Edwards is Running

[TotallyOz]

I am happy for this. I do hope that Hillary goes for it but I have always liked Edwards and wish him well. Do you think he will have baggage left over from the last election?

[Guest fourjogran]

Don't think he will suffer from 2004 VP run. His general goals spelled out yesterday are fine but he needs to get into the specifics more as campaign goes on. I really like him and think Dems would be wise to nomnate a southerner.

[Guest Conway]

I'll give my ever popular right wing input on Edwards.

He has a lot of baggage. What is the one thing that the average American hates more than politicians? Trial attorneys. Edwards made a shitload of money as a personal injury attorney in Raleigh for the better part of twenty years.

I think that Obama strikes a chord with middle Anmerica that John Edwards never will. He seems, to me at least, to be more trustworthy and sincere than John Edwards. I think that Edwards, as a result of his career, tends to come across as a little too fast talking for some folks.

As the campaign develops, you can expect to see some of John Edwards' legal arguments that he made on behalf of his clients in personal injury cases become part of the public record where Edwards is concerned. They're not very flatttering in that they make some arguments that defy good logic and common sense and, frankly, sound a bit like snake oil salesmanship on Edwards' part.

The second negative for Edwards is that the reason he didn't seek re-election for a second term to the Senate from North Carolina is that, after his first five years in office, public opinion polls showed that he had little to no chance t win. His public record is pretty extreme.

There is a long way to go to the 2008 election, I suspect that Edwards still could find a second place on the ticket. But, for the Democrats to win in 2008, they're going to have to find a m ore centrist candidate to balance out the ticket...a Bill Clinton, if you will.

[Guest BewareofNick]

Wow. Conway and I agree on something.

I also think that Edwards association with John Kerry hurts him too. Kerry is now officially over as a serious contender. Despite what the right wing media said about the joke Kerry botched (we all know what Kerry meant to say but the conservative media used the opportunity to swiftboat him again), those comments have permanently ended his hopes.

For my money, the winning ticket is Hillary/Obama '08. I truly believe that this election is Hillary's to lose.

[Guest epigonos]

Considering the bankroll the Clinton's have amassed and the politicals favors owed to Bill Clinton it is going to be next to impossibly to beat Hilary IF she decides to make a SERIOUS run for the nomination. If she does run and gets the nomination don't think for a minute that she will seriously consider Obama as a running mate -- he simply doesn't add anything to the tickets that she doesn't already have. She certainly doesn't need him to win Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, or California. Look for her to select a running mate from a border state.

[Guest twinklover]

I applaud his running. I will vote for him. He's the perfect candidate to WIN and take control. Think of Hillary, whom I love, she will LOSE. I'm sorry BON, I love you as much as Hillary, but we need to be practical. Think of our next Supreme Court Justice, some of them are getting old. EDWArDS is the only candidate I trust to win. HE will win and he ain't no Jimmy Carter. He knows his roots. He is a progressive with common sense. I DON'T trust Hillary, and I don't trust Osama to win. But I do trust Edwards to not only win, but also to be a great President.

Personal comments deleted. TY

P.S. I apologize for this post. This is not a political forum but since the posts became politcal, I had to express myself. It won't happen again.

[KYTOP]

>I was appalled by Conway's nasty innuendoes, about him being a

>trial lawyer and this and that.

Well that is a negative, his biggest negative and it doesn't play well with alot of people. It is also true that he did not run for re-election in NC because he had very negative poll #'s there.

Hillary is slipping in some area's because Obama and her, appeal to many of the same voters. Obama seems to be getting alot of attention around here. We'll see how far it will go.

After your comments, I see why TY is not thrilled with political conversation. Don't know why people can't disagree about politics in a civil manner.

[AdamSmith]

>>I was appalled by Conway's nasty innuendoes, about him

>being a

>>trial lawyer and this and that.

>

>Well that is a negative, his biggest negative and it doesn't

>play well with alot of people. It is also true that he did not

>run for re-election in NC because he had very negative poll

>#'s there.

Absolutely true. My close acquaintances in N.C., all rabidly Democrat, hold Edwards in surprisingly low regard. For the reasons that Conway said, and also for what they perceive as Edwards' two-facedness while in Congress -- he would talk one way while at home, then go to DC and do whatever he wished, they feel.

For my part, I intensely disliked his pandering, condescending protectionism-mongering during the last presidential campaign. He is too smart to believe in the simplistic "solutions" to globalization that he preached then.

And, to twinklover, Conway's views may not be universally popular here, but he expresses them with restraint, reason and respect. I enjoy hearing from him.

[Lucky]

Conway is more conservative than I am, or so I think, but I do agree with him on Edwards. As a trial lawyer myself, I cringe when I see slick guys like Edwards trying to act sincere. His "Two Americas" campaign seemed designed to split the country, not unite it. I think he left the Senate just so he wouldn't have to box himself into any clear cut positions before the next election. His agony over supporting gay marriage is not encouraging.

Right now I am for Al Gore. Obama needs experience.

[Guest StuCotts]

You are so right. The nation should avoid as it would the plague the consideration of any lawyer, hence snakeoil salesman, for the candidacy to the presidency. We should instead be guided by the present occupant of the office: a non-lawyer, hence non-snakeoil salesman, whose probity is surpassed only by his intellect. Come to think of it, both those qualities pale before his compassion and his genius for uniting all peoples in fighting the good fight under the snow-white banner of peace, justice and righteousness.

[Buddy2]

> His "Two Americas" campaign seemed designed

>to split the country, not unite it.

There are two Americas (talk to people without health insurance), and Democrats do not talk about the division much because they do not see many votes there. (I understand that Lucky already knows this.)

As Lyndon Johnson ponted out his Great Society, especially the Civil Rights legislation and war on poverty, would lose the south to the Republicans for several generations.

I am not a huge fan of John Edwards' but he did take chances in 2004 and seems to be willing to do the same in 2008. The big problem for Edwards, Giuliani, Romney and Obama is their lack of foreign policy experience. We have already seen with Bush (and LBJ) where that can lead us.

[KYTOP]

>You are so right. The nation should avoid as it would the

>plague the consideration of any lawyer, hence snakeoil

>salesman, for the candidacy to the presidency.

The issue is not that he is a lawyer...it is that he is a personal injury attorney that has made a fortune from personal injury lawsuits. Images of TV lawyers call 1-800-whatever doesn't play too well with some. Doesn't mean he wouldn't be a good president...just a big negative for some...not all.

If I didn't vote for lawyers for public office I'd have very few people to choose from. Most of the politicians around here are lawyers.

[Guest Conway]

I'm not a closeted Republican at all. I'm actually a registered Republican who makes no bones about his party affiliation.

Personally my feeling is that the GOP has abandoned many of the principals that I hold dear politically in favor of appeasing the social right. I'm somewhat fascinated by Obama because he has a real story and seems to have values that are untainted by the inner-beltway.

My fear is that those positive values that draw someone like me to Obama can never survive the "fuck you, you're a closeted republican" mean spiritedeness of the Democratic primary system. My fear is that it will either change Obama for the worse, forcing him to abandon those values that are so attractive to middle Americans like m myself or that he'll simply be thrown upon the fire in sacrifice to the outlandish special interests that have consistently kept the Democrats from winning important national races for the past forty years.

Lets be honest, since the Kennedy presidency, the only time that Democrats have been able to win the Presidency is in period of economic decline or when the G|OP fucks up so badly the voters have no choice except to throw them from office.

I think that Obama has the potential to be to the current Democratic Party what Kennedy was to the Democrtas in the 60s and Reagan was to the Republicans in the 80s. i don't see Edwards in that same light.

But, its just one man's opinion.

[Guest epigonos]

I find the whole idea of Obama being a viable presidential candidate in 2008 fascinating and just a little absurd. The man will have only been in the U.S. Senate for four years besides having no experience in any executive government position.

The comparsion to J.F.K. is really not valid. In 1956 John F. Kennedy, the U.S. Senator from Mass., nearly defeated Estes Kefauver for the Democratic Vice Presidental slot. From that point on he worked the campaign circuit and built a great campaign staff with the aim of running for president in 1960. In the spring of 1960 Kennedy won the West Virginia primary and became a household name by proving a Roman Catholic could win in the south. I didn't return to college in the fall of 1959 so I could spend the year working for his campaign here in Los Angeles. I was only 19 and that year, with the Democratic Convention here in L.A. in July 1960, was one of the most incredible years of my life.

Obama has the look, the personality, and possibly the charisma BUT he needs more time for seasoning and planning. If he and his people are savvy they will look to 2012 or even 2016 -- he is young enough. Though we might not like to discuss this or even admit it, he must also prove that an African American can win a general election in border and southern states.

[KYTOP]

>I find the whole idea of Obama being a viable presidential

>candidate in 2008 fascinating and just a little absurd. The

>man will have only been in the U.S. Senate for four years

>besides having no experience in any executive government

>position.

But why is government experience the only experience acceptable. We constantly critcize "politicians" and then we get a fresh, intelligent face and we brush him off because he is not an experienced politician. Bring on all the political hacks we criticize yet continue to elect to office. I'd say he has a lot more experience than Edwards 6 years in office (less than that when he ran for VP) and time getting rich on personal injury cases. That is part of what makes him so different, not your usual politician. He has life experience, so what if he has not been a politician, I've had enough of them.

Ever thought...how much experience did Abe Lincoln have?

It is time for someone different...right now I think I am on the Obama train...don't know for how long, but it is time for a new kind of person to lead this country...hope it is him.

[Guest eastburbguy]

As a former partisan political elected office holder (you can guess which party ;-) ), FWIW here's my take on things right now. (A good politician always hedges his bets)

Edwards: brings his trial lawyer background baggage (unfairly IMHO) to the race, but his "Two America's" message definitely resonates, especially after the past 8 years; the Democratic Primary lineup is loaded in his favor ... "Big Labor" is in his camp which will help him BIGTIME in Nevada, and he's consistently polled on top in Iowa, so he could go into New Hampshire with a MAJOR tailwind, and then it's down to South Carolina where he was born.

Message: do not "misunderestimate" this guy.

Hillary: not much to add to what's been written about her - the nomination is hers to lose, the Clinton's are a match for any challengers, 99% of the people already have an opinion of her and a majority like her, WWBD? (What Would Bill Do? - as Veep, yadda yadda yadda.

The 64K question - after 20 years, will America be ready for yet another chapter in the Bush Clinton Dynastic Wars?

Obama - first, and I don't say this lightly, posters here and much more importantly the media needs to put "Obama" in their spellcheck library. The 2008 incarnation(s) of Karl Rove may delight in reading the inadvertant reference to "Osama," but the media has no excuse. x( Positives: new face, new approach, rockstar appeal, unique bio. Negatives: all of the above.

Bottom line: he'll be vetted by those who wield the sharpest knives in politics. History and conventional wisdom suggest he won't survive. If he's really "That Good", he could be "another Lincoln" as he's self-styled; if not, he'll be a quick flash in the pan. Don't count him out, but don't bet the ranch on him.

They definitely seem to be the 3 "Top Tier" candidates.

The "second tier" is likely Richardson and, if he announces, Clark.

The also-rans will be: Biden, Dodd, Vilsak & Gravel.

Kerry is a non-starter.

It's late. Have I forgotten anybody? }(

Oops, yeah I have. The elephant in the room. Al Gore. If he wants it, it's his to lose.

[Guest StuCotts]

I assume you are assessing these individuals' chances of gaining the Dem nomination, not their chances in the national election. Sad to say, the Dems' choice is not necessarily the wider population's choice, as for instance in Connecticut.

In choosing either Clinton or Obama (or both?) because of their very considerable strengths, the Dems will have to keep in mind that the broad American electorate does not like either blacks or women. A look at the Senate will confirm that. Do you think that dislike is surmountable?

You're right about the Obama/Osama thing, which is being passed off in too many circles as an honest mistake. It's the kind of thing that has Rove's fingerprints all over it, and it will be exploited to the max by the skanks of the right-wing media. I think expecting the rest of the mainstream media to do anything about it is a pretty fantasy.

[Guest fourjogran]

It seems to me that a really good ticket for the Dems would be Edwards for President and Obama for Vice President. If they could hold the usual Dem blue states, Edwards might swing in some border or southern states.

[Guest PWIT]

I stay out of the politics forum, mainly because I don't find most comments to be very objective but to me very partisan. I do find your post very refreshing....and since this post is not in the political forum I am allowing myself to respond.

Regarding Edwards and the Two America's message....some see this as divisive. Somehow I would like to see someone that could pull the polarized extremes together, not push further apart.

Obama. As far as his name mispronounciation, seems like the blunder of Ted Kennedy has been getting a lot of replay time. Reid also has some taped blunders. Seems like there are equal blunders on both sides on this one.

Hillary. Yup, many are ready to stop the family dynasty issue. Lets get some new last names in the WH.

>The also-rans will be: Biden, Dodd, Vilsak & Gravel.

Who is Gravel?

Don't see any of these going far. Biden could in my opinion, but he is just to verbose for his own good. Reminds me of Kerry....doesn't know the meaning of 'less is more'.

>Kerry is a non-starter.

Agree. Not sure how he got the nod last time.

>It's late. Have I forgotten anybody?

Kucinich ....but why even bother. Only he takes himself seriously.

>Oops, yeah I have. The elephant in the room. Al Gore. If he

>wants it, it's his to lose.

Surely the Dems will not make this mistake....he could do well in the primary, but will need to pick up the independents (of which I am one). He is seen as a loon by many (myself included). He needs better handlers.

>The "second tier" is likely Richardson and, if he

>announces, Clark.

Clark really needs to run for some other elected office or possible cabinet position (Secretary of State possibly) first. The days of an Ike getting elected are over...and he is no Ike. He doesn't have the credentials of a Powell.

Richardson. Now this is my early favorite. He has executive experience, congressional experience, cabinet experience. The energy experience would be very beneficial. He has international experience and could be very helpful with N.Korea. He is my pick....just wish he was getting more air time and publicity. (plus I like to see him on a horse! yippee)

Now, as surfaced earlier, I am an independent. I am most happy when I really have to struggle come November on who will get my vote. Just as I will have a favorite Democrat, I will have a favorite Republican. Fiscal conservatives, social moderates, and libertarians at heart are my favorites and tend to be the ones I support in both parties. But that is just me.....and this is more than I ever intended to reveal about my political perspectives. But hey...this is in 'the pub' so it is OK! :+

[AdamSmith]

>Richardson. Now this is my early favorite. He has executive

>experience, congressional experience, cabinet experience. The

>energy experience would be very beneficial. He has

>international experience and could be very helpful with

>N.Korea. He is my pick....just wish he was getting more air

>time and publicity. (plus I like to see him on a horse!

>yippee)

YES!! Why is Richardson not more lionized by the party cogniscenti and rank-and-file? He is substantive, he neutralizes the Northeast/South party bipolar disorder, he has the telegenic chops (I think) needed to carry a campaign... Guess we'll see.

>Now, as surfaced earlier, I am an independent.

You (and party-registered people who think and vote like you) will be the saviors of this country.

Now get with it!

[Guest eastburbguy]

< In choosing either Clinton or Obama (or both?) because of their very considerable strengths, the Dems will have to keep in mind that the broad American electorate does not like either blacks or women

The "broad American electorate" doesn't have to like them, only about 21 states do. Look at the states Kerry carried, and add just a couple more that have shifted from red to blue (eg. Colorado, New Hampshire), and tell me which one(s) either Clinton or Obama would lose. Not one, IMHO. And the same goes for Edwards. In short, at present, it's the Dems race to lose in '08.

[Guest eastburbguy]

< Who is Gravel?

First, to clarify, it's pronounced Gra - VELL.

He's actually a very interesting guy who's now 76. From Wikipedia:

< Maurice Robert Gravel (born May 13, 1930) better known as Mike Gravel, was a Democratic U.S. Senator from Alaska for two terms, from 1969 to 1981.

Alaska House of Representatives from 1962 to 1966. During the last two years of his term, he served as the Speaker of the House. He left that body to run for Alaska's seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, losing to the incumbent Ralph Rivers In 1968, he ran against incumbent Democratic Senator Ernest Gruening, a popular former governor, for his party's nomination to the U.S. Senate, unexpectedly beating him in the primary and going on to win the general election.

During his first term in the Senate, Gravel authored a book titled Citizen Power. In it, he advocated the implementation of numerous populist ideas, including a guaranteed annual income (dubbed the "Citizen's Wage"), public financing of elections, a progressive tax with no deductions or exemptions, steps against the military-industrial complex (which he calls the "Warfare State"), a national law to do away with voter registration and other barriers to voting, abolition of the death penalty, universal health care, school vouchers, a drastic reduction in government secrecy, and an end to what he viewed as an imperialistic foreign policy. The book also contained the complete text of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the complete platform adopted by the Populist Party during the 1892 presidential election.

In 1971, the same year that he placed more than 4,000 pages of the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional record, he embarked on a one-man filibuster against a bill renewing the draft. Using various parliamentary methods, Gravel was able to block the bill for five months before President Richard Nixon and Senate Republicans agreed to allow the draft to expire in 1973.

Gravel actively campaigned for the office of Vice President of the United States during the 1972 presidential election. At the 1972 Democratic National Convention, he was nominated by Bettye Fahrenkamp, the national committeewoman of Alaska. The senator then addressed the convention and won 226 delegate votes, coming in third behind Senator Thomas Eagleton of Missouri, who was the convention's choice, and Frances "Sissy" Farenthold, stealing 407 votes from Gravel in a ploy by McGovern who was blocking Gravel from securing the Vice-Presidential nomination.(see [1]).

In 1980, he was challenged for renomination by State Representative Clark Gruening, the grandson of the incumbent Gravel had defeated in a primary 12 years earlier. Gravel was himself defeated in the primary after Jerry Falwell mustered the Christian Right in support of Gruening, who would go on to lose in the general election to Republican Frank Murkowski. >

Here's an idea. How about an Obama Gravel ticket? }(

[TotallyOz]

I would love to see a Clinton Obama ticket but how about a Clinton/Gore again?

I like Edwards and hope he is able to get into the race and fight.

[Guest PWIT]

thanks for the education. I take it since he is not in the contemporary limelight his is not viable....correct?

[AdamSmith]

>I would love to see a Clinton Obama ticket but how about a

>Clinton/Gore again?

Nostalgia says yes but one can't esape the fear that Gore, once a candidate again, would lose his current centeredness and sense of identity, and would go all defensive and fumble-fingered like last time.

>I like Edwards and hope he is able to get into the race and

>fight.

I as an N.C. native fear that too many of my kinsmen just cannot stomach him. It comes down to electoral math -- can he snag a state or 2 that is crucial to swinging the whole thing? We'll see.