I see a lot of Edwards attacks recently in both the media and online. Why is that?

[jsamuel]

I have seen many many attacks on Edwards, mostly about fluff issues like hair and houses. I think we should be determining candidates based on issues and fighting against swiftboating of Democrats. But why Edwards? I haven't seen any real attacks on Obama, Clinton, or Richardson for that matter recently. Is Edwards threatening or something?

[Ganja Ninja]

1. I guess the "Breck Girl" & "Fagot" campaign wasn't working. n/t

[supernova]

3. He He.

:thumbsup:

[NightWatcher]

2. the repukes know that Edwards has "electability"

Edwards is a threat, because I dont care how progressive we think that we are, "middle America" is not ready to vote for a woman, an African American, or any other "non-white male". I wish this werent the case but it is.

[Dawgs]

5. I love it when someone speaks for the "middle America".

I love it.

Have you seen the poll that shows Hillary and Obama beating almost all Republican candidates?

[NightWatcher]

9. ok, let me say instead of middle America

Most everyone I know here in Georgia- progressives included- do not believe that Hillary or Barack have as much electability as Edwards.

[Dawgs]

22. Well, I was stood around for a few hours in Atlanta, GA this Saturday with...

20,000+ that think Obama can win. I live in Georgia and "most everyone I know" don't believe Gore or Hillary can win.

[saltpoint]

10. Edwards is also beating the Republican candidates, especially in

some southern states.

Democrats are the generic choice right now of the American electorate. I think hard work and grassroots hustle is the best way to go, and the target -- beating the Republicans -- should hold primacy.

[Merlot]

20. "hard work and grassroots hustle"

That pretty much sums up Edwards.

[jsamuel]

13. here is the poll of which you refer (only Edwards beats all candidates)

That said, I don't think we should elect people in the primaries simply because they are good for the general election. Primaries should be used to determine who is best on the issues.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/9/164528/2571

Here's the latest Rasmussen results in match-ups of Edwards
and Republican candidates

Edwards (49%) Giuliani (43%)
Edwards (50%) Huckabee (41%)
Edwards (47%) McCain (38%)
Edwards (55%) Romney (29%)
Edwards (50%) Thompson (36%)

Here are Hillary's numbers:

Clinton (46%) Brownback (41%)
Clinton (50%) Gingrich (43%)
Clinton (47%) Giuliani (48%)
Clinton (48%) Hagel (40%)
Clinton (47%) McCain (46%)
Clinton (50%) Romney (41%)
Clinton (43%) Thompson (44%)

And Obama's numbers:

Obama (49%) Brownback (34%)
Obama (48%) Gingrich (38%)
Obama (43%) Giuliani (44%)
Obama (50%) Hagel (34%)
Obama (52%) Huckabee (32%)
Obama (44%) McCain (44% )
Obama (51%) Romney (36%)
Obama (49%) Thompson (37%)

[saltpoint]

15. Thank you. That's it. It's no wonder some folks are starting to

throw elbows.

[Dawgs]

23. I agree, but the original post stated that Hillary and Obama WON'T or CAN'T win.

I think this poll shows that they can. That was my point.

[jsamuel]

24. sure

[movonne]

21. I also think a lot of this comes from within...DLC etc...

[Horse with no Name]

4. Because when all is said and done

HE is the candidate that can win the nomination. He can pull the independant voters and he can pull reluctant Republicans votes.
Neither Hillary or Obama can do that.
Which is why he never gets any free good press and only bad press.

[saltpoint]

6. Perhaps it has to do with his success and his appeal, which are both substantial

and enduring.

Those two aspects might be troubling for those who are missing the big picture, the big picture being the urgent and vital need to defeat the GOP in 2008 and regain the White House.

[givemebackmycountry]

7. You ain't seen nothing yet.

If Al Gore decides to throw his hat in it's going to be a bloodbath.
I think that's why he's undecided if he really wants to go through this.
I have no doubt that he can handle anything they throw at him, and they will go after him with a ferocity the likes we have not seen before.

No one deserves this.

These people are pure evil and they won't stop. EVER.

[natrat]

8. yea its wierd-hufpo has a haircut article frontpage-things are not what they seem

the crook factor runs deep

[blm]

11. The undermining of certain Dems has been going on since 2000 - did anyone think Bill's

coziness with the Bushes the last 6yrs was meant to HELP the Dem party in 2002 and 2004 election years?


We recently discovered this info via historian Douglas Brinkley's appearance from APRIL 2004. Put it in the context of the time, plus add what we now know about McAuliffe's refusal to secure election process in 2002 and 2004, and Carville's efforts to feed his wife crucial election night info on strategy and numbers.


http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."
>>>

[natrat]

19. these are the true crooks of our times

[gauguin57]

12. Bill Maher said on "The View" the other day that an Edwards-Obama ticket would be unbeatable.

He thinks Hillary is doomed if she's the nominee.

I do think an Edwards-Obama ticket would be wonderful.

[undeterred]

14. Because even on DU, people can't wait to hear both sides of a story.

I mean, especially on DU.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. "Gotcha" politics is just part of the electoral circus.

Nothing new, just more pervasive than it was before TV and the internet.

[BlueManDude]

17. because he can actually win a general election unlike hillary and obama

[Dawgs]

25. Well, he couldn't win in 2004.

That's one more loss than Clinton or Obama; unless you can't how he helped Kerry, which was almost not at all.

It really makes me sick that the Edwards supporters use the 'Obama or Hillary can't win because America won't vote for them' excuse. I like Edwards, Obama, and many others (not Hillary), and they all look electable to me. Of course I have no proof; just like anyone that says Obama or Hillary can't win.

[natrat]

27. like anything else in american public realm you have to read between the lines

so with that in mind-who does msm pimp for? those are the people/canidates who are the corporate whores and should be avoided ata all costs

[porphyrian]

18. That's a sign of who considers him a threat. - n/t

[Outrider]

26. He threatens corporations

The corporations are terrified of him. Of all of the democratic candidates Edwards is the greatest threat to the established corporate order, and they know it.

Look at the rest of the candidates. He is the only one that has a history of fighting corporations. Hillary doesn't, heck she sat on the board of Walmart. Obama has sponsored legislation that allows doctors and hospitals to avoid responsibilty for malpractice if they say they're sorry.