John Edwards, gimma a break

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
Even Hilary does not support my views on the war (nor those of many dems) so for many, it's a choice between Obama and Edwards. I'm concerned about him becomming the Ralph Nader of this election, drawing votes away from a candidate with a better shot.

All three Democratic front runners have liabilities.

1. Obama's father is Muslim. Obama didn't publicly join a Christian church until he was 27 and that church is a "liberal" church." Don't think for a minute the Republicans will not make lots of noise about that. Lots of it. I have already read an conservative article condemning him for being pro Muslim and that he is pro Palestinian and not pro Jewish. He is a black candidate, but not one with Southern ties which would make a major difference in the South in the primaries, but in the general election won't matter that much as the Democratic nominee will get 90 % of the black vote.

2. Hillary is a woman who is perceived as a feminist and a far left liberal who is only in the center to get votes. I am confused though about Zora's view about the war. Hilllary is in favor of a pull out in Iraq before Bush leaves office. All Democratic candidates are. I don't see much difference in their views.

3. Edwards is very likable. But so far he is the most liberal of the three. And now he has a wife who will probably die. Zora has a valid point that should Mrs. Edwards health fail just at the right time after Edward's already has the nomination, it could affect the election.

While I am for Hillary. Edwards does carry the least personal liability in this election except for his wife's heath.

This is a situation where I like all three top runners personally and think all three would do a good job as President. Though I admit we haven't heard their particulars on how to solve some of our nation's problems.

The top three Republican candidates carry much more liabilities for the Republican voters. Any one of the present top three would probably give the election to the Democrats as the fundies who do have a lot of votes, would sit out the election. The fundies are already upset with the Republicans as it is. That is one reason the Democrats took Congress last November.
 

swordfishME

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Posts
960
Media
0
Likes
131
Points
263
Location
DFW Texas
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
Let me put an end to this myth:

Nationally, Edwards is currently polling in third place, behind Clinton and Obama, though he has been gaining on them throughout 2007. In Iowa, where the first caucuses are held, Edwards is consistently in the top two. (sources below)

Don't underestimate the strength of the Iowa caucuses -- John Kerry took the mantle from then-frontrunner (and pre-scream) Howard Dean in 2004. In fact, you have to go all the way back to 1992 to find an election in which the caucus failed to choose the eventual nominee from either party. (In that year, Iowans went for their own senator Harkin over Bill Clinton.)

Here are some poll results from Iowa showing the early advantage Edwards has there. Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack dropped out of the race in February.:

You seem to be a fairly intelligent guy so I don't really need to tell you that third and second place is not going to get him the nomination. HE knows and realizes this, and is banking on the sympathy vote to get him the nomination (inspite og what he says) and that is what I have a problem with.
 

D_Elijah_MorganWood

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Posts
5,220
Media
0
Likes
127
Points
193
If I decided to run for public office (God forbid) and my partner developed cancer, I could not in good conscience add the inescapable stress and strain of a political campaign to the already daunting task of fighting CANCER! People in my family have died from cancer despite plenty of time and attention and the best medical care money could buy.

Maybe Mr. Edwards considers this a calculated risk...
 

mindseye

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Posts
3,399
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
You seem to be a fairly intelligent guy so I don't really need to tell you that third and second place is not going to get him the nomination.

I shouldn't have to remind you that there are still eight months until the first primary. Early frontrunners rarely survive that long -- just ask Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas, or Howard Dean.

What Edwards has going for him is a willingness to make a decision he believes is right, while other candidates are still riding the fence. He was the first candidate to pull out of the Nevada Debate (source). He was the first candidate to call for Alberto Gonzales's resignation (source). He was the first candidate to unambiguously condemn Peter Pace's on-air remarks on homosexual service members (source).

His willingness to commit to a position first (a quality he lacked in the 2004 race, by the way) will make him a formidable presence in the first round of presidential debates. The first of these debates will be held April 26, and any eulogy for Edwards's campaign prior to that date, I believe, is premature.
 

Sklar

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2006
Posts
1,640
Media
25
Likes
3,494
Points
368
Location
Everett, Washington, US
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
It's funny, not as in ha ha but as in "really, I didn't know that" kind of way. Until he and his wife went on television to state that her cancer has returned, I have had heard nothing about Mr Edwards campaign at all aside from when he initially declared his candidacy (sp).

Since that time, the media has been barraging the airwaves with the Clinton vs Obama run for the Presidency. If we are to believe the media, only Clinton and Obama are running on the Democratic side.

If Mr Edwards wants to at least be remembered that he is running, he needs to start getting his message out on how he is going to be different from Clinton and Obama.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
I shouldn't have to remind you that there are still eight months until the first primary. Early frontrunners rarely survive that long -- just ask Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas, or Howard Dean.

What Edwards has going for him is a willingness to make a decision he believes is right, while other candidates are still riding the fence. He was the first candidate to pull out of the Nevada Debate (source). He was the first candidate to call for Alberto Gonzales's resignation (source). He was the first candidate to unambiguously condemn Peter Pace's on-air remarks on homosexual service members (source).

His willingness to commit to a position first (a quality he lacked in the 2004 race, by the way) will make him a formidable presence in the first round of presidential debates. The first of these debates will be held April 26, and any eulogy for Edwards's campaign prior to that date, I believe, is premature.


I'll be looking forward to the debates, and while I'm registering an opinion, he may prove me wrong, it wouldn't be that surprising. You asked if I had any reason for doubting his voracity, and the line I bolded of yours was the only knowledge I had of his political career on which to base such a judgement. He just didn't "appear" to be very strong. Of course, he could always pony up, and he sure will need to if he's going to face the likes of Karl Rove, who will be far less kind than some whiny bitch on the interweb.:biggrin1:

On a personal note, while you and I may disagree on a few items, I am very sorry to hear of your mother's illness, and I wish both of you well as you continue to cope.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
While I am for Hillary. Edwards does carry the least personal liability in this election except for his wife's heath.

This is a situation where I like all three top runners personally and think all three would do a good job as President. Though I admit we haven't heard their particulars on how to solve some of our nation's problems.

The top three Republican candidates carry much more liabilities for the Republican voters. Any one of the present top three would probably give the election to the Democrats as the fundies who do have a lot of votes, would sit out the election. The fundies are already upset with the Republicans as it is. That is one reason the Democrats took Congress last November.


Freddie, you brought up some very salient points on the liabilites for the three top contending dems wrt electability, and you are right that the repubs have them as well. While I keep hoping that we will eventually have an election that isn't a mud-slinging festival from BOTH sides, I doubt this will happen, especially when emotions are at such a feverish pitch as they are now.

I also like all three of the top runners among the dems, and Hilary comes with the added bonus of having Bill as at least an unofficial advisor. It would be interesting to see him as our first First Gentleman. The Clintons have always been centrists, and as much as I like that for a time when things are running fairly smoothly, as they were in 1992, it is just my personal opinion that at a time like we are in NOW, where the balance has been upset so dramatically, we need a bigger swing in the opposite direction to correct the balance. Hilary could be a strong leader, and she is the first woman running I would have even considered voting for, but right now I'd prefer a more dedicated liberal. She will certainly have my support if she wins the nomination (as would Edwards), but as of now, I'd prefer Obama.
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
Of course, he could always pony up, and he sure will need to if he's going to face the likes of Karl Rove, who will be far less kind than some whiny bitch on the interweb.:biggrin1:
And has Mindseye has commented many front runners have fallen before the nomination. Still, all the three Democratic front runners have an edge in their primary over the Republican front runners in their primary.

On the Democratic side, it is more of an issue of which one of the three is most likely to be able to win the election. There is not a big difference in opinion the Democratic candidates and the people who will vote in the Democratic primary.

On the Republican side, all three of the front runners are greatly distrusted by the rank and file voters who will vote in the Republican primary.

My feeling is that the Democratic candidate will be one of those top three. I don't think any of the top three Republicans will be the nominee.

But don't worry, the insiders in the Republican Party are researching all three, but won't reveal the dirt that they will throw until after the Democratic Convention.
 

mindseye

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Posts
3,399
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
On a personal note, while you and I may disagree on a few items, I am very sorry to hear of your mother's illness, and I wish both of you well as you continue to cope.

Thanks for the kind words. She developed breast cancer back in 1991, underwent a radical mastectomy at the time. The cancer resurfaced a few years later in her thyroid and her lymphatic system.

We're not wealthy people, but one of the best things my dad ever did for the family before he passed away was finding outstanding medical insurance for mom -- a level of coverage that you can't get from corporations these days. He got it through a small company that later on got bought out by BCBS, but BCBS is having to honor the terms of the policy. So she's getting really good care that people of our means wouldn't normally be able to afford.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Thanks for the kind words. She developed breast cancer back in 1991, underwent a radical mastectomy at the time. The cancer resurfaced a few years later in her thyroid and her lymphatic system.

We're not wealthy people, but one of the best things my dad ever did for the family before he passed away was finding outstanding medical insurance for mom -- a level of coverage that you can't get from corporations these days. He got it through a small company that later on got bought out by BCBS, but BCBS is having to honor the terms of the policy. So she's getting really good care that people of our means wouldn't normally be able to afford.


Oh, that's tremendous that he was able to secure that kind of insurance, and that she has apparently beat the odds making it as long as she has.

I am extremely poor, and have no insurance. I sometimes get "inconclusive" PAP results, and find it likely that one day I'll be dealing with cervical cancer, at the mercy of the state. I think I'd better change states before that happens, or I'll just have to accept a painful death.
I would not like to ba charged with running the nation if that eventually did come to pass, but perhaps it's unreasonable to expect Edwards to feel as I feel, since we are in completely different circumstances.

I can't help but be surprised that Elizabeth wouldn't want to be spending her time with her kids. I'm not trying to "judge" her for it, just trying to understand. If I knew I had a terminal illness, you couldn't pry me away from Julianna, for anything. I suppose we all see things from our own perspective, since it's all we have.
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
The Clintons have always been centrists,
Jana,

Publicly the Clintons have been centrists. And Bill may actually be one. I've known the Clintons for several decades now, not personally. But Bill was Governor of my home state. Hillary wants to run as a centrist. In reality her personal views are probably as far left if not more in some ways than the other candidates from what I have read about her while she was Arkansas' First Lady.

I've always believed the Clintons moved to the center only to get elected.

But I will admit that I don't know enough about Abama to know exactly where the two are different.

Part of me thinks that in reality there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the three top contenders except Edwards is a more Roosevelt traditional Democrat wanting to focus on protecting American jobs and the Clintons are for free trade. I don't know Obama's position on free trade.

I am waiting to see how the three are going to differ on universal health care. The system we have now rewards greed and is at the breaking point.

Clinton and Obama have the greater ability to restore America's good will throughout the world.

But I will say this is the first time that I have really liked the top three front runners and believe all three would do a great job as President.
 

swordfishME

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Posts
960
Media
0
Likes
131
Points
263
Location
DFW Texas
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
Thanks for the kind words. She developed breast cancer back in 1991, underwent a radical mastectomy at the time. The cancer resurfaced a few years later in her thyroid and her lymphatic system.

You mother is very lucky that she has been a survivor so long; you all should count that as a blessing (My own mother went from initial diagnosis to mastectomy to remission to recurrence and metastasis to death within a span of 3 1/2 years).

I do agree that the early front runners tend to fall; but it is highly unlikely that Edwards will get the nomination in the end and I have to believe that some part of him know this. He does not have much experience in politics (more than Obama though) and is almost as unelectable as Rodham-Clinton. I still would not understand but would accept if he were somewhat assured of the nomination and choose to continue his campaign. But this does not sit well with me.

Some of the posters on this thread are afraid that the election will be won by a republican and we have to realize that this is a very likely outcome. The Democratic Party does not have any viable candidates, and unlike the republicans the whole party never seems to be able to get wholeheartedly behind the eventual nominee.
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
Some of the posters on this thread are afraid that the election will be won by a republican and we have to realize that this is a very likely outcome. The Democratic Party does not have any viable candidates, and unlike the republicans the whole party never seems to be able to get wholeheartedly behind the eventual nominee.
Unfortunately for our nation this is true. Or the Democrats nominate a candidate so far to the left that the independents won't vote for him and that means a Republican victory.

Nominees have to "appear" to be close to the center to win, regardless of there "real" agenda. And that goes for both parties. The Republicans have done a masterful job at painting an extremely conservative candidate as a a progressive conservative or a centrist.
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Nominees have to "appear" to be close to the center to win, regardless of there "real" agenda.

So the prescription for success is to lie. Make the voters think they'll be getting one thing, but stick them with something else after it's too late. Is this supposed to be a good plan?

Good or bad, I suspect that all our political parties are already doing it. (Remember Wilson's 1916 slogan, "he kept us out of war"? Not for long, he didn't.) Hillary C is the most obvious about it, but she's by far the clumsiest of the batch, in a political sense. But the others are doing it too; they're just better at pretending otherwise.