Why don't Democrats like John Edwards?

[rinsd]

His numbers in IA have been stagnant even though he has been campaigning there for 2 years.

His numbers in NH are dropping.

He has a measly 4 pt lead in his home state and that was less than it was a month ago.

According to the latest LA Times/Bloomberg poll, nationally he is in 4th with under double digit support.

According to Rasmussen, his apex of support was 18 pts 3 weeks ago though now he is down to 11pts.

RCP's average of the last 5 polls has his support at 10%.

Even his supposed strength in terms of GE matchups has flagged of late.

So what gives? Why is this former Presidential contender who should have more than enough cash ($14M in the 1st Q) struggling so?

[damntexdem]

1. The MSM has been very negative.

[Horse with no Name]

2. Do you really want me to tell you why?

It's because they (the hierarchy of the party) want an idealogical candidate.
Why do you think all the stupid inane stories about Edwards are splattered far and wide by the likes of Bob Shrum or Rahm Emmanuel or James Carville.
Those people have a vested interest in having more of the same--they want a piece of what the Republicans now enjoy--they don't want to change things.

[Catchawave]

3. Lieberman was leading at this point in '03

I'm not at all worried about the numbers at this point.

[acmavm]

4. He cares too much about the poor and not enough about

maintaining the DLC status quo. So he gets bad mouthed no matter what happens.

[Totally Committed]

25. To be honest, acmavm, a number of people I know feel that his

anti-poverty stance is too far away from his past stances to be genuine. Most think it's a cynical grab for votes. Others think it is a stab at reinvention that came at a time when people needed to know who he was and what he stood for. Whatever it is, not many are buying it. And, it's too bad, too, because this Party needs a stauch anti-poverty/anti-war candidate right now.

TC

[venable]

59. very few outside of here doubt his sincerity on poverty

you can see by the piece in NYT magazine this sunday, that Matt Bai's most favorable impression was that this cause is such a passion, almost to the exclusion of attending to political theatre. I take that as a positive.

[Telly Savalas]

160. Reinvention?

His whole 2004 campaign centered around that "Two Americas" theme. It's not like the anti-poverty thing is new.

[struggle4progress]

176. Uh, in his 1998 Senate campaign, Edwards was already sounding some themes you call "reinvention"

He refused to take PAC money in 1998 and highlighted lower and middle class issues.

[William769]

88. No one has yet still been able to explain to me his vote on the Bankruptcy bill.

Saying one thing and voting another says alot to me. So much for the poor. :eyes:

[Apollo11]

5. Is it the hair thing - or his accent?

Or the unofficial campaign slogan "Obama was right. I was wrong."

Just guessin' ... ;)

[polichick]

6. Maybe they're not sure if he's real...

He and his wife seem like lovely people, but I'm not sure how much of what he says is done purely for politics and how much is truly how he feels. He sponsored the war bill, but now is a peace candidate; fights for the poor but lives like a shallow rich guy, complete with ridiculously priced haircuts and tons of square footage. I don't know ~ looks like two different pics to me. Which one is real?

[Totally Committed]

17. This is what most of my friends who are voters seem to be concerned about...

his authenticity seems to be in question with a lot of people. Oddly enough, most of them are women. Men don't seem to have nearly as much of a problem with him as women I know do.

TC

[polichick]

22. Maybe it's just feminine intuition...

Or maybe we've all had enough experience with good-lookin' slick-talkin' men to make us wonder! :)

[Totally Committed]

23. I think so, too...

:)

TC

[Coyote_Bandit]

7. Ummmmm

(1) relatively little experience
(2) voluntarily left office rather than continue to serve - therefore many consider him an opportunist rather than a public servant
(3) pretty boy charismatic image
(4) smarmy trial lawyer image of somebody who would say anything to win
(5) rich boy out of touch with working class
(6) some of the fundies around here like him so he probably isn't liberal enough for many Dems
(7) widely thought to be selling hope rather than substance
(8) a fair number of folks think the prognosis for his wife is not good and that he should attend to her and her well being rather than public affairs

Take your pick. Personally, I like him. But I'm not at all convinced he can win the general election. And if I can't be convinced of that I will not vote for him in the primary.

[TwilightGardener]

10. You sum it up well. I think he's a good guy, but he never struck me

as someone who could win a general election--there's just too much that GOPers can use on him, and he doesn't have the charisma/presence to overcome the weak spots. To me, he will always be VP material.

[venable]

60. he has the best chance in the general

and last weeks rasmussen poll - sorry i don't have it right here - has him as the only dem who beats ALL republicans.

the ONLY dem.

[BootinUp]

114. The only Dem in that particular poll.

minor correction.

[LeFleur1]

135. Ummmmm

9) He missed a whole lot of votes on bills when he was a Senator.
10) He voted to give Bush permission to invade Iraq even though he was on THE committee and saw information other Senators, not on the committee, did not see.

[lostinacause]

145. It good to see that you take into account the expected preformance in the

general election. It seems that not many people do. Sending someone who is likely to perform poorly into the general election is functionally the same as voting to have a Republican in office.

[amandabeech]

178. (9) makes other rich people uncomfortable 'cause they think that he

wants their money.

(10) made his money by suing bad doctors and bad corporations, not defending them.

(11) didn't start out in life as middle class.

(12) went to NC State, not Carolina. If you know what that means.

Novak is calling him a class warrior in the Post.

[Vinca]

8. I supported him until he came out with "universal health insurance."

I also started questioning his judgement when his campaign, which centers around poverty issues, had to fend off haircut prices and giant homes. Sure, other candidates do the same thing, but most of them make no bones about being money-grubbing rich guys. I was also not impressed with his last debate performance. Lastly, didn't he lose his own state in the 2004 election? I could vote for him in the general election, but my primary vote is going to Kucinich.

[Pastiche423]

91. Yes, he indeed lost North Carolina in the '04 primary

[struggle4progress]

159. Thompson, Edwards Lead in North Carolina

June 10, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Fred Thompson is the most popular United States presidential contender for Republican Party supporters in North Carolina, according to a poll by Public Policy Polling. 37 per cent of respondents in the Tar Heel State would vote for the actor and former Tennessee senator in the 2008 primary.

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani is second with 25 per cent, followed by Arizona senator John McCain with 14 per cent, and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney also with 14 per cent.

In the sample of Democratic Party supporters, former North Carolina senator John Edwards is first with 30 per cent, followed by New York senator Hillary Rodham Clinton with 26 per cent, and Illinois senator Barack Obama with 22 per cent. ~snip~

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/16057

[Pastiche423]

164. This has what to do w/the 2004 primary?

[struggle4progress]

171. Thread title "Why don't Democrats like John Edwards?" and subthread apparently discussing

North Carolinians' attitudes towards Edwards: seems to me a whole messa NC Dems do like Edwards

[Pastiche423]

173. The subthread is about the 2004 primary

"Seems to me"

Now that's what I call very scientific.

lol

Seems to me a whole messa NC Dems are extremely pissed off at him for ignoring them while he played senator.

[struggle4progress]

175. (1) Edwards was an exceptionally available senator during his term:

anyone who wanted to, had a regular opportunity to meet him face-to-face to raise issues of concern. There are, of course, always some members of Congress whose office doors are actually locked against anyone except their lobbyist pals; more generally, it can be hard to get face time with a typical elected federal office. Any constituent who really wanted to talk to Edwards, could. I know because I tried it.

(2) Regarding his supposed unpopularity in NC, here's a post containing a link to some polling data: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3313059&mesg_id=3315828

[Pastiche423]

184. You met him fact to face

any time you had an issue? I call bullshit.

He never once answered my emails, phone calls or letters. And I am far from alone. Hell, we din't even get a courtesy form letter.

But then, we were not big donors.

He is simply a poseur.

[struggle4progress]

186. He answered my letters, and I wasn't a big donor.

Then again, living in NC, I was actually one of his constituents. If you wrote from Oregon, he probably just followed common practice on the Hill and forwarded your letter to your elected officials.

[Pastiche423]

189. Why would I have written him from Oregon

when I din't live there?

[struggle4progress]

190. Seems ya didn't live in NC either back then, since ya invented a 2004 NC primary ya say Edwards lost

despite the fact that our primary that year was canceled and replaced by a "caucus" vote (which Edwards in fact won).
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3313059&mesg_id=3313556

So yer spouting dishonest wingnut talkin points

[Pastiche423]

191. Wrong

I lived in Charlotte when he was running for the senate. I even voted for the poseur. Luckily, I moved away, 18 months into his term.

It's nice having a Dem senator that not only returns emails, but holds town meetings, even in the small town where I live now.

What "wingnut talkin" points? I do not like johnny boy. Din't when we were young and don't like him now.

A little lesson for you... just because someone says something about your candidate that you don't like, IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE A WINGNUT.

You desperately need a education in politics.

[struggle4progress]

192. Ana lil lesson fer ya: yer more credible if ya don't make up phony history

[Pastiche423]

194. lol

What is phony about my history?

[struggle4progress]

195. Yawn. Point raised earlier in #190.

#190

[Pastiche423]

196. What point?

[struggle4progress]

187. Whether you want to "call bullshit" or not, it is true that Edwards regularly scheduled

time as a Senator to meet with ordinary people. If you didn't know about that, it's not my fault.

[Colobo]

9. 08 is the year of change.

Edwards is a great guy but he doesn't represent change, while Hillary and Obama do.

[Horse with no Name]

11. Hillary and Obama represent CHANGE?

:rofl:

[Colobo]

13. First woman president, first black president

That's what capturing the imagination of people and the media.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

15. That's it. There is no actual substantive change in their platforms

What you said is telling. There is nothing in their platforms suggesting real change (not that they are bothering to run on their platforms when running on biography or personality is working, and better for the GE because you can morph your vague primary campaign and image into whatever is convenient for the GE). The only change they represent is superficial. Is that going to help those who remain in Iraq under them? Edwards represents change on Iraq--not those who seek to an unspecified number of troops there for an unspecified length of time (at least 10 years in HRC's case. Obama has not bothered to give voters any ballpark figure, although he has been kind enough to tell us rabble what his name means).

HRC in particular is not a change candidate. After all, her campaign is largely based on what someone else did in the 1990's.

Obama poses as a change candidate but on actual policy he sounds like HRC-lite. The only real difference between them on policy is that HRC says she will propose universal health insurance while Obama's plan would leave at least, under a rosy scenario, 15 million people uninsured. On health care, Obama is closest to the status quo of the major Dem candidates.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

134. Just because they are a woman or minority doesn't mean they will change things.

People who thought Sandra Day O'Connor was going to radicalize the SCROTUS were mistaken.

Just because someone is a woman or minority doesn't mean they will change anything. A lot of people don't realize that. Oftentimes they go along with the status quo and keep their mouth shut.

Hillary and Obama are Establishment candidates and NOT liberal at all.

[saracat]

18. What crappy reasons to vote for either!

[Totally Committed]

19. And, that's about it. Period.

There is no substantive differences in their that represent a break from the past in any way.

TC

[Horse with no Name]

21. Let's be "real"--shall we?

Neither represents change from the status quo.
I wouldn't vote for either one based on the fact of being the First Woman President OR the First Black President any more than I would NOT vote for them for those reasons.

[LBJDemocrat]

86. I know, right?

:lmao:

[Critters2]

12. Hillary represents change?!!!!! How do ya figure?

She's just another DLC shill.

[Totally Committed]

16. Yeah, but she's a female DLC shill.... that's change of a kind, I guess.

Right? :sarcasm:

TC

[edwardsfeingold08]

53. By change, do you mean things like speeding up global warming?

The coal industry has done more than any other to degrade our atmosphere and threaten our future. Now coal barons want to further degrade the atmosphere by creating liquid fuel. And Barack Obama wants taxpayers to pay them to do it.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/5/11/113643/964

[venable]

62. wow. please take a look at their policies, and tell me you believe this

his problem is precisely that he proposes a radical change, while H and O are proposing the status quo.

[BlueStater]

73. Hillary represents change?

Thanks for the laugh of the day. This power grab between the Bushes and Clintons nothing short of disgusts me.

[calteacherguy]

14. If I say I'll be accused of being a freeper, being a tool of the MSM, repeating right-wing

talking points, etc., etc., etc.

Edit: What polichick said upthread, for starters.

[jenmito]

20. I'll tell you why I don't like him...

Most are very shallow reasons, admittedly, but I can't help it:

When he speaks his tongue always seems visible and he does this strange tongue motion when he seems stressed

I can accurately predict every single time he's going to touch his face. He's always rubbing his face, touching his chin, putting his finger on his cheek, rubbing his mouth, etc., and I KNOW when it's coming...every time. It's as if he was trained to do this as a way to get people to look at him or something. Doesn't seem natural to me.

The way his suits fit him bugs me. Why is his shirt always seen under his lowest button on his suit jacket? Whenever he lifts his arm his shirt is exposed as if his suit is too small. Or maybe he should undo that button.

When he's in a debate he looks at his opponent/s with an annoyed look. Also, in his debate with Cheney in '04, he took sips of water every few seconds it seemed, and again, his tongue kept darting out for some reason.

His work for a hedge fund excuse (that he was trying to learn what they're all about) seemed insincere.

Now that he's out of the Senate he has the luxury of bashing those Dems. running against him who are still IN the Senate, and he bashes them for whatever they do, as if HE was such a Senator when HE was in the Senate. He is Mr. anti-war now that it's the popular thing to be.


I KNOW I'll get attacked for this post but this is how I feel and I can't help it as I said before.

[saracat]

30. You are correct.Your reasons are "shallow" and silly. If I didn't personally like Edwards the fact

Elizabeth Edwards respects him enough to marry him and support him would guarantee my vote alone.You ,however, are entitled to your opinion, however silly I may find it.

Edwards is lucky that you were not on any of his juries, most of whom found him spell binding. Each to his own.

[jenmito]

39. I know. I admitted it...

You have a good point about Elizabeth, though. I just don't like him. Sorry. But I WILL vote for him if he's the Dem. candidate.

[durrrty libby]

48. Don't feel bad jenmito. Some students from a nearby

university were over my home recently.

I was watching the dem debate and these guys ( 3 in late 20's)

started making fun of Edwards' voice and accent. They were brutal

I was pretty shocked because these were southern guys

They said they can't stand him

Me, I'm lukewarm about him, and would support him if he were nominated.

But that will not happen

[jenmito]

87. Thanks, durrrty libby...

I would support him IF nominated, too. :hi:

[Adelante]

46. Somebody likes somebody enough to marry him

And that guarantees your vote? Most people have somebody who likes them that well. That is the silliest, the shallowest reason yet, saracat.

[BootinUp]

115. oops

you nailed that one.

[jenmito]

127. I gotta agree...

It's a pain being such an open-minded liberal. :D

[saracat]

128. But it isn't just anybody who married and supports him.It is Elizabeth Edwards who is one of the

most honest and decicasted people I know.She is also one of the smartest.There is a world of difference between her support and say that of Laura Bush. Elizabeth is someone worth listening too.

[venable]

64. he is right to bash them for the tardiness of their vote, as he led earlier

when he was only one of 12 or 13, i believe, to vote against the initial 87B supplemental funding bill for the war.

[midnight]

143. I had to read this because I am no where close to deciding

on a candidate. Although after reading this, I thought if this is the worst stuff about Edwards that you could reveal, then maybe he is worth another look. I like his concern for the poor. His ideas on health care for the mentally ill. Treat mental illness like any other health care issue. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[jenmito]

158. No problemo...

I had a few real issues there in the end. But all the things I wrote are how I feel. Thanks for not yelling at me. :)

[wyldwolf]

24. I'll give you my two cents

It's his populist class war message. Unlike Bill Clinton, who campaigned on a populist-like message of "I'll make things better for everyone," Edwards has chosen to make this a lower/middle class vs. upper class conflict. Us vs. the rich people. That message has never resonated well in American politics because it is the American dream to become rich. To the average lower/middle class American, Edwards is saying that what we strive to be is something to be loathed.

[calteacherguy]

29. Interesting.

I don't think that's the primary reason...but it's an interesting point you make. I think there are also questions about his integrity, his preparation to be leader of the free world, and other issues as well.

[saracat]

31. No more questions than those regarding Obama.

[calteacherguy]

49. I would agree that experience is an issue with Obama as well.

Although I think most would agree Obama has more leadership potential than Edwards. Edwards is more of a known quantity.

[ksclematis]

157. It's hard to believe....

the reasons some would or would not vote for a candidate for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the leader of the free world!!!! What experiences in leadership, strategy, foreign policy, etc, etc, have either of the discussed candidates shown in their political lives? A preveious poster asked why JE did not run for Senator again, but rather set up housekeeping in Iowa in pursuit of a POTUS nomination. Good question! BO has not been showing up in the Senate to vote on some of the vital issues which needed more Dem. votes..... How much policy and strategy regarding the Iraq war has either spoken about....which, by the way, is probably the most important global issue at the moment....what with Joe Momemtem promoting war with Iran? Let's prioritize.....

Let's get with the issues which could totally destroy this country,and discuss how to save our freedoms (which we have already lost some by the current administration) instead of how precisely one wears his suit, cuts his/her hair, or how he puts his finger/hard to his face, how wealthy they are - hell, they're all wealthy, except Wes Clark, who could share first hand about poverty.

And, Wes Clark is undoubtedly the most qualified of any candidates or non-candidates for the highest, most difficult job in the world, and is working his tail off to be able to afford a campaign, among other reasons. He could be spending his retirement with his family on vacation watching the world go by and comment "that's somebody else's concern...I've served my country for 34+ years".

[BlueStater]

183. Experience is overrated, really

Nixon had a lot of experience and his presidency really hurt this country. Reagan had experience as governor of California and was a terrible president (although the media and GOP continues to lie about him). The Chimp's father had much experience and he was a mediocre president at best.

Now look at someone like Lincoln whom I don't believe had a lot of experience when he went into the presidency and he is considered one of the greatest we've ever had.

I certainly trust Edwards and Obama regarding Iraq more than any of the schmucks the GOP is offering up.

[wyldwolf]

35. I don't think many would answer that way if you asked them, but I'm sure it is a motivating factor.

[polichick]

50. Yet...

Much of his support comes from the well-to-do, according to a recent post. What are they seeing?

[BootinUp]

116. This is unfortunately true

but then I have yet to see anyone that could build consensus like Bill Clinton (without invoking hatred fear and bigotry that is.)

[midnight]

144. Let me share something that I just read from poster Wilms. It

lists several prayers for peace and consciousness, but the thought that I believe will be most important to reflect upon is not that it is wrong to strive for wealth, but that "There is enough for everybody's needs,but not for everybody's greed". On Gandhi's gravestone: "Think of the poorest person you have ever seen and ask if your next act wil be of any use to him." I hope that America will be very wealthy, and responsible to the needs of other's.

[PATRICK]

177. So who is the super vote getter?

There hasn't been one since Eisenhower whose WWII leadership status overshadowed even his strengths. The landslides were won by second termers, earned or unearned. The Dems haven't had one godlike messiah since FDR at just the right time(who chose not to lose earlier when he endorsed Al Smith, whose turn had come to lose stoutly).

But let's look at JFK, perhaps the greatest speaker since FDR, the most athletic appearing, attractive, heroic war record(unbesmirched in those pre-Swiftboat days), liberal but hawkish, you didn't have to be an unabashed populist because many insiders were still FDR libs(still unbesmirched even in the Red Scare days), charming wife, etc. You name it and almost every flaw was eiher totally unknown or not covered by the media. Yet he was a longshot against Nixon, using the new black vote pragmatically, outcheating Nixon selectively, winning the first sneak TV charm attack in the first televised debate, which true to media form favored Nixon on the radio and in the newspapers. He squeaked through against perhaps the ugliest, most naturally detestable candidate the GOP had to put up when the die was cast after Eisenhower to foist true GOP "quality" once and for all upon America almost as an insult. This before half of the now traditional GOP money, media and fraud machine.

Why? Because of general impressions, much like those listed above and against other Dem candidates, cultivated or originated by the raw ill will of entrenched social ills and the RW winds that filled GOP sails like a black wind from Hell. Because he was deemed too inexperienced in a Cold War age of fear, too this or that, too tough on a more credentialed liberal like Humphrey and at odds with the southern conservatives like LBJ. We have irritating intra party politics today too. This is why the fearful wisdom that this election will be close persists and is hard to argue against, why we feel on the defensive and uncomfortable with all our mortal heros. How would JFK fare today, or perhaps Bill Clinton(harder to imagine becuase he has been too much part of the current adaptation)? And what does the difficult electorate think at any stage in this tricky process? A puzzle needsd perspective before trying again for a solution. Today, Edwards is doing just fine. Imponderables about whether he will take off and win or the same for any candidate will plague us until election night finally delivers the nation back to a semblance of democracy. The GOP meanwhile searches for a Frankenstein combo of an Eisenhower stature(impossible) Reaganesue charm(phony) and pliable dynasty puppet mind mush and character(incompetent loser) and somehow tries to put that stamp on whatver crawls out from under their rotting log cabin. And yet the sense even among bitter rank and file GOP disapproval and a criminally discredited establishment machine is that they have an edge, will be hard to be beat and an instant popular acceptance ready to be conferred. Sometimes I think(know) that our pretended party kingmakers and advisers envy that devilish edge to spin gold out of straw instread of trying to keep the mud from clinging to our natural gold.

Time and democracy and the individual candidate. Wait and see. We can't reformulate DNA and brainwash the masses to settle this and no candidate can. Hopefully we all can make progress this time to reforming the electoral process that has led to such anomalies as saying we know people will flock to Hillary because of these various reasons not to vote for Edwards or Obama. The situation is nuts. We just have to do our best with an eye to reforming the more irrational, criminal and fraudulent nuttiness as time goes by. Nothing here hasn't been said about Kerry or Bill or Gore or other eventual nominees(or should have beens) in one form or another.

One thing about presenting Edwards as the better candidate to take the most is that no one had suggested he'd guarantee a landslide or that JFK didn't just squeak by with more natural gifts than other candidates. Nor has that argument run its course. Nor is the present primary system and MSM and ill informed public a perfect tool to determine it, just the only one we have.

[Bitwit1234]

26. I think he would be a good president as well as all the others.

BUT I think his connection with John Kerry when he ran is holding the man down. And it is a shame. But people are going to have that in their mind and nothing will change it.

[tritsofme]

27. We have better alternatives.

Than a senator who decided to run for president four years ago because he couldn't win reelection.

[venable]

65. he would have won NC in 04

polls say as much.

[Pastiche423]

93. What polls?

The voters would not say as much. He was an absent senator and treated his constituents like crap.

He lost North Carolina in the '04 primary.

That says a lot for the home boy.

[Awsi Dooger]

105. Brilliant, you put something in bold and get it wrong

Edwards won the 2004 North Carolina caucus easily, nearly doubling Kerry's support. It was late in the game and admittedly meaningless, but to make a case of Edwards' weakness by asserting he lost his home state in the '04 presidential primaries is frankly incompetent. He didn't run for senate re-election so obviously he wasn't in that primary.

This is a tired and phony argument, that Edwards would have lost the senate race in '04. It's comparable to the assertions that Clinton would have lost to Bush in '92 minus Perot. A retread loser like Erskine Bowles lost the senate race by 4 points to Burr. If Edwards had committed to the senate race he would have defeated Burr fairly handily. You know how difficult it is to oust an incumbent? We lost the open Southern senate races in '04, not incumbent races. Edwards had very good numbers in the North Carolina exit poll in 2004, a net favorable approval rating. That translates to victory, if he had pursued the senate seat.

[Pastiche423]

119. Did you live in N.C. from 1999-2004?

Were you one of his constituents?

If not, you have no clue as to how disappointed many North Carolinians were of him. The senate was a mere stepping stone to the presidency race for johnny boy.

Fortunately, it din't work.

[BootinUp]

121. I moved from there in '97

Of course I wasn't paying near as much attention to politics then. I missed the whole Edwards thing. I do remember Gannt losing for the Senate, that hurt.

[NCarolinawoman]

129. He first went to Iowa in January of 2001.

This was about two years after he got elected to his first and only term in the Senate, I still don't understand why he felt he was qualified to be President.

And yes, he pretty much ignored his constituents.

[Alcibiades]

161. Dole's the worst

on that score. After having had Dole and Burr in the Senate, I think most of us would take Edwards back in a heartbeat.

[Adelante]

170. Well, it wasn't a real primary, but he did win it

He was already out of the primary race. It was a tarted up caucus as part of the VP campaign. Hardly anybody voted in it. He got 10,000 votes and won. That's how I remember it.

[struggle4progress]

188. Yeah, the real primary was canceled due to the Rs eternal redistricting lawsuits

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. It's not that Democrats don't like him. They just like other candidates more

[PBass]

118. I agree with Freddie Stubbs, it's a matter of comparison.

I don't think I know anyone who actively dislikes Edwards. But I do know some people who like Obama "more". If the other '08 primary candidates were Lieberman, Biden, Sharpton and Kerry, I think you would see a LOT more excitement about Edwards. The Dems have a good field, and as a result some good candidates will end up losing the primary. It's a tough race with several potential winners.

I do like Edwards a lot, and think he would be a good president. But if there is anything I can say against him, it's that he doesn't exude the same "gravitas" as some of the other candidates. For example (looking backwards) I thought he won the VP debates against Cheney on substance, but lost them on "style" (presentation). He doesn't have a heavy serious vibe, like I wish he had. I would like to see a Democratic presdent with a commanding presence... so far, I haven't seen Edwards be able to pull that off, consistently. With the various crisis that America faces because of Bush's incompetence, the Dems really need someone who comes off as being "in command" at all times. (IMO)

Also, I think I agree with the idea that Edwards' message about the "two Americas" possibly making some financially successful folks a little uneasy. I like the sentiments but I don't know if it's a winning message, as the central plank in a campaign strategy. Get beyond that, please.

And Mr Edwards (if you are reading this) PLEASE do not attack other Democratic candidates in order to score points for yourself. Keep it positive, keep it forward-looking, and talk about the issues. I think the "circular firing squad" approach will really turn Dem voters off, in 08.

[ripple]

32. He comes across as too much as a salesman

I know it's his trial lawyer experience coming through, but while he's a good speaker, there is something about his presentation that brings to mind a used car salesman.

I also think people can see through his armchair quarterbacking about issues he is not in a position to actually vote for. When he was in a position to vote, he botched things horribly.

I like Edwards, BTW, but these are just a couple of reasons he isn't at he top of my list.

[saracat]

34. I find it somewhat disconcerting that any Dem would utlise such

an insidious description as "car salesman" to associate one of our candidates. This is a "swiftbaoting phrase that I feel best belongs on the other side of the aisle.

[renie408]

37. You mean swiftboating like the OP??

This whole thread is a swiftboating effort. I HATE it. So you want Hillary to be the nominee? Or Obama? Fine. Let them stand head and shoulders above the rest because they are the BEST, not because they/their supporters beat down other candidates.

[rinsd]

41. Discussing Edwards poll numbers is swiftboating?

I must have missed you on the dozens of "Hillary is unelectable" threads started by Edwards supporters.

:eyes:

[edwardsfeingold08]

51. The thread title is baiting.

I'm not planning on voting for Chris Dodd in the primary at this point. But, I'm a Democrat and I like him.

Unless you use favorability polls, I don't see how draw the conclusion that democrats don't like Edwards because he is not moving up in the polls. Since you bring up Clinton, she has pretty high unfavorables in the general election which is why people are concerned with her electability.

[rinsd]

52. Perhaps, "Why Don't Democrats like Edwards as their Candidate" may have been better. (nt)

[ripple]

40. It was an honest assessment

in response to the question posed by the OP. As I said, I like Edwards- I certainly have no desire to *swiftboat* him.

Overreactions such as yours only serve to stifle frank and honest discussion.

[Bucky]

47. "Car salesman" is a cheap shot, but it's hard to argue against someone's feelings

I'll support Edwards wholeheartedly if he's nominated. I sometimes feel tempted to support him for the nomination. I certainly admire his committment to putting the needs of the disadvantaged on the front burner. But that said, there is something of a poser to him. I can't quantify it, but my spidy sense kept on hitting yellow flags whenever he spoke in 2004. He seemed too much on the surface; he came across as a little bit of an Elmer Gantry, or at least a boy Oprah.

I've gotten used to his idiomatic style since then. I've got to the point where I see that it's just as important to seem to be sincere as to be sincere. But his practiced sincerity is still a potential turn off for people who aren't already certain he's on the side of the angels.

Please don't accuse people of mimicking Republican talking points if they simply express their views nn ways you find uncomfortable. That way lies divisiveness.

[tammywammy]

96. That's it for me

I work at a car dealership and he comes across as one of those slick salesmen. The ones I instantly dislike. I know they're liars and will do anything to move a vehicle.

[venable]

123. well, that's your opinion, but many feel otherwise, including those who know him well

[tammywammy]

168. And that's fine

I figured we're allowed to express our opinions on the candidates. The sleezy car salesmen that I work with also had friends. :shrug:

I'm not actively saying no one should support Edwards. :shrug:

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. First, tens of millions of Democrats like John Edwards

and millions like him very much indeed. I like John Edwards, I just don't like him as our potential Presidential candidate, and I think it is critical that we not forget that distinction. It is possible to admire much about John Edwards and still be critical of him in regards to whether he should be our first choice for President. We are in an extended political primary season, and like it or not that means that we are forced to compare Democratic apples to Demorcratic apples, not to Republican oranges. We can't vote for every Democrat who wants to be President, only one per voter. That fosters competitive instincts, not collegial ones.

I personally think that all the hardships that have befallen the Edwards family, along with the many blessings that they have also received, have prepared them for a mission in life of great significance. I just believe that ultimately they will find that the mission awaiting them isn't the Presidency. I don't think that is what John Edwards is best prepared for. But I very much wish both him and Elizabeth well and am very grateful that they are the powerful and progressive Democrats that they are.

[renie408]

36. Thank you. I like John Edwards, but I respect and appreciate your opinion. n/t

[venable]

67. great post TR

as you know, I like him as Pres. but mainly I appreciate the wisdom and clarity of your post.

[PATRICK]

179. Don't take this the wrong way anyone

but I accept this personal take from a Clark supporter(?) but would find it requiring more vigorous defense from the other two tier candidates. otherwise are our truly best progressive people better off in exile in "higher callings" like Carter and Gore? But if this is weighing desireable experience and characteristics in this time a different argument could be made solidly for Clark.

[Joe Chi Minh]

38. They do. You people are just gullible. You've no sense of the

spirit of the time, and the memory of a mayfly.

Remember the Rooseveltian popularity of Kerry his running mate, not so long ago? Kerry's outlook was evidently similarly sympathetic towards the welfare of the American people as a whole, not just the wealthy and the comfortably-off. A one-nation Democrat.

[AtomicKitten]

42. I want to like him.

I just have a hard time moving beyond his leading the charge to invade Iraq.

Yeah, I realize he has apologized profusely. But issues such as war and death are not amenable to do-overs.

It's too bad, really. He has an interesting platform. But he has also had baptism by fire and failed, and that's something that cannot be easily swept under the carpet.

Perhaps I can interest folks in a fellow named Al Gore. :woohoo:

[rinsd]

43. Gore is hanging around with 15% when included in polls (nt)

[AtomicKitten]

44. Actually when formally included in polling

he does better than 15%.

I am confident if he does jump in, the polling will go berserk and settle out quite differently.

[shimmergal]

149. No, coming to reason about Iraq late

is not as good as being against the war from the beginning. But your phrase "war and death are not amenable to do-overs" sounds a little strange. True, when people have been killed you can't bring them back. OTOH, isn't a "do-over" what we're trying to get the boy-king to do with his Iraq policy? Of course he's stupidly resistant, but still we're trying. . .

[sneakythomas]

45. I don't like trial lawyers.

Actually malpractice lawyers, due to a family connection. We won, but only after spending untold time and money that could have been put to better uses.

This may belong under the "shallow reasons" category, but I'll have to live with that.

Edwards is just a bit to slick for me, like he's been standing in front of a mirror practicing.

[ieoeja]

54. I agree. Victims shouldn't be allowed lawyers.

Only criminals should be allowed lawyers. Fuck the victims.

Did you forget your :sarcasm:?

[sneakythomas]

63. No, I did not forget my sarcasm

Lawyers like John Edwards have driven up the cost of medical care, and are busily enriching themselves in the process. There are small towns with no ob/gyn care because the doctors can't afford the malpractice insurance. This is not helping us out.

[venable]

69. that is not true - malpractice premiums are tied to the stock market

and insurers need to maximize profits, or cover losses in the stock market.

malpractice suits have virtually no effect on premiums for doctors who have not been successfully tried for malpractice.

you are simply repeating the myth....

[depakid]

76. And you can find proof of that in Texas and Florida

which capped damages- and saw sizable increases in premiums!

Of course, neither the MSM or the corrupt and factually challenged far right will ever mention that....

[sneakythomas]

89. Explain that to the doctors in my family.

One of whom is a Nobel Laureate, another is also doing research, and the third is in private practice. At least two of the three are firm democrats. I hear the same thing from all of them.

[ieoeja]

90. And ZERO of whom are in the insurance industry.

The buyer is not the expert here. The seller is.

[sneakythomas]

94. So why

did insurance premiums go up so much during the 90's? The stock market went from like 4000 to 11000, and malpractice premiums also went up by huge amounts (400% or more).

[sneakythomas]

95. So why

did insurance premiums go up so much during the 90's? The stock market went from like 4000 to 11000, and malpractice premiums also went up by huge amounts (400% or more).

[venable]

125. the insurace complanies were given free rein to do what they wanted

look at their profits in that decade - both in the market and via premiums.

[amandabeech]

180. They were making up for the money that they lost in the '80s,

and going for "shareholder value" just like Bob Rubin told them to. Plus, a lot of them lost big in the savings and loan mess of the Bush I years.

They are incredibly greedy creatures.

[venable]

103. what do you hear? that malpractice suits raise premiums?

not sure which you are affirming.

IF you are saying that the doctors in your family believe that malpractice suits raise premiums, then they are wrong, no matter how many Nobel Laureates are amongst them.

As doctors what they will see is that their premiums are raised, and they will hear from those who have not studied this, and from right wingers, that this raise is due to malpractice lawyers (many of whom give voice to wronged and voiceless people). It is easy to say, but it is not true.

Those economists who have studied this in great detail claim that it is the fluctuations of the stock market that effect premiums.

Anyway, I'm not sure which side you say your family believes is the case, probably due to some thickness on my part.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

133. Malpractice premiums are based on what your specialty is.

It's not based on how often you are sued, merely on what your specialty is.
It has nothing to do with your competence as a doctor.

The insurance companies are gouging the doctors, after they sold the doctors on "tort reform". The insurance companies didn't lower the premiums.

The real problem is the state medical boards, which do not discipline and take away licenses to practice medicine. I have known of several doctors who committed horrific malpractice and large judgments were awarded against them. They just move to another state and keep practicing.

There are only a small percentage of doctors who commit malpractice, and the state boards should be protecting the public by yanking their licenses. They are NOT protecting the public.

And yes, I am a lawyer.

[BootinUp]

167. Its a similar problem to that of attorneys then (sorry don't take it personal)

policing of their own ranks is a joke. I think you are correct and this is the one issue I think Edwards has always been right on.

[FrenchieCat]

55. To start, John Edwards generates a certain aura of contradiction

and gives voters pause as to whether they can trust him.

Edwards' bearing gives off the vibe of "pretty boy" which appears to manifests itself in his body language and mannerisms. It's in how he talks, how he smiles, how he gestures, even how he waves (even the tongue thing, as well as the rapid blinking). Many voters like to look at him for this reason, but don't necessarily trust him to lead the country....partly because they are not sure that he is one of them, although he sometimes seems to be (son of the south and of a mill worker, sick wife, death of son), but his demeanor doesn't consistenly reflects this.

To voters looking for humility in someone who has achieve so much success and is so good looking.....they are searching for a reflection of this not only in his words (which many times are the right ones) but they are looking for it in his persona as well. Edwards' bearing and some of what has been publicized about him do not reinforce (the "I feel pretty" video, his pricey haircut snafu, his large house unfortunately gives the opposite message from the one he speaks) that his persona is a humble one.

The fact that many of his positions have done a 180 turnabout also doesn't help establish the trust factor. Apologizing is one thing, and can be seen as a virtue, but apologizing constantly appears defensive, and yes....weak.

In the last debates, Edwards was attacking Obama and Hillary one minute, and saying that he was wrong and that Obama was right the next. This illustrates exactly the kind of "in your face" contradiction that can turn voters off.

Add to all of this the fact that John Edwards was an outstanding personal injury attorney who could talk a jury into large awards....only begs the questions of many who buy into stereotypes...."Should I trust him or shouldn't I?", an intuitive question that some voters are asking themselves. Does he he truly represents substance or is he simply flash?

In other words, he has not been able to get enough folks to trust that he really means what he says. They are having a hard time reconciling what and who John Edwards truly is. Even after being the Dem Vice Presidential candidate, many still can't make that determination, and that in itself is a problem for John Edwards. It's what people see as the real John Edwards versus who John Edwards says he really is. They are simply not confident.....even if he sounds good.

But what I will also say is that "the jury is still out on John Edwards".......because 7 months is a long time for him to get us to trust him. He's got his work cut out for him, but he could do it.

[Clark2008]

56. This has been a very interesting thread.

I fully expected a flame war, but see none brewing, which is so very atypical of DU. :)

I make no bones that I don't trust Edwards because what he says now doesn't match up with how he voted on critical issues, but it's interesting to see the more "shallow" reasons why some don't like him (as a presidential candidate - I see no one flaming him). Afterall, the shallow reasons are pretty important to an electorate that basically voted for Bush over Gore (yes, I know Gore won) because they'd rather have a beer with Bush.

[FrenchieCat]

61. Congrat on the Bebe! She is adorable! a real honest to goodness CutiePie!

[Clark2008]

68. Thank you!

Now, if her Mommy just felt better.

I caught a minor infection from the C-Section incision and it's making heal-time slower. I'll be fine - had a follow up with the doc about an hour ago so he could check on the infection and it's, by and large, gone and healing is starting to progress, now.

I have a wedding to go to next weekend and I was hoping the majority of this "baby belly" would be, at least, "tuckable" by then. But, I'll still go. I can't wait to have my first glass of wine in 9 months!!

I bought her her first bow today. She has all this hair and I don't like those garter belt looking things people put around baby girls' heads. I still want her to be more tom-boyish, so the bow is actually a little bee. I call her "Bee" most of the time (Hannah-Beth = Hannah-Bee and because she buzzy, busy girl), so this "fits" her. My son had tons of hair, too, but you'd be looked at rather funny if you put a bow in a boy's hair. LOL!

[FrenchieCat]

98. Please take it easy then....enjoy the new babe, and kiss those fat cheeks!

Since she's got a lot of hair, she doesn't really have to have a bow.....that's usually reserved for the bald girl babies who's parents don't want them to be mistaken for boys. I know, cause I had bald babies and made good use of Bows till the hair came in. LOL!

Congratulations again!

Now I give the highjacked thread back to the topic. :blush:

[DesertRat]

139. Welcome to the world precious Hannah!

:hi:

[shimmergal]

152. Wow! What a cutie pie!

Babies are wonderful, aren't they? (Proud grandmother speaking here. ..)

On the bow bit. My youngest grandbaby was adopted from China and came home at about 15 months. She didn't have much hair and what she had stood straight up, rather strangely. Her mother put bows in her hair when they went out because people kept thinking she was a little boy. Would you believe, no matter what she wore: pink dresses, ruffles, hairbows etc. the older-gentleman contingent _still_ called her "big guy!" etc. It was sort of funny.

Anyhow, my very best wishes for a happy life for her. Sorry to hijack the Edwards discussion but I couldn't help myself.

[Totally Committed]

71. oh, my word! You had the baby!!!

Hannah is gorgeous! Beautiful as her mom.

All my love and best wishes to you, your husband, and your adorable son!

Love,

TC

[Clark2008]

85. More pics

http://www.geocities.com/scoop1_2/hannah.html

And I posted a blog at CCN, too.

Thank you!

[Pastiche423]

99. Congratulations, Mom!

I can't believe you have the strength to post so soon after your c-section. But you are and doing it well.

Just checked out Hannah's photos. She is beautiful, adorable and she likes to sleep a lot!

[BootinUp]

109. Congrats to you

she's a beautiful baby. :)

[durrrty libby]

74. I think flame wars happen when people are passionate

The fact that there is barely any passion here, speaks volumes to me.

[GreenArrow]

78. Incredible!

You just had a baby four days ago, and you're already back posting on DU!

Anyway, congratulations on your new lil sweetie -- (we've got one on the way here at the end of August)!

[Clark2008]

83. LOL!!

She's a sleeper, so I post while she's napping, which is pretty much all the time after about noon. Her days and nights aren't TOTALLY mixed up. She sleeps a lot until about 3 a.m. and then wakes a lot until about noon. I'm off work for another seven weeks, so it's OK. I'm actually getting more sleep now than the last month of my pregnancy when I was miserable. Three or four solid hours of sleep feels like an eternity to me right now.

:)

P.S. Early congrats on your impending bundle, too!

[GreenArrow]

120. Ah! A Sleeper!

Of such things are dreams are made of... My oldest -- now three -- has always been a poor sleeper/napper. Still is. I've never known such exhaustion. (it's been totally worth it, though). Glad you have one that likes to sleep and will give you a chance to rest too!

And enjoy that glass of wine! :toast: :toast:

[Egnever]

57. Cause he is phony

His pandering is obvious and has been for some time. People are tired of it.

[venable]

70. pandering? the man who is proposing the most progressive program

offered by a major candidat in decades?

no pandering from Edwards, thank you very much.

pandering is maintaining the status quo, not what edwards is doing.

[Egnever]

77. Thats the guy

The one who seems willing to use whatever cause he thinks will get him elected at the time. He may have a real interest in poverty.However the same guy has issues when it comes to his official record and the one he says he believes now.

[JoePhilly]

107. Huh? This election is Iraq, Iraq, Iraq ...

How is poverty a great election opportunity issue for Edwards? He could focus on Iraq 24/7 and get away with it.

Poverty make us all uncomfortable, so its never a good election issue.

[madfloridian]

58. It's amazing the way the polls decide for us.

Guided by the media.

Totally amazing.

[madfloridian]

66. This is a veiled attack. Mostly supposition.

This board is being used to try to bring him down. Just like it was used in 03 and 04...different names.

[Egnever]

72. I agree this board is being used

just like it was last go round. However I find edwards very unbelievable. His contradictions are many and he seems way to adept at making the wrong decision first then coming around to the right one after the polls are solidly behind the position he is changing to.

I have real problems with Edwards and with so many good choices I doubt he will ever overcome them with me.

[madfloridian]

75. I have problems with HIllary.

And I don't trust Obama yet. I do trust Edwards, but the media has its job to do just like in 03 and 04.

So it is all set in motion. As we speak.

[Egnever]

79. Meh I have to go out

But I do respect your opinion if I had more time I would love to discuss what makes you trust Edwards.

Lots of time left I am sure we will get the chance.

[rinsd]

84. You attack Hillary Clinton almost every day with innuendo. Spare me the crocodile tears (nt)

[durrrty libby]

97. You nailed it.

[madfloridian]

100. Find an attack post. Find it an post it. I mean an attack.

And stop with the "i attack hillary" stuff. I don't.

Quit accusing and find it.

[rinsd]

101. Inevitability ring any bells?

[madfloridian]

102. Inevitability is an attack? How?

You really are touchy about your candidate.

[Dinger]

80. I Like John Edwards Just Fine, And I'm A Democrat

It's just that I am waiting for Clark or Gore to enter the race. I think it's media bullshit. Edwards would make a great president, and so would the other Democratic candidates/potential candidates.

[illinoisprogressive]

81. alot of dems like him. he is just going through a rough period. chin up

Campaigns are long and there is up and down. He is just going through a slow period and by fall he will probably be chugging along.
I remember a few weeks ago all the Hillary supporters were proclaiming Obama dead and buried.
don't pay any attention.
Besides, the polls are mostly answered by women.

[abburdlen]

82. I was turned off

during the 2004 campaign with the line, "I'm now the senior senator from North Carolina instead of Jesse Helms, which is a very good thing for this country."
The line is intended to imply he defeated Helms which just isn't true. No more than Burr defeated Edwards here in NC.

Edwards is a good campaigner and I do agree with much of his message. I just don't agree that he's Presidential material.

[november3rd]

92. Why don't they like JE?

He's not as charismatic as Obama and Brand X.

[tammywammy]

112. What's "Brand X"?

[jillan]

104. Whenever something happens in Congress, he comes out the very next day and says how HE

would have done it better.

Everytime, without fail.
People are waking up to that.

It's easy to judge someone when you are on the outside.
He was in the Senate, what great things did he accomplish then?

My big problem with him was when I found out that his Hedgefund invested in off-shore accounts (to avoid taxes) and got rich off of the poor.

[Cameron27]

110. The pointing fingers thing bothers me too,

whether it's at Congress or at the other candidates. Someone said that he flaunts his apology like a badge of honor, and that's exactly what it seems like at times, flaunting. I don't like his voting record. Simple as that. #1. For me: co-sponsorship of the IWR without reading the classified NIE docs.

[venable]

111. But the fact is he voted against the first war supplemental budget

he was one of 12 or 13 who made this brave vote (especially given his IWR yes vote).

so, i believe he CAN challenge the Senators to follow his lead and cut off bush's funding.

he proved it with that vote.

[Cameron27]

117. He's got a mixed bag on war supplemental votes,

some he approved, lots were missed, and some he voted no. Would you link to the one you're citing please.

[venable]

122. it was the very first supplemental - the famous 87B

the war was already looking like a mistake. w had just put through his tax cuts for the wealthy.

He then came to congress and said, well, this inexpensive cake walk is going to cost more. I need 87 billion more.

I'm not sure the number of Senators that voted against it, the number 12 occurs to me - but one was Edwards, and he argued against it quite vocally.

the reason that I found this bold (in addition to wise) is that he was one of the few, if not the only one, who voted against the supplemental after he had voted for the IWR, which put him in the position of having voted to send troops (actually he voted for the process that w aborted to send troops), but then withheld money for the operations.

it was risky, but he did the right thing, risking himself politically.


I know he is often accused of being opportunistic. I don't believe he is, and this vote seems to me an example of him putting his belief ahead of his political welfare.

[BootinUp]

124. What was the date

of that vote if you have it handy?

[venable]

132. the vote was in Oct 03

still looking for the total vote count. Kerry and Edwards voted against it. Not sure what HRC voted (I sort of recall that she voted for it, but I'm not sure)

the bill numbers:

"There were two bills introduced that dealt with supplemental reconstructional monies: S. 1689, The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004 (introduced 30 Sept 2003), and H.R.3289, The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004 (introduced 14 Oct 2003). "


the popular name was the '$87B supplemental'

[rinsd]

150. Right around the time Dean was riding an anti-war wave to frontrunner status.

[Cameron27]

126. Ah thanks.

Sorry, had to edit. Was this the 87 billion dollar supplemental?

[venable]

130. yes, the first of the many supplementals

I'll look for the date

[BeyondGeography]

106. I have given Edwards a hard time on policy shifts and self-inflicted style wounds

but I do like him and Elizabeth a lot. There's a certain goodness and strength in both of them that is life-affirming. I have a friend who taught their two children tennis when they lived in Washington, and he said John is what he appears to be; just one of the nicest human beings you'll ever run across. I believe this.

I haven't supported Edwards in either campaign, mostly because of the war issue and fears that he's an easy mark for the Republicans. But I could easily live with him as the nominee, not because of his policies, but because I'm comfortable that he would make mostly good and humane choices for this country. Whatever the result, we're lucky to have him in this Party.

[venable]

113. agree 100%

I know very well that he is an extraordinarily decent guy, and - strangely, given the kind of attacks he gets - he is completely authentic.

If one believes that Elizabeth is authentic - and virtually everyone seems to - then it's strange that people would claim to have such distaste for him as a person.

Fact is, there is nowhere in the real world that comes down on him as hard as some on DU. Not on other sites, not in polls, not among voters.

He is the only dem in last weeks rasmussen to defeat all republicans. so, he is liked. just not here.

anyway - you are so right - he is a very decent man, and what you see is exactly what you get. He is almost incapable of trying to fool someone. It's just not who he is.

[shimmergal]

153. Yes. Interesting.

I like him. Besides my liking Edwards in person (heard him talk abut 6 weeks ago) he's the most progressive candidate who has a realistic chance to get elected, in many, many years.


But in reading all these posts, I think I see one reason why lots of DUers are so hard on him, and doubt his "authenticity."

Most political junkies (that's us) have elements of geekhood in our make-up. Edwards reminds us of the prom king who seemed to have everything going for him, when we couldn't quite figure it out. And quite naturally, we resented those guys (and their female counterparts.)

Now we need to grow up and realize that sometimes the prom king is a perfectly nice, authentic human being who says what he thinks and acts on it, too. We're pretty good at analyzing the Right Wing's psychic and emotional hang-ups. Ours aren't so devastating, but that doesn't mean we don't have any.

[Awsi Dooger]

108. Democrats are lousy handicappers

I think it's that basic. No reflection on Edwards. I've been in a 16-man election pool since '96, predicting and betting on political outcomes every cycle. The only competitors I have to worry about are the right wingers. For some reason they have a better grasp of likely outcomes. Admittedly, last year in a Democratic wave cycle two other liberals who had always bombed in previous cycles shot into the top 6, merely by picking Democrats to sweep almost everything. But that's hardly representative.

Why did we nominate Mondale, known solely as the VP of a president who lost via semi-landslide as an incumbent? Then you want that guy's VP to be the next nominee? I didn't even pay attention to the '84 election since it was an obvious forfeit. Almost identical in '88, when we somehow decided a little guy from New England with no threat of charisma was the best option. And in early '03 on this site I wrote John Kerry, "is just good enough to get you beat." I'll forever be astonished he was somehow identified as most electable.

I've posted many times that Democrats would be far better off if presidential primaries didn't exist. Find an all-powerful party chief and let him dictate the nominee. It may sound outrageous but bottom line we'd win far more often.

[The_Progressive]

131. I don't trust him.

I don't know exactly why. I can't put my finger on it. It's just my feeling that he's not right.

I am being honest.

[eridani]

136. He's apparently smart enough to ignore Iowa polls and focus on the local party structure

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3314291

That's exactly how Kerry won Iowa in 2004.

[19jet54]

137. It is not that he is not liked...

... it may just be that that the others are liked more?

The competition is stiff & we have much to choose from!

[snot]

138. Personally, the more I see him,

the harder it gets to shake the feeling that he's somehow fake.

Also, his politics seem to me to need updating.

You asked.

[cqo_000]

140. Edwards knew that Bush was misleading the public

He was privy to the same classified intelligence as Dick Durbin

"I was a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and I would read the headlines in the paper in the morning and I'd watch the television newscast and I'd shake my head. ...The information we had in the Intelligence Committee was not the same information being given to the American people. I couldn't believe it." (Sen. Dick Durbin, Floor Speech, 04/25/07)

"And so in my frustration, I sat here on the floor of the Senate and listened to this heated debate about invading Iraq thinking the American people are being misled. They are not being told the truth." (Sen. Dick Durbin, Floor Speech, 04/25/07)


Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee who voted yes to authorise the use of force againsts Iraq

John Edwards, North Carolina (Voted Yes)
Evan Bayh, Indiana (Voted Yes)
Thomas A. Daschle, South Dakota (Voted Yes)
Dianne Feinstein, California (Voted Yes)
John D. Rockefeller IV , West Virginia (Voted Yes)


Those that voted against.

Bob Graham, Florida (Voted No)
Richard Durbin, Illinois (Voted No)
Carl Levin, Michigan (Voted No)
Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland (Voted No)
Ron Wyden, Oregon (Voted No)

[Alpharetta]

141. He seems likeable, but not tough

I agree with all the posters who said he has problems with his image -- a negative association to being a liability lawyer and a hard time appearing genuine.

To me, my problem with him is that he had his chance in the spotlight in 2004 and he didn't hit hard enough. If he was a boxer in the ring he might have won a lot of rounds and scored a lot of punches but he never punched hard enough to really do any damage. A smiling lightweight.

Maybe my memory is shot. Maybe there was one time when he really scored a knockdown and slapped the voter awake with the reality of the 2004 choice. But I sure don't remember it.

[ecstatic]

142. Somewhere down the line, he lost the trust

of many Democratic voters. It could be for a variety of reasons, including rightwing rumors or stuff going on in his personal life, haircuts, mansions, etc.

[leftofthedial]

146. Democrats like him just fine

it's the "democrats" and the corporate media who don't

He's a bit more of a legit Democrat then the shills for the oligarchy who lead in the money game

[Dragonbreathp9d]

147. There has always been something about him that I havent liked

That being said I dont think he would be a bad president, I just like Kucinich, Wes, and Richardson better.

[PATRICK]

181. Another understandable alternative

but in that we don't get to the point of the current standoff against Hillary and Obama this vague sense strangely serves their cause for no apparent reason. I wish Clark was in the race and a few others as well and there was no two tier handicapping.

[mhatrw]

148. LOL.

Why don't independent voters like Hillary Clinton?

[jenmarie]

151. What I don't like about him

He puts political aspirations above all else. He will say anything to be president.

He has no FP experience, and as time goes on, FP is going to take more and more precedence in the president's job.

He has no executive/leadership experience and with the mess Jr will leave we need someone strong in that field.

He has shown poor judgement, or if it wasn't poor judgement and was simply political posturing, neither of those qualify him to be president of the U.S.

As always these are my opinions and I understand and accept that others don't agree.

[jillan]

155. Well said!

I totally agree.

[BringBigDogBack]

154. I like John Edwards. I'm a democrat. n/m

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

156. Because his brand isn't "edgy" and "authentic"

It's not about issues. It's about branding. So Obama, Clinton and Gore are going to lead.

[Alcibiades]

162. Beacuse he could actually win the general election

Let's face it, we're not terribly good at picking candidates who can win by margins big enough to prevent Republican theft.

[churchofreality]

163. He is a pussy. Just being honest.

I'm sure I'll get hammered for saying it.

[BlueStater]

169. I'm just curious as to what the hell you mean by that

Why is he a "pussy"?

[ItNerd4life]

165. Because he's a lawyer.

I hate many lawyers. Maybe that's why we have some lousy people running our government, many of them are lawyers.

Note: After working with over 10 lawyers, I finally found one who was respectable and reasonably priced.

I'm kind of like Shakespeare, I don't like lawyers. :)

[ElizabethDC]

172. Clinton, Obama, Biden and Dodd are also lawyers

Glad to hear you think so negatively about tens of thousands of people. :sarcasm:

[JNelson6563]

166. He's doing well in MI

:shrug:

[amandabeech]

182. Michigan is in a recession,

and folks are taking an economic populist turn.

I'm from there originally. I'd like to go back, but not much in my field.

How does Ohio look?

[MGKrebs]

174. He got a little sympathy vote with Elizabeth's health situation,

but now people are wondering if they want their president to have that burden?

[peacetheonlyway]

185. he promised the american public to count the votes

and the bottom line is he didn't

he bowed under pressure from kerry to NOT CONTEST The election fucking most of america but mostly the african americans disenfranchised and now we know 'caged' by the rove election fraud machine.

he buckled and has no spine.

i loved hearing his speeches but he doesn't have the muster.

Biden is my man.

[goodhue]

193. I like him, and I'm a democrat

Moneyed interests don't like him so much these days as he talks a lot about poverty and war of late.

[GreenTea]

197. The Dems will! Give it a chance...

People will begin to get it, having the republicans & MSM choice rammed downed their throats (that its Hillary or Obama, your only choice Dems). So tired of the bullshit!

[bklyncowgirl]

198. Can't speak for everyone but Edwards is currently number four on my list. Here's why.

First the positives.

I like his positions on trade and poverty. His health care proposals are substantive--though not the single payer program that I thing we really need--and unlike some other candidates he tells us how he's going to pay for them. I like the fact that he comes from a working class background. He's a self-made man and I admire that. He's smart and articulate. I really like Elizabeth Edwards.

But then there are the negatives.

The Iraq war Resolution.
I could probably forgive a simple vote for the war in a candidate who I otherwise liked but for a candidate to co-sponsor the bill that gave George Bush a blank check to go to war whenever and wherever he wanted when he was 1. A member of the intelligence committee and privy to all of the doubts that we now know that members of the intelligence services raised as to the President's casus belli, and 2. Apparently did not even bother to read the full National Intelligence Estimate. This tells me something about both the man's ambition and his judgment. Yes, he's now among the most anti-war of the candidates but that does not take away the original vote.

His lack of executive experience:
John Edwards got rich by being a trial lawyer--a very good one. He was never a captain of industry, he never was a governor or even a mayor. The man's never run anything big. Now he shares that failing with most of the Democratic candidates for President but it is a strike against him nonetheless.

His personal appearance and demeanor:
"HE'S OLDER THAN YOU! NO WAY!" said my 18 year old daughter. John Edwards, he of the gleaming golden hair and the unlined face looks younger than most people in their 50s. Hell, he looks younger than Barack Obama who's ten years younger. I remember watching the debate with Dick Cheney thinking that this was going to be Opie vs Darth Vader. Somewhere in an attic, there's a picture of John Edwards with thinning graying hair, wrinkles and a pot belly. I like the idea of him being in good shape but maybe a few gray hairs would make me feel more comfortable about him. It may be completely frivolous but these things matter even though they shouldn't.