watch out for Edwards -- he's a dark horse and a damn good speaker
Posted by Jack at April 20, 2006 04:34 PMI too am watching Edwards. I think he is the kind of person that could energize not only the party, but the people in general---the ones who "had enough" of Bumbling Bush, RedCoat Republicans, and those who have been disheartened by what has occurred on their watch. I also think Edwards did not play to his strengths as a speaker before--meaning he did not want to look too good beside his running mate, the unfortunate Sen. Kerry. Sen Edwards is honing his message, meeting the people and finding his voice now. I believe he will be the most formidable candidate.
I do not think Sen. Clinton is the wisest choice no matter the money. I do not dislike her, but I think she is too easy a target for the brand of polarizing politics we have come to expect from the opposition including its moderate and liberal factions (small as they are). She represents to many the detachment of privilege. It may be an unfair perception, but I believe it is the perception many people have. That detachment--which often translates into "coldness"-- is part of the baggage. Many favor a return to "rational" governance, and Sen. Clinton could fairly represent that impulse. But I think many more are presently looking for an emotional uplift to accompany that impulse, and I see that as her biggest problem.
Posted by Gtash at April 20, 2006 04:57 PMjohn kerry did not lead when he was a candidate.
he backed away, stammering, from his youthful past which could have been an extremely powerful campaign topic.
except for p.o.w. issues, he has exercised almost no leaderhsip in the senate in his decades there.
he lacked the judgment to hire competent campaign managers or the will to fire incompetent ones.
he does not have the range of experience one would expect of a presidential candidate
(excepting george w. bush, of course, who was exempted from any requirement of experience or competence by the voters, the media, and candidate kerry.).
most importantly,
john kerry has failed to exercise leasdership for the nation
or
in the senate
since his defeat in 2004.
for this last, there is no acceptable excuse.
we have needed a democratic leader to step up;
kerry hs not.
if he were a leader, he would have been fighting for things he believed in,
as howard dean and al gore have been fighting for things they believed in.
as far as i can tell,
kerry's just been sitting on his ass since 2004.
for my money,
john kerry's day has come and gone.
Posted by orionATL at April 20, 2006 05:28 PMHillary's biggest flaw is that her ambition outweighs her integrity. This is what is going to sink her dream boat to be the first woman president of the US. I think, however, that she could have overcome this if she had presented a successful national health plan that actually worked back when she was still respected by most of the country. Said respect is something she now doesn't have on that same basis. The respect today s more due to her clear popularity with certain deep pockets and not her record of supporting too many Bu$hCo initiatives while a Senator.
Agreed that Kerry's ship has sailed. I believe the same about Gore, but he has some room to change my mind if his performance warrants it. It is up to him.
Edwards certainly has a shot this time, but he's got a lot of work to do. Due to his being Kerry's running mate, the possibility of being Swift Boated is high. The proof that he can handle being president through the coming crisis years will be demonstrated in how he handles himself despite this coming character assassination. As with Gore, it is up to Edwards to show what he's made of.
Kerry needs to remain in the Senate -- he had his go and he was revealed to be a horrible candidate.
He conceded Ohio to his cousin, George Bush, in 2004, without a peep or a sigh.
All eyes should now be on Feingold, Hillary the Hawk, John "good hair" Edwards and Warner.
And please: no calls for Wesley Clark for VP!
Posted by Christopher at April 20, 2006 06:09 PMPessimist, I was watching Edwards during the campaign, and he showed really well. They tried to sully him with the trial lawyer stuff (which isn't much of an issue anymore, is it? hmm), but it essentially rolled off his back. He wasn't at all affected by the swift boaters, and face it, being yummy-looking in our celebrity-obsessed culture can't hurt. Elizabeth is a positive boon, brilliant, a great speaker and non-threatening as a working mother; the kids are adorable - together, they look like the ideal American family.
He's very media saavy, too, which many dems sadly aren't - when he and Kerry appeared together, Edwards was the one directing traffic with the cameras, it was subtle and smart. His rallys were like rock concerts; sound familiar? He's aware of the online community, and is smart enough to use us to his advantage. Unless he's got skeletons, he's a guy who'd be fun to have a beer and bbq with, but is too damn busy being president, but will take a rain check when things get better. He's got a positive message, too. People are sick of being depressed and worried.
He's also been very involved in poverty activism, I believe, and is known for rooting for the working stiff. He's also a Daily Show alumni, he could really reach a lot of people with strategic appearances.
Well. I suppose I'd better start my Draft John Edwards web site, then, huh?
Posted by iamcoyote at April 20, 2006 06:11 PMAside from the obvious attributes I think we all want in the Democratic candidate, I want someone with some friggin passion and uses that passion in getting his/her message across.
Posted by Judith at April 20, 2006 06:22 PMNot this me-too warmonger again.
Feingold beeeeatches!
Posted by ran at April 20, 2006 06:30 PMKerry's done gone, Gore learned about being Alpha-male a bit late, Feingold is still looking good as is Edwards and Clark. Of course, Clinton's got it in a lock. $ is king.
Posted by yesyesyes at April 20, 2006 06:36 PMEdwards problem is that he talks funny. People in Texas thought that was the funniest accent they'd ever heard, god knows what someone in Cal. thinks.
Posted by T2 at April 20, 2006 06:44 PMRun, Al, run!
Posted by paradox at April 20, 2006 06:50 PMAs one who worked for Edwards in 2004, I'm already ready to go to work again. Our country faces dire problems that have been building for the past 25 years and are now demanding attention. The Reagan world was built on borrowing against a future that the supply siders believed would pay for itself. It didn't work, it couldn't work. Tehy are discredited with two thirds of America. The Reagan coalition is dying under little Bush. Something will have to replace it. In 2008, the Republican nomination will likely be next to worthless. Because of this, the DLC beltway type think that they can create a more "donkey friendly" K Street. People are tired of a two track America. The elete has a level of wealth atching the worst of the guilded age. It's time for a change. Edwards has the potential to energize people. He has been talking about this kind of issue for years. In the 2004 primaries he did a lot with little money. Now he is a national figure. Watch this fall and see if he campaigns for Democrats nationwide. That's the classic strategy of keeping you name and face nationwide plus building up IOU's needed for a successful nationwide presidentcy and administration beyond.
Posted by herbal tee at April 20, 2006 07:00 PMI worked on the Kerry/Edwards campaign and I agree that Elizabeth shows up well. Especially in the midwest, she seemed like a real mom type, albeit one with a deep knowledge of policy. I don't know how Edwards' two Americas theme will play out in two years. I have a sense that the middle class will really start feeling the downward slide that has been masked by the ponzi scheme propping their real estate values sky high (out here in Calif. anyway). So they may identify with the poor, or they say, screw the poor, help me.
If the issue of the day is cleaning up corruption and sleaze, Feingold has the upper hand.
Posted by Mr. Larry at April 20, 2006 09:05 PMI don't know how Edwards' two Americas theme will play out in two years. I have a sense that the middle class will really start feeling the downward slide that has been masked by the ponzi scheme propping their real estate values sky high (out here in Calif. anyway). So they may identify with the poor, or they say, screw the poor, help me
That's the beauty of Edwards being such an effective communicator. The myth that we all are going to get rich speculating on stocks and real estate will die a hard death. It will take someone with Edwards' eloquence to show people, without patronizing them, that their future will be better if they identify with other working people rather those who have been selling elusive, nay imaganary freams for the last quarter century.
Posted by herbal tee at April 20, 2006 09:28 PMI'm 100% behind Edwards 2008. He's the only candidate with the guts to do what is right. He was the best candidate the last time and I hope the Democrats don't pass him over again. Unfortunately, in large fields, it's easy for a talented leader like Edwards to get stuck in between jokes like Gephardt and Lieberman. I suspect the main reason he was passed over was the "experience" nonsense (as if it mattered for Bush) so we had to go with Kerry, whose experience didn't prepare him that well to run a national campaign.
Posted by dole4pineapple at April 20, 2006 11:23 PMWell, whom ever runs needs to be someone who responds immediately to attacks, and hits back with force. The neocons can't afford to not be re-elected, so this will be a very nasty political season this fall and in '08.
Posted by Judith at April 21, 2006 03:30 AMSpending money on campaigns and seeking votes may not succeed even if the great majority of voters actually cast ballots for Democrats. It will not succeed in getting Dems to win.
For several years, I have been studying the technical details of electronic voting machines and the election process. Now, I am completely convinced that the voting process in the U.S. is totally broken. The voting machines simply have no integrity at all and are completely subject to fixing. Diebold DRE machines are particularly subject to being fixed, both at the precinct and at the county level. All it takes is a small group of insiders in the election office to fix the results for a full state.
I am convinced that the Dems will lose, no matter if they get sixty percent of the voters to cast ballots for them.
The only hope is that some whistle-blower comes forward, discloses enough information to create a scandal after the 2006 elections, and lives long enough to get the attention of our lousy MSM. We are lost until a scandal completely discredits the electronic voting machine system.
Otherwise, our Republic is lost.
Posted by JWP at April 21, 2006 05:54 AMJesus Christ, can't we get somebody new? Kerry wimped out on us, and didn't bother to fight with the recount. That ninny!Edwards is too redneck, although I love Dean, he's Done. Why doesn't Steve Soto run? Why not?
Posted by Mal Feasance at April 21, 2006 06:03 AMYes. John Edwards is the man. Most importantly, and most telling, he is the one who the GOP will not mention by name. They are petrified of him, as he will take their wedges and jam them up their asses.
Rove knows that Edwards will outflank him. He knows what's coming down the pike.
www.oneamericacommittee.com is Edwards' website. Check it out.
Posted by God Of War at April 21, 2006 06:06 AMMalfeasance said, "Kerry wimped out on us, and didn't bother to fight with the recount."
Kerry did not wimp out, he knew the voting machine fixes were so good that a recount would have been a futile act.
Posted by JWP at April 21, 2006 06:10 AM"Contacts close to the echelons of power in Pakistan's military headquarters, Rawalpindi, tell Asia Times Online that judging from the pattern of talks, all of the Muslim countries that side with the United States anticipate a US attack attack. on Iran around October." The October Surprise together with the fixed voting machines make for a very grim outlook for the country.
How the hell is the Republic to survive? I have no idea.
If ALL the Democrats choose to vote on paper rather than electronically it may slow down the theft of votes in Nov. If ALL the votes in the black boxes are Republican only - what will they have to manipulate? If ALL the ballots that are mailed in have a copy sitting at home - won't that give us some semblence of a paper trail? If it's the only way we can get one, shouldn't we try that? I agree that our outlook is grim, that's why I will try anything to even the playing field.
Posted by Dianne at April 21, 2006 07:51 AMDianne, I've heard that some states won't let you get an absentee ballot unless you're really unable to make it to the polls.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 21, 2006 08:43 AMThen we are screwed. They will steal this election, too. Anything to stay out of Leavenworth.
Posted by dianne dobbs at April 21, 2006 09:09 AMMy impression is that Kerry is a loser.
He really did not want the 04 election badly enough - otherwise, as you state, he would have challenged in Ohio. The republicans had a take no prisoners approach. I dont condone this, but in US politics its what it takes to win.
I think we need a candidate who is really hungry for the nomination and for the post of president.
Posted by TC at April 21, 2006 09:41 AMKerry needs to just go away. No one ever really liked him--he was just the Anybody but Bush candidate. Edwards--what's he up to these days anyway? He has no experience--one senate term that he didn't even show up for half of because he was busy running for prez. Clinton--too much baggage and too hated by too many people. I like Feingold, but I don't know if the country will go for a single (will be painted as gay unless Condi also runs) Jewish guy and senators never win. Warner, maybe, but he lacks experience. And as others have already mentioned, there's the voting machine issue, so what's the point anyway. *sigh*
Posted by CG at April 21, 2006 09:41 AMDianne,
Stop fudgeting about not getting absentee ballots. Right now whether you vote on a Direct Recording machine, an optical scanner, or an absentee ballor, it matter not. There is no assurance whatsoever that the vote you cast will be counted in favor of your candidate.
These are election management machines. They work great doing just what they were designed to do--fix elections. Until we can get real public visibility and inspection of all voting machines, software, and documents and have real recountable paper ballots in all elections, we are at the mercy of the people who control the election management systems. Who knows who is in control?
Right now, the entire election process has no integrity. Do not assume all of those in control are Republicans. It may be a bipartisan cabal.
CG wrote, "And as others have already mentioned, there's the voting machine issue, so what's the point anyway. *sigh*"
The "point" is many of us have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and Laws of the United States and we take the Oath seriously. Others of us love our country and believe that democracy is important. The Point is that the integrity of the election is the most important issue.
People in this country who truly are "Patriots" should work tirelessly to do everything in their skill and power to fix the election system. Without a fair and honest election system, we are no longer a free people.
So sorry for fudgeting. I'm worried about my children's future. What with peak oil, pandemics, global warming AND living under facism, they are in for a hell of a ride. We need competence & intelligence to carry this country through the upcoming years and I don't see it happening under the Republicans. Their corruption is too ingrained.
Posted by Dianne at April 21, 2006 10:21 AMmore and more, it looks like gore.
gore feingold
gore clark
gore boxer
kerry should give it up like he did in ohio.
Posted by benjoya at April 21, 2006 10:32 AMDianna,
I have four children. Two are too soon to be of draft age. Two are of prime age. I worry terribly too.
In spite of the terrible state of things, I still have faith in Americans. We just need not to give up.
Right prevails because of hard work by a few. As one pol I know said, "If you don't show up for political work, you'll never win." and it has a corrolary, "Those who show up win." We need more good people who believe in the civic good to show up. Keep recruiting!
Information is the key. Hopefully, some whistle-blower will start an election scandal or something else will happen.
We just have to keep being a "reality based community" and work on our less-than-enlightened friends, one friend at a time. Giving up is simply not acceptable.
Posted by JWP at April 21, 2006 10:39 AMNothing to pick from except a bunch of "Democrat" and "Republican" crooks and murderers that really work for the American oligarchs associated with big business. It's really a one (proto-Fascist) party system in the U.S. that pretends it's two.
Posted by at April 21, 2006 12:10 PMFor a whole host of reasons, I am pulling for John Edwards. He's the best speaker, the best looking speaker, the best thinker, has the best heart, and has been doing the best work. He can also win over the South.
I like others as well. Gore, Clark, Feingold, Kerry, Hillary, Obama. Hillary and Kerry may well have too many negatives. Obama lacks experience. Feingold doesn't bring new territory to the table. Clark and Gore seem like the strongest alternatives to Edwards. Clark might best be suited for Sec. of Defense though.
Seems to me that if Edwards and Gore -- arguably the two strongest speakers -- pooled their resources, an unbeatable team would follow.
Gore knows and connects with the White House, and Edwards knows and connects with the people.
Both are smart as can be.
Fact is, we have many excellent people to choose from. But still, we need to choose the best of the best.
Dave
Posted by anonyMoses at April 22, 2006 12:28 PM