Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on What About Edwards?


I've always liked Edwards, voted for him last time around.

Of course... I'm always rooting for underdogs.

Posted by Packratt | December 11, 2007 2:07 PM

Why should Dems trust GOP word on Dem strategies?

Posted by matthew fisher wilder | December 11, 2007 2:14 PM

(ok, i just wanted to say "dem strategies")

Posted by matthew fisher wilder | December 11, 2007 2:15 PM

Ever since the Durkans sold out our state, why should we care what they think?


Dems have a long memory.

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 11, 2007 2:23 PM

Isn't the elephant in the room Gore's recent remarks? He's going to run; I can tell by the special way he says he has no plans to run. And scoffs at a cabinet post. It's the big chair or nothing.

Knowing Gore is about jump in is a great comfort to me.

Posted by elenchos | December 11, 2007 2:24 PM

Edwards is who I'm caucusing for. Hey how about another Stranger Presidential Candidate poll?

Posted by thaumaturgistguy | December 11, 2007 2:37 PM

I've been saying this all along and no one believes me. But it's pretty obvious if you look at the MSM--it's unbelievably anti-Edwards. Given that much of the MSM is owned by Republican corporations, it doesn't take a genius to figure out who they're actually afraid of. It's also clear that they're foaming at the mouths for HRC to win-she's the most beatable, and even if she wins, hey, she'll love corporations just like her husband.

Posted by Dianna | December 11, 2007 2:42 PM

I'll keep saying it . . . please stop fucking worrying about whether the Rs or the corporations or who the fuck ever want this person or that person to be the nominee. Look at the issues, look at the candidates, and pick the one that you fucking want to be the goddamned nominee.


Posted by Levislade | December 11, 2007 2:44 PM

The one? This is a caucus state. You need to have a backup choice too.

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 11, 2007 2:48 PM

Great. Now that we know he can win ... let's hear why we should trust him considering he's been flat wrong about nearly every major issue he's voted on.

Posted by Teve | December 11, 2007 2:50 PM

@8: That fact is that in a democracy you don't just vote FOR a candidate, you vote AGAINST a another candidate. It's perfectly reasonable to think about which Democrat can win. For many people--myself included--this is the main issue. My impression of all the major Democratic candidates is generally favorable, though I hope Hilary gets the nomination mostly because I think she has the best chance of winning. I suspect most people reading this agree that if Giuliani or Huckabee were elected president it would be a absolute disaster for the future of our democracy. I'd almost rather Bush get another four years than any of these guys.

Posted by PJ | December 11, 2007 2:54 PM

White Man for President 2008, And Every Year.

Posted by Kiru Banzai | December 11, 2007 3:13 PM

@11 - my point is that it's this kind of hemming and hawing and worrying about electability that got us John Motherfucking Kerry. If we can run a candidate that the majority of Dems actually believe in, rather than someone we think other people will be more likely to vote for, then that person will have a much better chance of winning.

Posted by Levislade | December 11, 2007 3:20 PM

I like Edwards, and he's the one I am supporting. What I don't like, however, is when he plays this "I'm the most electable" card, because it is not about the issues. It reeks of "America isn't ready for a woman or a black man, so that's why you should vote for me."

(how do you spell reeks?)

Posted by duncan | December 11, 2007 3:23 PM

@14 - I agree. I like him the most on the issues, and I wish his people wouldn't push this electable crap on us.

And it's "wreaks."

Just kidding, you had it right.

Posted by Levislade | December 11, 2007 3:52 PM

True, the "most electable" stuff no longer appeals to most Dems.

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 11, 2007 3:54 PM

If it stinks, it "reeks".

If you're talking about hurling punshiment or vengeance upon someone, it's "wreaks".

Posted by NapoleonXIV | December 11, 2007 4:06 PM

He's the real Democrat in the race. Our endorsement:

Posted by Jim Demetre | December 11, 2007 4:35 PM

There's a solid, pragmatic reason not to vote for John Edwards: He was falling so far behind that he was forced to accept public financing. This severely limits the amount of cash he can legally spend in the general election, and it's a certainty that that amount will be far less than what the GOP candidate will spend. He boxed himself into a corner with that decision (though he didn't have much choice, either).

Posted by Chas | December 11, 2007 6:03 PM

I could toss a coin regarding Edwards and Obama--it generally depends on who I last listened to. And electability does matter, but sometimes judgments can be wrong. In 2004 I was caught between Dean and Kerry. Ultimately I chose Kerry because I thought his intellectual style would make Bush look like a member of the cast of Hee Haw in the debates. Unfortunately Kerry was, among other things, too much of a gentleman to fight back Karl Rove and the Swift Boaters. Dean would have pounced on those bozos like a pit bull. Whether he would have won the general is a matter of speculation, but the point is first instincts about the general during primary/caucus season can be mistaken.

I'm glad Obama is presenting a real challenge to Hillary. I would be delighted to see either in the White House, but at least it's no longer a foregone conclusion that she will be the Democratic nominee. Maybe the people will triumph over the media after all.

Posted by RainMan | December 11, 2007 6:20 PM

Polls are tricky but relying on ONE poll is stupid.
E lost before. He didn't help Kerry fight back, although that's the traditional role of VP candidate.

Obama....we'll see. Can he win Missouri and Arkansas and Ohio when he is blasted for being a coke sniffing, gun hating, illegal alien loving, "urban" HARVARD YARD liberal?
He won't look so electable then.

Right now all us liberals are in a dream state, ignoring his negatives.

Hillary has more of a record of fighting and winning against the right wing smear machine, as yes, she was part of a strategic team with Bill for the last 30 years or so. No she was not just a wifey.

Anyway, who you like doesn't mean beans if you don't go out to your own neighborhood Democratic caucus on 2/9/07.

So if you have to work, you are sick, you are too enraptured with Slog, or you just didn't bother to find out where the hell this meeting is going to me held ...
why, your your views won't count.

Posted by unPC | December 11, 2007 7:28 PM

@4, Amen to that... the Bull-market Democrats will sell their mothers to their worst enemies, if there's $$ in it...
It's interesting that, based on the way they've voted &/or campaigned over the years, Kucinich is the guy who's right on the issues, more than any of the other candidates (to my mind)- but he's too short, &/or got the wrong hair, or something... but he IS a white guy. So, if it were about "only a white guy has a chance", then it'd have to be him, for my money... (Of course if it were about "only a CUTE white guy" then Edwards, I guess...) ^..^

Posted by herbert browne | December 11, 2007 11:13 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).