Yeah, Hillary has such a strong foreign policy background, not!
Unless following your husband everywhere but the oval office for 8 years counts as "experience", her "experience" consists of voting for Bush's Iraq War and every vote to fund it for 4 years and not a whole lot else.
John Edwards knows a lot about poverty, after all, he’s helped throw a lot of people into it with:
- his co-sponsorship of H-1b visas,
- his support for illegal aliens,
- his vote for MFN-China
but what about stuff like iraq war and the patriot act?
well, he voted for them too
About the only think you can say for Edwards is, he spent so much time running for president that he didnt have time to do more damage as senator
You’ve got to ask yourself - ‘what did he do, with the power he had, when he had it?
Posted by Andy F at January 3, 2007 01:28 PMso, Andy, who's your pick?
Who should progressive Democrats rally around?
If not Edwards, who?
In an alternate universe, John Edwards never runs for president, but wins a narrow re-election in 2004. He and Hillary Clinton each give up White House ambitions and became two of the best damned senators the nation has ever known.
Edwards becomes legendary for his skill in crafting legislation and legislative majorities to address the economic and social problems of the early 21st century. Schools and hospitals are named for him.
One of the hallmarks of President Gore's second term is his nomination of Hillary Clinton to replace Chief Justice Roberts who retires in protest of his low salary and becomes a lobbyist for oil and mining interests.
Posted by James E. Powell at January 3, 2007 01:57 PMMost Democrats are nervous about Hillary being the nominee because they think she cannot win. Also Obama may not a right candidate because the whites in South and Midwest will not go for a black. So the only logical candidate is Edwards who can excite people to go out and vote for him. In 2004, Kerry advisors kept Edwards bottled-up instead of using his oratory skills to attack Bush administration policies. One of those several mistakes Kerry made.
Posted by suresh at January 3, 2007 02:07 PMWhy not Gore? He's already won once. I don't believe Hillary is electable because of her support of Bush and his war.
Posted by JohnT at January 3, 2007 02:24 PMRepublican landslide if Clinton runs....worst possible choice! Edwards is the one!
Posted by Goyo at January 3, 2007 02:30 PMLe Hill is such a pill.
Send your goons out to bash Obama.
When Gore announces, he'll make ya' holler!
Posted by Christopher at January 3, 2007 02:58 PMEvery Republican likely to run in 2008 is going to be easy to paint as a political insider with big money backing their candidacy. If Hillary takes the same tactic instead of being a candidate of hope for millions of Americans who believe it's time for serious reform, she's going to be in big trouble. 2008 is not going to be 1992; we're already in a different era. Hillary Clinton must adjust to the times or she will fall.
As Americans become increasingly aware of the problems facing our nation, including the problems Bush has brought upon us, they have to ask which candidates in 2008 are likely to address those issues as opposed to which ones are likely to give us business as usual. Hillary is a smart person but she has a lot of work to do.
Posted by Craig at January 3, 2007 04:02 PMSupport whomever you think will be the best President. Frankly, I can't see any of the Republicans winning. After all, only about 1/3 of the country (or less) would want another 4 years of the Bush doctrine.
Posted by Ga6thDem at January 3, 2007 05:32 PMsuppose the campaign operates on a theme of openness. barak obama has revealed something about himself. he has show himself to have some human honesty. is there someone among us who hasn't "sinned?" is it hilary? can she reveal something about herself that is not totally fabricated? let's hope we are entering a campaign where the patent fabrication of carefully constructed images, the "limited modified hangouts" of the individual whose character means more to the american democracy than any other aspect of position, will no longer be acceptable. lies are lies are lies no matter how well put together and they have led our national politics to a terrible place where the candidates offer no more than carefully designed images.
Posted by Joseph at January 3, 2007 05:38 PMNo repuke will win, unless it's against Hillary or Obama.
The Dems just need to throw up a married once, white, christian male, preferably from the south and their going to win.
I'd prefer Wes Clark decided to run. I think he has more experience than Obama, generates more passion than Edwards, and has leadership skills that Hillary lacks.
My preferred ticket for 08 is Clark/Obama or Clark/Richardson.
Posted by mperloe at January 3, 2007 07:16 PMI could accept just about any of the Democratic possibilites at this point. I would SERIOUSLY prefer it if they didn't spend the early months of the campaign kneecapping each other.
Hey guys! How about giving us some reasons to vote FOR you?
Posted by DeminNewJ at January 4, 2007 03:19 AMJohn Edwards is going to kick Hillary's triangulating, pandering ass, and I am going to enjoy every motherfucking second of it.
Posted by God Of War at January 4, 2007 05:48 AMal gore
Posted by dennis at January 4, 2007 06:54 AM