As for the Dems. I'm not crazy about Hillary Clinton. Too many neo-cons among her advisors and I find her kind of cold and robotic (that being said if she wins the nomination and the choice is between her and - say - Mitt Romney - I could learn to love her very quickly).

Obama is great in terms of what he represents and it would be a great thing for the US and for the world to have a President who is black and whose middle name is "Hussein". But I find him a bit shallow and lacking in any content. I'm also suspicious of anyone that Oprah Winfrey likes that much.

Let's not waste time discussing fringe candidates like Kucinich, Gravel, Biden, Dodd and Richardson. They have no chance.

This brings me to Edwards. I like all the stuff he is saying about the growing gap between rich and poor and his attacks on corporate America (his whole campaign is like a direct copy of the NDP's planned campaign in the upcoming Canadian election). I like his hostility to the religious right. His wife is terrific etc...Also, if he catches fire, it wouldn't hurt the NDP in Canada to have the leading candidate in the US touching on identical themes to what Jack Layton is stressing here. When a trend starts in the US, it tends to spread by osmosis in Canada.

Complacency is always a bad idea, but Bush is making sure that no Republican can win.

If Bill Clinton wasn't around Hillary would have trouble looking human at all- regardless of whrther she dserves that.

Obama doesn't come across as shallow. Sometimes indecisive or just not on, but not shallow. Though I can see how progressives see some of that in him.

A knock on Edwards that I didn't know about is that he was a litigation lawyer. Americans see a lot of ambulance chaser TV ads. I have no idea how much that aura is around him.

Personally, I like Obama a lot. But I think he may be a bit cerebral [even though that is one of the things I like]. As well as that being a possible pragmatic problem, cerebral can be indecisive, and indecisive are propelled by their staff.

I think I'd probably go for Edwards too, for the same reason. Obama's messages to Americans are fine, wholsome and uplifting. But Americans need to hear a lot more of Edward's message.

[ 30 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

His story is virtually as compelling as Obama's or as Bill Clinton's - kid from working poor family, bootstraps, work ethic, works his way through college unloading trucks, litigator for the little guy.

His strategy in Iowa could deliver for him much bigger then the polls. Apparently winning a tiny 25 person caucus gets as many delegates as winning a 2,500 person caucus under the weird algebra of Iowa, and the Edwards campaign has focussed on the many, many rural caucusses Obama and Clinton have largely ignored. Winning Iowa - or even a strong second - makes Edwards the man going into New Hampshire, and he would have some native son advantage in an early souther primary, South Carolina, where he was born.

That said, third in Iowa probably dooms his presidential campaign. But I don't think he'll be third.

If not the nominee, Edwards would still be a good geographical ticket balancer for either Clinton or Obama, but either of them might benefit as much from Richardson of New Mexico who a) represents the growing sunshine belt, b) has both foreign policy and gubernatorial experience and c) is Hispanic, adding to the historic narrative of either an Obama or Clinton ticket.

Personally, I think Edwards is well placed to win Iowa. If Clinton is third, she is gravely wounded going into New Hampshire and onwards. Third in both Iowa and New Hampshire could mark "momentum" death knell of a Clinton campaign. Obama would likewise be damaged, but not so badly as the long term front runner.

I'm enjoying analyzing the differences between Canadian and American politics. The first is that American politicians are much smoother. None of the current crop of federal leaders would have the talent to make it in Washington. There's no comparison between Stephane Dion and Barack Obama. Another interesting difference is while they do have platitudes, their platitudes are different. Sometimes I find them very patronizing ("whenever someone says 'the American people' or 'your tax dollars') other times we see more honesty than we'd ever get from a Canadian politician.

Edwards is not only the most electable, but is the only one of the major candidates running with any kind of ideological stance. His economic populism is what the party has needed for a long time, and he's my candidate.

I took a conference call and net-based night course with DFA- based in Vermont and the outside the Dem party organization [they have a number] decended from the Dean Campaign.

Interesting courses even if not directly applicable to Canada.

Anyway, they went through a process of participants choosing the Dem candidates they wanted people to throw their weight behind [ie, stick with / move to one of these.

Just got notice of a national pre-Iowa Caucus conference call, which people are free to join:

quote:

---

All year, we've been working hard to make sure that the Democratic nominee is progressive. With the Iowa caucus on Thursday and the New Hampshire primary only a few days later, there's no better time to find out how the DFA Unite for a Progressive President campaign is working on the ground in Iowa.

Please join me for a nationwide conference call Wednesday night, January 2, starting at 8pm central time.

Live from Iowa with Jim Dean
National Link-Up Conference Call
8pm to 8:30pm Central Time

Call-In Number: (646) 200-0620

Or listen live on the net at:
http://www.DemocracyforAmerica.com/BlogTalkRadio

I'll be in Davenport Iowa, joining DFA members at their January Link-Up. You can call in from your local group's January Link-Up, call in from home, or listen live on the net.

We'll hear directly from local DFA members about the momentum on the ground for Kucinich, Edwards, and Obama. DFA Unite Caucus Captains will update us on the campaign at their caucus location. We'll even read some of the Unite letters local members received from DFA members nationwide.

This will be a fun call on the eve of the first election of 2008. This is what a national community is all about. I hope you can join us.

Thank you for everything you do.

-Jim

Jim Dean
Chair

---

If you listen in, you may want to share here. I won't be.

[ 31 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

It referred to two different sets of polling data. One based on longitudinal data suggested that Edwards was the most electable based on scenarios of each of Clinton, Obama and Edwards vs each of Romney, Guiliani, McCain, Huckabee and Thompson.

The second set - based on a single sample but with the same match ups - showed Obama defeating every one of the Republicans. Edwards trailed a couple but within the margin of error. Clinton trailed three of the five (including Huckabee), and her leads were all within the margin of error.

FWIW.

Progressive Economics Forum blog.

John Edwards: The Great Left Hope for 2008

On another point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ghoris:
Edwards is just another hairdo with soundbites.

He's probably the phoniest one out there. I don't believe his platitudes for a second.

---

Clinton, while disciplined, I fear is too easily corrupted. I'm changing my mind in thinking she'd be a weak general election candidate, she's obviously discplined, has managed to survive the vast-right wing smear machine, and can rake in the cash. But I don't think she necessarily has enough appeal, or even the desire to outline truly progressive proposals and get them passed in the face of strong conservative resistance. While "progressive" issues like withdrawal from Iraq, the environment, and the lack of health care for millions of Americans are popular, she'll address them -- I think that a conservative revival will lead her to classic Clintonian ways of triangulating, which she has already shown to be willing to do through her career in the Senate. As such she's too easily corruptible, and not willing to move the goal posts to the left, after they've been moved to the right for the last thirty years.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ghoris:
Edwards is just another hairdo with soundbites.

He's probably the phoniest one out there. I don't believe his platitudes for a second.

---

quote:

---

Obama, is by far the best because I think he has the best judgement (opposed Iraq from the begging) and has been more consistently progressive than either Edwards or Clinton.

---

He says he opposed Iraq from the beginning but if he were in Congress at the time, would he have had the guts to vote against it like Kucinich did? Unlikely. I agree with Josh, while I think it would be a clear sign of progress for America to elect a black man as president, I don't think they will. In fact, I'd bet there is not a chance that would happen. Nor will they elect a woman, especially Hillary. Too much baggage and she is very divisive, especially amongst Democrats. I also agree with Josh when he says Obama's talks are all style with no real substance.

But think of Hillary, who was put in charge of moving USian health care system towards a single-payer system, and how pressure from private health care companies (and possibly money, if Michael Moore in Sicko got that right) got her to back down. Maybe that was a learning experience for her, and she would do better if given another chance, but maybe that was a reflection of character--there's no way of knowing.

quote:

---

Thousands more Iowa independent voters are expected to turn out for Democrat presidential candidates than Republicans at today’s Iowa caucuses.

Iowa independents are expected to follow the lead set by their national peers in 2006. Nationwide, independents backed Democrats heavily in the watershed 2006 elections, in part out of a rejection of President Bush and a loud cry for change that has continued into the 2008 campaign, strategists in both parties agree.

Recent polls have shown the percentage of Iowa independents planning to participate in the Democrat caucuses is far higher than those who say they’ll caucus for Republicans. Turnout for the Democrats is projected to be higher than Republicans, perhaps double.

Link to article

---

quote:

---

The corporate media over the last couple of months has been pushing a notion that John Edwards sounds "angry". Are we witnessing another attempt to take down a candidate that threatens the corporate power structure? Do we have a repeat of four years ago when the media made a big deal about Howard Dean shouting over the crowd noise?

John Edwards is angry and he has every right to be. All Americans should be angry at what is going on in our country. Our treasure is being sacrificed in an illegal unjust war in Iraq. Our jobs are being exported overseas. Health care costs are rising while wages decline. Our civil liberties have been threatened by an administration that thinks it is above the law.

We don't need another candidate that will just fall into the "looking presidential" trap. Michael Dukakis did it; John Kerry did it and Walter Mondale did it. It doesn't work. The GOP loves it; they make false accusations that stick since they are not responded to in kind.

Lets examine what John Edwards is saying that has caused the corporate media to label him as angry:

Link to article

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:

He says he opposed Iraq from the beginning but if he were in Congress at the time, would he have had the guts to vote against it like Kucinich did?

---

Kind of pointless speculation if you ask me because he wasn't elected to the federal Senate. But as a state politician he was asked that question at the time and specifically said he wouldn't have voted to give Bush that authorization. I would agree with others that he probably had higher ambitions at the time, so publically staking out such a position was not, in the conventional wisdom of the time a smart thing to do. This is far better than Edwards opinion at the time or Hillary Clinton's. I think basically, the biggest issue here, is initial judgement and I'm not convinced that Clinton or Edwards have particularly good initial judgement - maybe they can learn from their mistakes, but I don't know.

Also, in regards to Edwards, while if I were American I'd vote for him as a general election candidate, he'd obviously be attacked just as vociferously for being a 'flip flopper' as Kerry was. While it wouldn't be likely to have much of an effect coming from someone as notoriously principle free as Romney, it could from just almost any other Republican. I just don't think he'd be a particularly strong candidate.edited for clarity

[ 03 January 2008: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

quote:

---

In September of 2002, in the face of growing public skepticism of the Bush Administration’s calls for an invasion of Iraq, Senator Edwards rushed to their defense in an op-ed article published in the Washington Post. In his commentary, Edwards claimed that Iraq, which had been successfully disarmed several years earlier, was actually “a grave and growing threat” and Congress should therefore “endorse the use of all necessary means to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.” Claiming that “our national security requires” that Congress grant President Bush unprecedented war powers, he further insisted that “we must not tie our own hands by requiring Security Council action....”

The Bush Administration was so impressed with Edwards’ arguments that they posted the article on the State Department website.

Two weeks later, Edwards joined Kerry in authorizing President Bush to attack Iraq whenever and under whatever circumstances he chose. When the invasion went forward – despite Iraq’s belated cooperation with UN inspectors and the absence of any signs of recent WMD activity – Edwards joined Kerry in supporting a Republican-sponsored resolution which “commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the President. . . in the conflict against Iraq.” In the same resolution – despite the consensus of the international legal community that such an offensive war is illegal – Edwards joined Kerry in insisting that the war was “lawful.” Subsequently, despite growing public disenchantment with the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy, Edwards has also joined is Kerry in supporting the ongoing U.S. occupation....

He has also joined Kerry in his strident support for the occupation policies of the rightist Israeli government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. This has included supporting Sharon’s plans for the unilateral Israeli annexation of large swaths of the occupied West Bank in order to incorporate illegal Jewish settlements from which the UN Security Council has called for an Israeli withdrawal. Edwards also joined Kerry in criticizing UN Secretary General Kofi Annan for raising questions regarding the legality of Israel’s separation wall in the occupied West Bank, recently declared illegal by the International Court of Justice in a 14-1 decision.

The incipient Democratic nominees also appear to have little concern regarding human rights: For example, in the face of widespread criticism by reputable human rights organizations over Israel’s systematic assaults against civilian targets in its April 2002 offensive in the West Bank, Edwards joined Kerry in 1) defending the Israeli actions, claiming that they were “necessary steps to provide security to its people by dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas;” 2) opposing United Nations efforts to investigate alleged war crimes by Israeli occupation forces; and 3) criticizing President Bush for calling on Israel to pull back from its violent incursions into Palestinian cities in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.

---

Three and a half years is a lifetime in politics. I'd rather Edwards win than an old trout well past her best before date or a Republican fundamentalist preacher.

quote:

---

Results at a glance

Barack Obama (D) 35%
John Edwards (D) 32%
Hillary Clinton (D) 31%

56% reporting

Mike Huckabee (R) 31%
Mitt Romney (R) 23%
Fred Thompson (R) 13%

41% reporting

Link to Seattle Times

---

quote:

---

With 85 percent of precincts reporting, Obama had the support of 37 percent of voters, compared to 30 percent for Edwards and 30 percent for Clinton.

With 65 percent of Republican precincts reporting, Huckabee had the support of 34 percent of voters, compared to 25 percent for Mitt Romney. Fred Thompson had 14 percent and John McCain had 13.

Rudy Giuliani, who has turned the focus of his campaign to the February 5 "Super Tuesday" primaries, trailed with 4 percent.

Huckabee's victory can be attributed to his overwhelming support among evangelical voters and women, according to CNN analysis of entrance polls.

Polls taken as Iowans entered the first-in-the-nation caucuses show a tight race for both parties.

CNN

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
[QB]Also, in regards to Edwards, while if I were American I'd vote for him as a general election candidate, he'd obviously be attacked just as vociferously for being a 'flip flopper' as Kerry was. While it wouldn't be likely to have much of an effect coming from someone as notoriously principle free as Romney, it could from just almost any other Republican. I just don't think he'd be a particularly strong candidate.

---

The one difference I see is that Edwards emphatically stated that he was wrong, while Kerry tried to talk his way around his "voting before the war before voting against it."

I was listening to Barrack Obama's Iowa victory speech on YouTube tonight while reading your post about him:

quote:

---

All Obama does is going around talking about "hope"[...]

---

As I read your post, I heard Senator Obama talk about "hope" in his victory speech.

[ 03 January 2008: Message edited by: Doug ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skinny Dipper:
Hi Josh,

I was listening to Barrack Obama's Iowa victory speech on YouTube tonight while reading your post about him:

As I read your post, I heard Senator Obama talk about "hope" in his victory speech.

Wow!

---

quote:

---

The John Edwards love-in: how quickly people can forget!

---

So, why don't you tell us who YOU support, so we can determine whether there is a choice BETTER than Edwards, or not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joel_Goldenberg:
Howard Dean was quite silly on CNN last night. .

---

heh.

Huckabee comes off all warm, fuzzy and cuddly but his social conservatism will be harmful. I think Huckabee is more socially conservative than Bush, and I think he will , more so than Bush, reward the evangelical voters. His access to the Executive office and policies going to reflect the society of "The Handmaid's Tale". Expect a largess government and higher taxes to fund pet projects like the melding of Church and State if Huckabee becomes pres. The religious right has hijacked this party.

Myself, I would have preferred John McCain coming out ahead as a candidate for the repubs. I find it interesting that the all the repub candidates had white males running again. Will this party ever reflect the diversity of American society?

I am rather pleased the Democrat Iowa caucus favoured Obama. I was surprised Clinton did so poorly. The white males did not fare so well in Iowa. Perhaps a sense of disenfranchisement for P.O.C. / visible minorities will reduce and more P.O.C. will become engaged. One can only hope.

Well, only about 50+ more caucuses to go.....

quote:

---

I’ll be a President who harnesses the ingenuity of farmers and scientists and entrepreneurs to free this nation from the tyranny of oil once and for all

---

wow powerful speech. I wonder if the executive office can even affect issues surrounding oil.

[ 04 January 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

I think both Clinton and Edwards neede to get at least 2nd in NH to stay in the race. I hope Edwards can do it. At this point Obama is the clear frontrunner, even before yesterday leading in NH. I hope Edwards can stay in the race, either to win or to keep focus on his populist message.

Richardson had a shot at one point, but made some mimstakes about the war.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
.... Edwards is far more electable that Clinton. .....

---

you keep insisting on making statements like this but Ani DiFranco made a good point
regarding electability, around 5:30

[ 04 January 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
Huckabee winning Iowa was probably the best thing for progressives and Democrats because now the Republican establishment will be attacking him relentlessly. Huckabee will not get the nomination but his victory in Iowa could lead to a civil war within the Republican party (evangelists vs neocons). ...

---

Momentum winner: Barack Obama. I have to remember it's Barack Obama and not Obama Barack. Thumbs up from Oprah.

Momentum loser: Hilary Clinton. Serving under husband Bill doesn't cut it. Voters don't care what you did; they care about what you will do.

quote:

---

I'm hoping that Ron Paul runs as the Lbertarian candidate, and if so Bloomberg running probably would be a good thing as well

---

That would be a good scenario, but comes with a warning.
If the Dem elite catch wind that the repubs are splintering then they may simply dump all their support to Hillary, since she is seen as the "leader" and is shamelessly pro-establishment.

The argument would be that the Dems wouldnt even need independent/Repub voters - the kind that Obama draws like moth to flame and Clinton scares away.

http://tinyurl.com/5b82f

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skinny Dipper:
Neutral: John Edwards. He needs to perform better than Hilary Clinton in New Hampshire to continue.

---

I would say Edwards needs to come in at least second in New Hampshire to still have a chance at winning the nomination. I don't think the scenario in New Hampshire where Clinton comes first, Edwards comes second, and Obama comes third automatically eliminates any chance for Edwards. The likelihood of that scenario is of course a different matter, as Obama is unlikely to finish worse than second in New Hampshire, having come first in Iowa.

[ 04 January 2008: Message edited by: Left Turn ]

quote:

---

trivia: do you know that the 100 highest-income counties in the US voted almost unanimously Democrat, and the 100 lowest-income counties almost totally Republican ?

---

Did you know that this is a silly statistic?

Here's a better one:

quote:

---

The bottom line, the study suggests, is that little has changed in terms of income's general influence on individual voting patterns: in every presidential election since 1952, the richer a voter is, the more likely that voter is to vote Republican, regardless of ethnicity, sex, education or age.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TemporalHominid:

you keep insisting on making statements like this but Ani DiFranco made a good point
regarding electability, around 5:30

---

I keep insisting on making these statements? Huh?

Edwards beats Clinton in polled head to head matchups against the potential Republican nominees in almost every state. Somebody said that Bloomberg was going to run if a "far left" candidate like Edwars won the Democratic nomination. I assumed the implication was that if a far left candidate won, then Bloomberg would run in order to keep the WH away from the Republicans. So i responded with that because it seems right now that Edwards would do better against Republicans than Clinton.

But Bloomberg is more or less a republican anyway, and his Unity08 campaign of "bipartisanship" is all about keeping the status quo, so yeah, he probably wouldn't run against Clinton and would against Edwards.

As for Obama:

quote:

---

Despite public denials, the mayor has privately suggested several scenarios in which he might be a viable candidate: for instance, if the opposing major party candidates are poles apart, like Mike Huckabee, a Republican, versus Barack Obama or John Edwards as the Democratic nominee.

---

Anyway i'm not sure what the point was about electability. Kucinich is great in many ways, but he's got some real negatives. For instance, when Edwards was voting to authorize the war and promoting it in columns, Kucinich was anti-choice. Now i agree that current positions matter more than previous ones, but for some people this (just like Edwards' war vote) makes him unacceptable.

I like the focus he's put on impeachment, and his Department of Peace proposal, and sticking up for the people of Cincinati when it mattered, But if he can't break double digits in the Dem primaries, he's not going to do much in a general.

quote:

---

Now, apparently, Edwards is one of three people with a chance to become the Democratic presidential nominee this year. If so, he would be the most progressive Democrat to top the national ticket in more than half a century.

The main causes of John Edwards' biggest problems with the media establishment have been tied in with his firm stands for economic justice instead of corporate power.

Weeks ago, when the Gannett-chain-owned Des Moines Register opted to endorse Hillary Clinton this time around, the newspaper's editorial threw down the corporate gauntlet: "Edwards was our pick for the 2004 nomination. But this is a different race, with different candidates. We too seldom saw the positive, optimistic campaign we found appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change

---

quote:

---

The best argument for voting for Dennis Kucinich in caucuses and primaries has been what he aptly describes as his "singular positions on the war, on health care, and trade." But his support for Obama over Edwards indicates that he's willing to allow some opaque and illogical priorities to trump maximizing the momentum of our common progressive agendas.

Presidential candidates have to be considered in the context of the current historical crossroads. No matter how much we admire or revere an individual, there's too much at stake to pursue faith-based politics at the expense of reality-based politics. There's no reason to support Obama over Edwards on Kucinich's say-so. And now, I can't think of reasons good enough to support Kucinich rather than Edwards in the weeks ahead.

---

quote:

---

I was not raised in a particularly religious household. . . .

It wasn't until after college, when I went to Chicago to work as a community organizer for a group of Christian churches, that I confronted my own spiritual dilemma . . .

So one Sunday . . . I heard Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright deliver a sermon called "The Audacity of Hope." And during the course of that sermon, he introduced me to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed. I learned that those things I was too weak to accomplish myself, He would accomplish with me if I placed my trust in Him. And in time, I came to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world and in my own life.

It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn't fall out in church, as folks sometimes do. The questions I had didn't magically disappear. The skeptical bent of my mind didn't suddenly vanish. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth and carrying out His works.

---

quote:

---

I'm hearing from evangelicals who may not agree with progressives on every issue but agree that poverty has no place in a world of plenty; that hate has no place in the hearts of believers; and that we all have to be good stewards of God's creations. From Willow Creek to the 'emerging church,' from the Southern Baptist Convention to the National Association of Evangelicals, folks are realizing that the four walls of the church are too small for a big God. God is still speaking.

So let's rededicate ourselves to a new kind of politics - a politics of conscience. Let's come together - Protestant and Catholic, Muslim and Hindu and Jew, believer and non-believer alike. We're not going to agree on everything, but we can disagree without being disagreeable. We can affirm our faith without endangering the separation of church and state, as long as we understand that when we're in the public square, we have to speak in universal terms that everyone can understand. And if we can do that - if we can embrace a common destiny - then I believe we'll not just help bring about a more hopeful day in America, we'll not just be caring for our own souls, we'll be doing God's work here on Earth.

---

1. JFK - Massachusetts *youthful* Liberal by a very narrow margin due to the first televised debate against Nixon;

2. Jimmy Carter, Georgia Governor, moderate;

3. Bill Clinton, Arkansas Governor, moderate;

The key is "moderate" and IMHO, Edwards again fits the bill this time around.

If I was a Democratic strategist, he would appeal to the broadest US electorate base.

From the Republican's perspective, Mitt Romney would fit the same bill.

Anyhoo, the momentum in 2008 is with the Democrats.

[ 04 January 2008: Message edited by: Centrist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/6885.html

---

Everyone seems to be wanting a grab at the new rallying cry because it's a vote grabber--even the Republicans (except ole` Fred, that is). As for the Dems, John Edwards has become shameless in it--he just about jumped in Obama's lap in his attempt to show his alliance with Obama against Clinton in the N.H. debate last night. I thought his performance in this regard was an embarrassment.

During the Q and A, in N.H., I thought Clinton answered questions the most cogently. Her answers showed the most insight, and knowledge of the complexity of the problems, expecially about the war. She didn't rely upon "vision" as a replacement for solutions.

Moral of the story: Have your own vision; Don't steal someone else's for political gain; and make sure that your vision can be translated into problem-solving.

[ 06 January 2008: Message edited by: Pearson's Fan ]

[ 06 January 2008: Message edited by: Pearson's Fan ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Centrist:
To preface, in the last 47+ years, the Democrats have only won the White House with three separate contenders:

1. JFK - Massachusetts *youthful* Liberal by a very narrow margin due to the first televised debate against Nixon;

2. Jimmy Carter, Georgia Governor, moderate;

3. Bill Clinton, Arkansas Governor, moderate;

The key is "moderate" and IMHO, Edwards again fits the bill this time around.

If I was a Democratic strategist, he would appeal to the broadest US electorate base.

From the Republican's perspective, Mitt Romney would fit the same bill.

---

You forgot LBJ, who I wouldn't necessarilly describe as moderate or centrist. Had he not been such a hawk, I'm pretty sure it would've been fair to describe him as one of the most left-wing Presidents the US has ever had.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
Norman Solomon:

Counterpunch

---

Nice to see Counterpunch recognising the limitations of what we can expect from the North American (we aint much different) political system at this point. Edwards is probably the best that can be reasonably expected to win --get out of Iraq, stop blowing hundreds of billions a year on an already bloated military machine, maybe use some of it to help those who really need it. Spare a couple hundred thousand more lives in the bargain. I doubt any Democrats could manage more than a slow and painful withdrawal though, but still better than what Hillary or Obama are still insisting on -favour the military bureaucracy over the will of the majority of Americans.

[ 06 January 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

[ 06 January 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

This could be an expression of all kinds of strategies. The first that comes to mind is that if Hillary can be wounded badly and early enough to knock her out- which is very plausible- this leaves more options for Edwards. Obama is not going to be knocked out, he will win or come in second.

Any number of other possible scenarios I can't imagine in which this would fit.

Besides, sidelining Hillary would not get him VP spot. If Hillary gets knocked out tommorow, but would be the best running mate for Obama and wants the spot, its hers.

[ 06 January 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

http://preview.tinyurl.com/32w67h

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik Redburn:

Nice to see Counterpunch recognising the limitations of what we can expect from the North American (we aint much different) political system at this point. Edwards is probably the best that can be reasonably expected to win --get out of Iraq, stop blowing hundreds of billions a year on an already bloated military machine, maybe use some of it to help those who really need it. Spare a couple hundred thousand more lives in the bargain. I doubt any Democrats could manage more than a slow and painful withdrawal though, but still better than what Hillary or Obama are still insisting on -favour the military bureaucracy over the will of the majority of Americans.

---

Sorry, but Edwards isn't particularly different than Obama and Clinton on Iraq now or that he's the only one who supports withdrawal.

All three promise to begin withdrawal when they take office. Clinton's position beyond immediate action commencing, according to her own website, doesn't have a specific timeframe along the lines of Obama (remove two brigades per month, with all out by sixteen months of taking office) and Edwards (immediate withdrawal of 40-50K troops, then all out by eight or nine months) because her plan is predicated on the first of three steps being commenced. (First step: having experts come up with withdrawal plan, second: put plan into place and support aid to governmental and non-governmental agencies as troops withdrawal, third: then focusing on diplomacy to stabilize as troops are out). Furthermore, if this should come up, I'm pretty sure all of them support having residual forces remain (of course that would change if Iraq were to go the way of Afghanistan post-1992). Even Edwards supports the idea of having a small force of troops (3.5K to 5K) remain in Iraq protecting American assets (embassy and humanitarian mission) post-main withdrawal.

So though Edwards supports quicker overall withdrawal (unless Clinton's post-election plan determines that's the best course of action...unlikely though) I wouldn't really say that's tougher. It could be dumber. They should withdrawal all their troops, but it should be done in an orderly way.

quote:

---

Obama, the first-term senator from Illinois who won last week's Iowa caucuses, led the New York senator and former first lady 39 percent to 29 percent in a poll conducted Saturday and Sunday -- a sharp change from a poll out Saturday that showed the Democratic front-runners tied at 33 percent.

Support for former Sen. John Edwards, who edged out Clinton for second place in Iowa, dropped from 20 percent in Saturday's poll to 16 percent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik Redburn:
These early reports at all accurate BoomBoom, or just more Beltway spin?

http://preview.tinyurl.com/32w67h

I'd hate to see Edwards bow out so soon, just because the early primaries are always run in the same whitebread mini-states.

---

That would most likely be Bill richardson(from New Mexico).

He fashions himself to be some foreign policy genius. And he has the track record too.

With that caveat of not having listend to the punditry.... I would say that if Obama beats Hillary in New Hampshire, she is just steps from being out for the count. Obama does not even have to win NH.

Coming up: she couldn't possibly even hold her own in South Carolina. I can't see what appeal she would have in NV- suspect that one is Obama again, but it's another small and unique. But the next medium to large state where she chas a chance to win, she will have to, and that would still just keep her in the game. Assuming she does not beat Obama decisively in NH.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
With that caveat of not having listend to the punditry.... I would say that if Obama beats Hillary in New Hampshire, she is just steps from being out for the count. Obama does not even have to win NH.

---

But even more importantly, something which everyone (myself included!) has forgotten, Clinton is the only major candidate in Michigan. The national Democratic Party says, because Michigan violated the rules they won't seat their delegates, but there's a lot of speculation that they won't want to piss off Michigan which has been a swing-state in the last few elections and face the threat of loosing it in the general election. Because Edwards, Obama and even Richardson (who for some reason was considered worthy of being included in the Debate) aren't even on the ballot they've basically ceded all of Michigan's delegates to Clinton since it's unlikely that many would remain uncommitted or go to Kucinich, Gravel or the recently dropped out Dodd.

Also, I read two really interesting blog postings from a guy named BooMan. This one is about why the left wing blogosphere went for Edwards:

quote:

---

No, I don't mean people turned their back on Obama because he didn't pay the proper respect to the blogosphere. That isn't what happened. Obama didn't embrace our way of doing things. Worse, he began to use rhetoric we had spent energy to debunk. He went even further. He tossed aside one of our central insights...an insight won through hard experience: we cannot compromise with the Republican Party...we must smash them.

Perhaps because his wife is such an avid reader of blogs, Edwards' campaign tapped right into our zeitgeist. He came out with our insight front and center. You want Edwards' message? Here it is: 'Fuck David Broder, fuck Joe Klein, fuck Chris Matthews, fuck FOX News, fuck Tim Russert, fuck Mitch McConnell, fuck Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Defense. We don't need them. They won't negotiate in good faith. They're stacking the deck against us. And we can beat them by telling the truth and getting organized.' That's Edwards' message, and that is the message we have internalized both through our successes and our failures.

What's funny is that Obama is saying many of the same things, in his own way. The policy differences between Edwards and Obama are minimal. But Obama's tone deaf to the blogosphere. And, as a result, the blogosphere didn't trust him. Take Armando:

...we do not criticize Obama's political style on aesthetic grounds; we criticize his style because we think it will not work to actually EFFECT CHANGE. We believe that despite his being touted as the change candidate, his political style is the one LEAST likely to achieve progressive policy change.

His 'style' will be ineffective. Why did so many of us conclude this? It's because we have watched Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi try to negotiate with the Republicans (in the minority, the majority, no matter) and it does not work. We have watched the Dems talk tough and then back down time and time again. We're done with conciliation and we don't believe bipartisanship is possible without first crushing the Republican Party down to a stump.

---

So basically he's saying that Obama isn't any less progressive than Edwards, per se, so much as is style is designed to make it seem like he's more moderate.

Which is kind of explained by the constraints Obama faces as the first 'mainstream' black candidate.

quote:

---

In saying this, I do not at all mean to suggest that Obama's positive, inclusive, bipartisan, hopeful message is insincere. I think, fortunately, Barack Obama's wants to campaign this way. But the fact remains that he didn't have an option.

In fairness to Hillary Clinton, she has been operating under her own constraints. In vying to be the first American female commander in chief (in a time of war, no less) she needed to prove her toughness. If she had taken Dennis Kucinich's positions on foreign policy she probably would have disqualified herself in the eyes of enough people to doom her campaign. Anyone that discounts these threshold hurdles for Obama and Clinton just isn't cynical enough.

[and]

I could also be wrong about Obama. I think deep down he is an activist and a progressive, and that he will take a fresh look at our foreign policies. But maybe he is naive and soft, and will get easily rolled once he gains office.

Regardless, I haven't written anything (that I can remember) bashing Obama for his tone or style or lack of combativeness or partisanship. Many people I really respect, like Chris Bowers, have been almost obsessed with these aspects of Obama's campaign. It's surprised me. Obama and Bowers are like twins separated at birth, but Bowers has struggled to get past discordant rhetoric from the Obama campaign. In my view, Obama's rhetoric has been finely calibrated to reassure white people, the media, the Beltway, the business community, and the Blue Dogs and moderates. He took the progressives a bit for granted because, frankly, he had that luxury.

---

[ 07 January 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Centrist:
What this campaign is certainly lacking is another Howard Dean moment.

The Dean Scream

---

I can top that!

But anyways, maybe Clinton is finished, or pretty close to being so:

quote:

---

A panicked and cash-short Clinton campaign is seriously considering giving up on the Nevada caucuses and on the South Carolina primary in order to regroup and to save resources for the massive 19-state mega-primary on February 5.

At the same time, some top independent expenditure groups supporting Clinton have been exploring the creation of an anti-Obama "527 committee" that would take unlimited contributions from a few of Clinton's super-rich backers and from a handful of unions to finance television ads and direct mail designed to tarnish the Illinois Senator's image.

The Clinton campaign has raised over $100 million, but has "only" $15 to $20 million left. It faces donor reluctance to give more in the face of the Iowa defeat and the prospect of a second loss in New Hampshire today. Even worse, the campaign fears defections among those fundraisers who want to be with a winner and who might be easily persuaded to support Barack Obama.

While the amount of money Clinton has would seem to be more than enough by past standards, the cost of competing in the February 5 states -- including New York, California, Georgia, New Jersey, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee, Massachusetts and Arizona - is unprecedented in the history of American primaries. She will face, in turn, an extremely well-funded Obama campaign, whose cash register right now doesn't stop ringing as donations are coming in over the Internet, by mail and in checks handed over in person.

The decision whether to take on Obama in Nevada and South Carolina will likely be made within the next 12 hours.

---

http://tinyurl.com/yqmva9

On the GOP side, McCain has a 10-point lead over Romney, with Huckabee edging Guiliani for third.

Link.

Of course, much too early to read much into these results, but if these trends hold up, on the Dem side as long as Hillary finishes a strong second, she can hang on until Super Tuesday at least. Edwards is probably done.

On the GOP side, Huckabee will meet expectations with a third-place finish, and McCain will now be firmly back in the top tier. Romney is damaged but not fatally. Giuliani is the wild card - will his strategy of waiting for the big states on Super Tuesday pay off?

[ 08 January 2008: Message edited by: ghoris ]

[ 08 January 2008: Message edited by: josh ]

Edited to say - whoops, now that you've edited your double-post, my "you can say that again" isn't funny.

Well, not that it was overly funny to begin with, but you know.

[ 08 January 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Either I've got this completely wrong or that's one fucked up system. I'm thinking it must be the former.

I still don't get why they don't just count the votes themselves instead of assigning delegates. But that's fine.

... in terms of frequently updated state polls, etc.?

quote:

---

Apparently, tears work.

Clinton's comeback was fueled by women, who spurned her in Iowa, but gave her a 13-point margin in New Hampshire. A Clinton loyalist said internal polling discovered New Hampshire women were overcome with sympathy for Clinton when she choked up publicly in a diner Monday under the stress of her expected loss.

"Even Obama women were moved by it," the source said.

---

Or maybe people like seeing Bill Clinton getting pissed off at Obama.

Andrew Sullivan writes:

quote:

---

The term Bradley effect or Wilder effect refers to a phenomenon which has led to inaccurate voter opinion polls in some American political campaigns between a white candidate and a non-white candidate. Specifically, there have been instances in which statistically significant numbers of white voters tell pollsters in advance of an election that they are either genuinely undecided, or likely to vote for the non-white candidate, but those voters exhibit a different behavior when actually casting their ballots. White voters who said that they were undecided break in statistically large numbers toward the white candidate, and many of the white voters who said that they were likely to vote for the black candidate ultimately cast their ballot for the white candidate. This reluctance to give accurate polling answers has sometimes extended to post-election exit polls as well.

Researchers who have studied the issue theorize that some white voters give inaccurate responses to polling questions because of a fear that they might appear to others to be racially prejudiced. Some research has suggested that the race of the pollster conducting the interview may factor into that concern. At least one prominent researcher has suggested that with regard to pre-election polls, the discrepancy can be traced in part by the polls' failure to account for general conservative political leanings among late-deciding voters.

Tonight is the first primary - not a caucus. People get to vote in a secret ballot - not in front of their largely liberal peers, as in Iowa. They may have told the pollsters one thing about voting for a black man, but in the privacy of the voting booth, something else happens. I don't have any hard evidence for this, but the discrepancy in the polls is remarkable. David Kuo cites it. The vast discrepancy between the last polls and the result puts it on the table. I hope it's not true. But it could be.

---

[ 08 January 2008: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
CNN has these evil smirks on their face. I'm worried.

---

It's gonna be Hilary and McCain battling it out for Prez.

But I'm waiting to hear whether there was a really massive phone campaign by the Clinton machine to pull the vote. They have the means to do it, could even use out of state phone banks, and were reputed to be spending wildly in NH.

Such a massive final 24 hour effort would play decisively in a primary, the more so in a small state. That alone could account for the chage from the polls.

Even the Cinton $100 million plus machine does not have the resources to keep throwing that much at every close race- not very many of them at all as a matter of fact.

On the other hand, they HAD to have this one, and may well redevelop momentum.

South Carolina will be a blow-out for Obama.

Not for the votes, I'm waiting for his tour of SC. The crowds of black and white supporters should do a lot for Obama ramping up to Super Tuesday.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mary123:

hahahahhahaha

---

I think I saw that too...

Is that taken to mean that CNN hates Hillary? or vice versa?

But I still think this is Obama's to lose.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Centrist:
Does anyone know of a good website for the Democratic/ Republican primary elections?

... in terms of frequently updated state polls, etc.?

Had one last time around in 2004 but forgot the name of the website.[/QB]

---

Here.

But apparently all the polls were wrong so use them with a grain of salt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:

Here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mary123:
America isn't ready for a black president yet unfortunately this time.

---

I disagree. I think America is very keen to show it WILL support the right black candidate -- and that was a huge factor behind the surge for Colin Powell in the mid-1990s, despite his total lack of domestic policy, electoral history, campaign experience, etc etc. (This was a time when the polls repeatedly showed the "3 most admired Americans" were Powell, Oprah and Michael Jordan.)

When Powell finally withdrew from presidential consideration, at a press conference in, if memory serves, November 1995, I was living in New York and it was really a bombshell for everyone and dominated the tabloids there for a few days. -- Him NOT running.

Powell would have given Bill Clinton a very very good run for his money in 1996, despite the good economy. Way better than ol' Bob Dole, for sure.

[ 09 January 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]