. Edwards has six years in the Senate, two of which were spent running for president and VP. That would give him four years to Obama's two, but Obama has seven years in the Illinois State Senate. Edwards spent much of his time in the Senate helping to enable the Bush agenda, particularly on the Patriot Act and Iraq war. Obama opposed the Iraq invasion from the beginning.

No amount of racist commentary, including that obscene picture in your post, is going to alter the fact that Obama has more relevant experience, and better judgement than Edwards.

I prefer a candidate who is extremely experienced in matters of foreign policy and national security, particularly at this historical moment, which is why I would support both Clark and Gore over Obama, but of all the people that are getting the press attention right now, Obama is the only one I can support. It has absolutely nothing to do with his color.

[venable]

107. again, love the flickering window, but how can you say

Edwards spent his time enabling bush. it's much, much more complicated than IWR and Patriot Act, both of which themselves are not so cut and dried as they are often reduced to on this site. Bush and Rove and Cheney hate Edwards, for good reason, and that is a mark of honor.

[Crunchy Frog]

109. You have your view and I have mine.

Let's just leave it at that. And Edwards role in supporting the Iraq invasion goes much deeper than how he voted on IWR.

I don't object if you have a different view of the war than I do, but I don't like the re-writing of history.

And thanks for the compliment on the sig. I try to have a sig that people will enjoy, even if they hate what's in my posts. :)

[renie408]

110. Please

I have always really admired John Edwards, but I have read a couple of references here as to his involvement in influencing the vote for Bush on the IWR. I won't ask you to give me all the details, but if you could point me in the direction of a website that would fill me in on this, I would appreciate it.

[venable]

116. I'll give my biased shorthand version

Both for and against (the 'for' is longer, but it's not made up)

Against Edwards - He voted for the IWR, and worked hard to get it passed.

For Edwards - He was told point-blank, to his face, by Tenet that Saddam had WMD and would use them. He believed the Director of the CIA, and that's why he voted for the IWR, which was, by the way, a PROCESS, NOT A CALL-T0-INVASION, a process involving inspectors on the ground, OR ELSE.... the OR ELSE was meant to assure the weapons inspectors had time to do their work. Bush aborted this, and pulled the inspectors, and invaded.

Edwards was among the first, and was probably the most unequivocal to switch his position: He led the vote against the $87billion budget supplement, to try to hobble Bush, then he wrote an OP Ed which began, famously, "I was wrong".

John Edwards does not want people to die. He does not believe in military solutions. See his recent speeches.

He made his vote on the basis of top secret (but faulty it turns out) intel that said if we don't stop Saddam, millions will die. He was wrong, and he said so. He didn't make the excuse that he was lied to, which he was, he just took responsibility for his error.

[Crunchy Frog]

123. This thread has some good info.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2934244&mesg_id=2934244

I also find this Hardball transcript from October 2003 to be very revealing. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

He still strongly supported the decision to invade Iraq, even many months after it became clear that there were no WMDs.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask but the war, because I know these are all students and a lot of guys the age of these students are fighting over there and cleaning up over there, and they’re doing the occupation.

Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway”?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.

~snip~

MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?

EDWARDS: It wouldn’t change my views. I said before, I think that the threat here was a unique threat. It was Saddam Hussein, the potential for Saddam getting nuclear weapons, given his history and the fact that he started the war before.

[renie408]

126. Ok, what I get out of this

is that six months after we got into Iraq, Edwards still believed in his IWR vote.


I am not sure how that supports making statements like "And Edwards role in supporting the Iraq invasion goes much deeper than how he voted on IWR."

[venable]

129. there's something else worth saying

which is why it was hard for Edwards to turn against the war...he hoped against hope that it would end, and end soon, and that the mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers and sons and daughters who had already lost a loved one would not believe it had been done in vain.

That is why, when asked if the war was worth it, would say " It's a good thing that Saddam has been removed"... he wanted, desperately for those left behind to have the confidence that their loved one had died in a just cause.

At a certain point, though, it became clear that Bush's war (not ANY Democrat's war, with the exception of Lieberman) would not end. He then stepped forward and said he could no longer have his name on this war, and that he had been wrong to support it. It was a hard thing to say, for the message it sends to those left behind. But it need to be said. Again, I quote him: "I was wrong".

I wish he had not supported the war, but I know that he did so for reasons having to do with compassion and the false prospect of what Tenet told him would happen. Read his recent speeches to figure out what he thinks about military intervention. He believes that the US can only regain it's place in the world by leading in purely moral causes - Darfur, Uganda, poverty, aids. All the things we beleve.

I do wish he hadn't supported the IWR, but mainly, and vastly, I care more that Bush did what he did. Why do we eat our own, good men and women all?

[renie408]

131. "Why do we eat our own, good men and women all?" Hell if I know...n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

136. Just that, as Venable said,

he not only voted for it, he cosponsored it, and he worked very hard to get others to vote for it as well. That, to me, represents something that goes much deeper than simply voting in favor of a bad piece of legislation.

I remember the primaries and the debates well. I remember how absolutely unequivocal Edwards support of the war was. He made it pretty clear at the time that he was very much in favor of the actual invasion, not just of giving Bush "leverage" to get Saddam to submit to inspections. Only Lieberman seemed more gung-ho on the war than Edwards did. The view that he articulated in the Hardball interview did not appear to change over the entire course of the campaign, right up to the election. That's alot longer than six months. It also indicates a support for the war that was not tied to the alleged presence of WMDs, since it was well established by then that they weren't there.

I don't believe that pointing this out is the same as "eating our own". I was saying why I thought Obama was better qualified for the presidency.

We all have different views of the Iraq war. Some of us feel more strongly than others, and for some of us, this shapes who we can or cannot support for the Democratic nomination.

I answered only because you asked. You are obviously free to come to your own conclusions based on your own reading of the evidence.

[venable]

130. Do you really believe Edwards is stupid

or craven, or bloodthirsty, or doesn't care whether people live or die?

I don't. I believe he made a mistake, one he will regret much longer than you or I will, as painful as it is to all of us. It is for that reason that I belive he has taken the beautiful and eloquent and pacifist stance he now takes, as regards Iraq, Iran, and all of the troubles of the world, which he believes can only be addressed by moral leadership, not bombs.

Don't blame bush's war on John Edwards.

[Crunchy Frog]

135. I believe that he displayed some very poor judgement.

It's not for me to assign motivations to his actions, but for me, they disqualify him as someone I could support for the presidential nomination.

You have your choices, and reasons why you support them, and I have mine. I'm not interested in getting mired down in a debate with you. I simply expressed my opinion to somebody else on this thread.

[SanCristobal]

108. I agree with almost everything you said.

I don't think Edwards is a particularly strong candidate either. They both suffer from lack of experience. Obamas State Senate terms don't help all that much, as State government (excluding governors) is the minor league compared to the presidency. Even Federal Senators don't traditionally do well in the presidential race, particularly ones with as little time on the books as Obama and Edwards.

I like them both, but I don't see either one of them being able to win the Presidency. The difference between them is Obamas race, which is garnering him a huge amount of attention that he otherwise wouldn't receive. It's stupid and wrong, but it's true.

I think Obama is very strong VP material (Edwards too, if it wasn't for 2004), and I expect him to end up as our next Vice President. Come 2016 he will make a strong presidential candidate, but not today.

[SteveM]

138. How can Edwards compete with Obama?

Maybe by comparing their respective records on gun control.