Since none of these political debates on here make any sense any more, I figured Id tout Senator John Edwards of North Carolina as our next President.
He's still at an age where he is hot by gay standards. He looks good in jeans (Ive seen- woo woo). He likes basketball (saw him in the jeans at a UNC game), so he's gotta be in with the Outsports crowd. He's a trial lawyer- so hes the only one that can lie to you with a straight face out of the whole Democratic bunch.
Odd part is, if he werent so darn wholesome he could be our next Clinton. Maybe we can catch him in a torrid love affair with Senator Liddy Dole.

There really isn't much about him I dislike, but so far he hasn't been as specific as I would like him to be in a few issues. Granted he seems intelligent and has that boy next door face, and I read where Clinton ahs been helping him out here and there. He will be my second choice, most likely, should Dean fall short.

What do you mean "the political debates no longer make sense any more"? Explain what you're talking about, because it's vague and not making much sense.

We've talked quite a bit about Senator Pretty Boy (with the thing on his lip). He's attractive, he's liberal (truly), he's rich, he's very smart, and he probably would make a good president. What's unfortunate is that he comes off as a bit of a panderer and can be somewhat whiny--he really strives to make you like him, he recites his litany about his poor parents, etc.,and it just comes off as trying too hard. He also appears to be giving the kind of poll-driven answers that sound like they want to be sincere but are fake. I wish he'd just cut the BS and speak from his heart, or close to it, as Dean does, because doing so would really show Bush up for the liar he is. But Edwards is playing his little game and I'm not sure it can work. I certainly will vote for him if he's the presidential or VP nominee.

Howard Dean has all the attributes Edwards has, except that he appears to be even smarter and to speak from conviction. And a practicing doctor is probably less of a liar than a trial lawyer, though I'd rather have either one than the scum who now lead far too many of our corporations. We're seeing what these liars and dissemblers do to the truth and our democracy on a daily basis, as they fill their pockets and those of their ennablers in Congress and the White House at every possible chance.

Edwards still has an edge, though, because he's from the South, which is always a plus for the Democrats. The thing is, I don't even believe he could win his home state right now; among the Democrats, Dean, Kerry, and Lieberman all could, since all are from liberal northeastern states, and Graham could win the plum pie of Florida. But Edwards strikes me as a somewhat shaky right now, even though his ideas about rejuvenating the country and rural economies would really benefit North Carolina in the long run.

[ May 25, 2003, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Every time I see Edwards on C-SPAN or read a newspaper q&a with him, he comes across as vague, evasive, and trying--desperately--to be "all things to all people." Rarely does he provide any specifics to back up his grandiose plans choosing instead to use his biography & oft-repeated concern for the "common man" as reasons to vote for him. Though he is extremely bright (even his detractors cite his intelligence) and obviously good in small groups, the more I see/hear him, the less inclined I am to support him.

The comparisons to Clinton are a double-edged sword: Edwards might be able to match Clinton's intelligence and ability to connect with people BUT lacks the electric charisma of the Clintons. My beloved Democrats have to move beyond & away from the Clintons--as long as Bill & Hillary are around the two of them take the spotlight from everyone else. I think the Democrats also should stop looking to HC as a possible for 2008--smart as she is, she is far too polarizing with the electorate at large and has far too many negatives the Republicans could easily exploit...

~Adam

[ May 26, 2003, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: Adam ]

I agree with you as usual Adam. The Demos must come forward and advance some good new ideas about how they will deal with so many pressing issues. Specificty is greatly appreciated. Thats why I am impressed thus far with Dean. Has ideas, and lays out a road map of how to get there.

One point about Edwards and his humble origins: that sort of stuff is red meat for the Bushies. Remember how George Bush the Elder painted Michael Dukakis, an actual son of immigrants, as a "Boston elitist who attended Harvard." It was highly effective, considering that Bush himself was a high-born Yale man! And the current Bush has a percentage of Americans believing that he's an actual Texan who entered politics only after a successful business career!! People claim Reagan and Clinton are masters of media manipulation, but they're both rank amateurs comapred with the Bush family!!

~Adam

Bush and his loyal minions are master magicians at waving a magic "forgetful" wand though. Remember Shrub getting out of serving on duty? And what about his partying, drinking past and dui? Americans have short attention spans when it comes to Presidential politics. Sorry if I went off topic, but this hit a nerve.

From this morning's San Francisco Chronicle story about Edwards making a visit to the city recently and stating his views as many issues.

No to gay marriages
[snip]

In an interview with The Chronicle, Edwards also addressed a range of issues, including gay and lesbian unions.

"I am . . . a strong supporter of (laws) against discrimination in the workplace . . . making sure hate crimes legislation includes a class for sexual orientation," said Edwards, who said he supports adoption by gay and lesbian parents, as well as an "extension of benefits to domestic partners."

But, differentiating himself from former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean -- who has made his support of civil unions a hallmark of his campaign -- Edwards said he believes "civil unions is a state issue. . . . It's not an issue that should be decided at the federal level."

And on the issue of legalizing marriage for gay couples, Edwards said, "I do not support gay marriage. . . . I view myself as somebody who is a uniter, who wants to move the country forward in the right way. And I think this is a difficult, divisive issue. What I'd like to see us do is make progress in the areas where we can make real progress."

[snip]

Clinton clone Edwards wants to think of himself as a uniter, as long as it means denying gay and lesbian couples equal marriage rights. His comments to the SF Chronicle today show he wants to move the country forward, as long as it means keeping gay couples relegated to second-class citizens.

While I applaud Edwards for wanting to include us in hate crime laws, what I feel he is saying is that when we are the victims of violence, he'll support us, but if we want full legal recognition of our committed relationships, then we have to ride in the back of the bus, so to speak.

Edwards is not someone I would vote for to serve as president.

MPetrelis, Edwards has stated this before. I think it's partially a way of not utterly alienating his North Carolina constituency, which, as you must admit, is a hell of a lot more conservative than either California or Vermont, two of the historically most progressive states in the US. I'll tell you this, though; if it were to happen that Edwards were elected president (not likely, though not impossible), and were it to happen that a gay marriage bill crossed his desk, I don't doubt he'd sign it, especially if he were in his second term. There's something kind of timorous about him that I don't see in Gephardt, Dean, Graham, or the trio of Kucinich, Sharpton and Moseley Braun, who, because they have no chance in hell of winning, can speak out.

Edwards should have been much more forceful than he's been about any number of W.'s deceptions and shenanigans, yet he's left it to Dean to criticize the war, the gross tax cut, the screwed-up healthcare system and the prez's friends' homophobia; Kerry to back and then criticize the war; Graham to slam the ineptness over homeland security; Gephardt to propose a healthcare system and energize labor; and on and on. What distinguishes Edwards at all except his good looks and his being from the South? He's trying to be a neo-Clinton and fortunately, it's not working. I hope he and Lieberman are out of it all by the fourth or fifth primary. Sharpton, Moseley Braun and Kucinich certainly will be.

Dean and Graham!

Most of you guys are right in that Edwards is too far to the right at the moment. To win elections you have to come to the middle, but not in a primary.
If youre trying to win the Democratic primary you need to be left but not too far left. Then when you win, to run for President you need to come to the middle.
Just look at W. He spent his Republican primary time being the right wing powerhouse that everyone wanted, and then spent his Presidential run as the "compassionate conservative", jumping over rainbows and playing in flowers.
Thats what Edwards needs to play along the lines of, at least in his left wing side. Dean is too far left to be honest. A lot of Democrats these days are pretty far middle. I dont think a lot of people are going to vote for a far left liberal to be their President.
If they do your top 3 are Dean, Mosley-Braun, and Sharpton. Which by the way are the only candidates who support gay marriage and gay rights, oddly enough. But I just cant come to grips voting for some guy with hair like Sharpton's.

Um, have you listened to Dennis KUCINICH? The man would probably praise Stalin if he thought he could get away with it. He is WAAAAYYYYYY far to the Left, much further out than Moseley Braun or Dean, and even beyond Sharpton. Plus, isn't he anti-abortion? he represents possibly the worst combination the Democrats could possibly come up with, even more than flip-coiffed Sharpton or wannabeGOP Lieberman.

Sharpton has absolutely ZERO chance at all of even being elected Senator from...Vermont, if he moved there. Well, maybe if he moved there it might work. But I doubt it. He's doing this to keep his name in the mix and increase his leverage in NYC, his home base. When Mike Bloomberg--who has turned out to be the worst kind of nanny-state liberal Republican/Democrat one could imagine, enforcing social behavioral bans, raising taxes like they're parade balloons, and droning out without any passion whatsoever--runs for mayor again, Sharpton will be able to tout his 2004 run either for a mayoral run himself or in a kingmaker role, as happened last time. Woe to the Democratic mayor candidate who ignores him the next time around!

Dean is very honest, and has been since the beginning, which is more than can be said for Edwards. I don't think Edwards is on the right at all, not even with gay issues; he's speaking as a Southerner who knows his constituency. His voting record is actually fairly liberal by comparison with other Democrats from the Southern or more conservative midwestern states (Breaux, Landrieu, Bayh, etc.), and probably closest to someone like Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico. Edwards usually will support the moderate-to-left wing of the Democratic Party in close votes. Zell Miller, for example, is on the right.

I think Edwards would be a good to very good president, because he's so smart and has a breadth of experience; I mean, he grew up poor and is quite rich now, so he knows the range of how people live.

What's important to keep in mind is not so much where some of the Democrats lie on the spectrum, but how well and forcefully they can distinguish themselves from W. If it comes down to W. and W-lite (Lieberman), we'll get a 52-48 or so split in favor of W. If it comes down to W. and someone else who can show what a farce he's been--his lies, his ineptness, the utter destruction his appointees have wrought, etc.--then it'll be 52/53%-48/47% in favor of the Democrat. Graham and Dean or Dean and Graham could do that, especially if W. tangles with the Christian Right who are demanding he cut off the LCR or they're walking. What's he going to do?