Tag Archives: John Edwards

On John Edwards

Today, I was proved right about John Edwards.

I remember Edwards in 2004. He wasn’t the fiery populist that he is now. He was against Universal Health Care. He voted for the war and hadn’t yet apologized (he’d actually co-sponsored the legislation, an unforgivable sin in my opnion).

On caucus night in Iowa, I was having a general good time. The Hillary people were subdued and reclusive, and the Richardson staffer next to me was having a near-nervous breakdown, but that was to be expected. But when I went to the Edwards table to get some water, the lady there turned on me.

“You need to start thinking.” she said as she saw my shirt, refusing to give me some water.

“I’m not caucusing, I’m just observing,” I replied, surprised at her virtrosity towards Obama.

She eventually gave me some water, telling me she hopes it would wet my brain and get my cells thinking again.

I always felt that Edwards, of all the candidates, was in this for himself. He was the only one (besides Gravel) who did not hold political office, instead, he’d been essentially running for President for the past 4 years, since his last defeat. He had changes all of his positions and spent months sucking up to the Progressive base, including the blogosphere. Little surprise that the folks at MyDD, OpenLeft, and numerous other blogs jumped on the Edwards bandwagon, and he routinely won the DailyKos straw polls.

Today, we learned that Edwards was just another politicial, another smooth talking lawyer.

Thankfully, we decided to nominate a real candidate this time.

Share

Who's the Most Electable? Who Cares!

I’m sick and tired of all the “Candidate A is more Electable than Candidate B” diaries. Are we so insecure as a party that we can’t stop worrying what the other side thinks about us? Why are we so god damn worried about electablity? It’s almost become a cancer that is eating away at our party’s soul. Don’t you wonder why the Republicans don’t argue about electability like us?

Why are we, the party that has lost 5 of the last 7 elections, worried about electability when the Republicans have continued to nominate right wing idealogues like Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, all of whom were both considered unelectable because of their conservative stances, yet all of whom are two term winners?

crossposted at OpenLeft and DailyKos

The Arguments:

Hillary Clinton = Most Electable. Knows how to beat the Republicans. Does best in Ohio and Virginia, critical swing states.

Barack Obama = Most Electable. Appeals to independents. Best in Zogby GE Matchups. Performs well in Missouri and Iowa.

John Edwards = Most Electable. Southern appeal (look at last 2 Dem Presidents). Best in CNN GE Polls

Conclusion: Umm. Inconclusive. Why should I vote on electability? Is that how Democracy works?

Maybe we should think like this. We are Democrats. We represent at least (and probably more) than half the country. When we pick a candidate because we believe in him or her, because we believe in his or her stances, and because him or her inspires us, we win half the country. The reasons that we choose our candidates WILL appeal to those in the other half or in the center. When we choose someone because they seem “electable” then we forget why people vote for certain candidates.

George W. Bush. Republicans didn’t vote for him because he was the most electable. They voted for him because he was a straight shooter, seemed authentic, and spoke to their concerns. John Kerry? We voted for him because he was electable. Independents and Republicans saw nothing in him, and he lost.

We should NOT worry incessantly about who the Republicans want to face. Who cares who they want to face? Did Republicans think that a sex-scandal plagued, small state southern Governor was the toughest candidate to face in 1992? Did we think that a conservative, gaffe-prone, southern Governor was a better candidate than a moderate Western Senator with strong indy appeal? Do we know who we want to face right now?

Let’s focus on our race, and let them focus on there’s.

And one more note: GE matchups are a waste of time. Mitt Romney has only 67% name recognition. Huckabee, Paul, and Thompson are far lower. Obama, Edwards, and McCain still don’t have universal name recognition. Only two candidates do – Guiliani and Clinton. Polls change. Michael Dukakis had a 18 point lead disappear. Clinton was in third place once – behind Bush and Perot! – in 1992. Did those polls tell us anything?

So I implore all Democrats, vote for the candidate who inspires you, who you believe will best lead our country into the future. Look at the candidate yourself, and follow your heart. Do not vote for someone solely because you think they’re “electable.” Sure, consider it, but don’t let polls and RedState make the decision for you. If we do that, then Democrats have already lost, and we’re handing our core values to the Republicans on a silver platter.

Share

Who’s the Most Electable? Who Cares!

I’m sick and tired of all the “Candidate A is more Electable than Candidate B” diaries. Are we so insecure as a party that we can’t stop worrying what the other side thinks about us? Why are we so god damn worried about electablity? It’s almost become a cancer that is eating away at our party’s soul. Don’t you wonder why the Republicans don’t argue about electability like us?

Why are we, the party that has lost 5 of the last 7 elections, worried about electability when the Republicans have continued to nominate right wing idealogues like Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, all of whom were both considered unelectable because of their conservative stances, yet all of whom are two term winners?

crossposted at OpenLeft and DailyKos

The Arguments:

Hillary Clinton = Most Electable. Knows how to beat the Republicans. Does best in Ohio and Virginia, critical swing states.

Barack Obama = Most Electable. Appeals to independents. Best in Zogby GE Matchups. Performs well in Missouri and Iowa.

John Edwards = Most Electable. Southern appeal (look at last 2 Dem Presidents). Best in CNN GE Polls

Conclusion: Umm. Inconclusive. Why should I vote on electability? Is that how Democracy works?

Maybe we should think like this. We are Democrats. We represent at least (and probably more) than half the country. When we pick a candidate because we believe in him or her, because we believe in his or her stances, and because him or her inspires us, we win half the country. The reasons that we choose our candidates WILL appeal to those in the other half or in the center. When we choose someone because they seem “electable” then we forget why people vote for certain candidates.

George W. Bush. Republicans didn’t vote for him because he was the most electable. They voted for him because he was a straight shooter, seemed authentic, and spoke to their concerns. John Kerry? We voted for him because he was electable. Independents and Republicans saw nothing in him, and he lost.

We should NOT worry incessantly about who the Republicans want to face. Who cares who they want to face? Did Republicans think that a sex-scandal plagued, small state southern Governor was the toughest candidate to face in 1992? Did we think that a conservative, gaffe-prone, southern Governor was a better candidate than a moderate Western Senator with strong indy appeal? Do we know who we want to face right now?

Let’s focus on our race, and let them focus on there’s.

And one more note: GE matchups are a waste of time. Mitt Romney has only 67% name recognition. Huckabee, Paul, and Thompson are far lower. Obama, Edwards, and McCain still don’t have universal name recognition. Only two candidates do – Guiliani and Clinton. Polls change. Michael Dukakis had a 18 point lead disappear. Clinton was in third place once – behind Bush and Perot! – in 1992. Did those polls tell us anything?

So I implore all Democrats, vote for the candidate who inspires you, who you believe will best lead our country into the future. Look at the candidate yourself, and follow your heart. Do not vote for someone solely because you think they’re “electable.” Sure, consider it, but don’t let polls and RedState make the decision for you. If we do that, then Democrats have already lost, and we’re handing our core values to the Republicans on a silver platter.

Share

Des Moines Register: Endorsement Rumors Galore!

Quite possibly the biggest endorsement left in Iowa (unless Tom Harkin comes out of his Dean-shaped shell of fear). Let’s start up the rumor mill!

Crossposted at DailyKos

#1) Joe Biden

What if the Des Moines Register Endorses Biden?

The Register’s own David Yepsen raved about Biden’s performance in the paper’s debate yesterday. Given the Register’s self-importance—it aggressively promotes its debate as the leading event in the run-up to the caucuses—it wouldn’t shock me if it decided to go with the debate’s (Yepsen-appointed) winner.

But its the New Republic. I wouldn’t trust anything that comes out of that cesspool.

So, from a far better source (The Huffington Post) comes this. Author Glenn Horowitz says:

I talked to a major statewide leader with a large following … I can’t say his name yet, but he told me that he’s going to endorse Edwards next week. And I think that could really [make] a significant difference. So I think we’re on the cusp of an Edwards surge.

Considering Edwards won the endorsement of the Register four years ago, it could always happen again. Second time’s the charm? Speculation abound.

But wait! From another reliable source. Barack Obama to get the endorsement? So says Hotline on Call.

On Call is hearing that the Des Moines Register endorsements could be imminent, possibly tomorrow, and posted online tonight.

Buzz is that the odds are with Barack Obama

The paper’s support for John Edwards in 2004 catapulted him to a second place caucus finish. This year, though, he competes for the nod with a ‘fresher’ face in Obama.

Obama’s anti-war position could be the deal sealer. Edwards supported the 2002 Iraq war resolution, but has since said the vote was a mistake.

Stay tuned.

So its Biden, Obama, or Edwards? What? I think my head’s gonna explore…
Why don’t we just wait till tomorrow and find out from the best source of them all – The Des Moines Register.

Share

Democratic Debate Capsules

The format is a bit dull. Not a single person has confronted anyone else, unless you consider Joe Biden joking about Bill Richardson being color blind a “confrontation”, or Barack Obama telling Hillary (in jest) that “I’m looking forward to having you advise me in my administration.”

From right to left, according to PBS’s stage placements. Do you think they purposely put Barack and Hillary on opposite sides?

Hillary Clinton: Mediocre. Hasn’t said anything that stands out, hasn’t rebutted anything that Edwards or Obama have said, and I honestly can’t remember anything that was much of a soundbite. On the plus side, not attacking Obama does hep her put some distance on the disgraceful drugs comment from her NH Co-chair yesterday.

John Edwards: He has been creating some mighty rhetoric, creating a sense of urgency. He has been speaking about battling the Corporations, the special interests. He has spent a lifetime winning these fights? What about that fight against George W. Bush when you were Kerry’s VP nominee? And, as someone who watches these things a lot, Edwards repeats himself more than anyone else, except perhaps Richardson.

Chris Dodd: The dud. Even on the 30 second personal statement he didn’t look rehearsed. He looks tired, and like he is balding (anyone else notice that?). Joe Biden has certainly taken the rug from underneath him, he can’t even make the experience argument anymore, and he doesn’t answer the question – why am I running for President? What happened to the Constitution?

Joe Biden: He had the answer of the night when the moderator accused him, basically, of being racially insensitive. He’s having a great performance, especially towards to the end of the debate, but he does at times sound like a policy work, and tends to get into Senate-speak.

Barack Obama: He sounds prepared. Less “umm”‘s, and less hesitation than in previous experiences. One of his best performances because he looks and sounds Presidential, up to par with Biden and Clinton, but his rhetoric isn’t as fiery as Edwards.

Share

Ranking the Caucus Training Videos

Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton have all released caucus training videos for the Iowa Caucuses. Obama has also released a Nevada Caucus training video. Each video has its strengths and weaknesses, and here I’m going to use my subjective rating system and rate each of the three videos in four catagories, Creativity, New Media Savvy, Effectiveness and how informative is it. One video, in my opinion, stood out as being the most effective by far – read below to see which one it was.

More below the fold. All the videos can be watched at the here.

John Edwards

+’s
- Succinct, easy to understand slide by slide steps about how to win the caucus for John Edwards.
- Superb productions – graphics, music, voice-overs all have a professional quality, and its obvious that a lot of input went into the making of this video.
- Language – Simple, clear, and direct. Few wasted words, and really give the viewer the impression that the caucus is a simple and fun event.
- Fantastic ending – a parody of other documentaries, it reminds everyone why they are supporting John Edwards and what he’ll accomplish in four years.

-’s
- The short section about taking food to and high fiving your local Edwards office workers. Doesn’t add to the video.
- The slide by slide graphics get a little tedious after a while (alright, I’m nitpicking)
- Orange Bowl reminder – I doubt too many Iowans care about Kansas versus Virginia Tech. Iowa is Big 10 country. Nevertheless…

This video was made with YouTube in mind, and was meant for a savvy web audience, but its simple to understand frame by frame message makes it ideal for all age groups, regardless of technological literacy. At 6:46, its not too long nor too short. However, its only weakness is also these strengths, and it leaves some questions unanswered.

Creativity: 9
New Media Savvy: 9
Effectiveness: 7
Informative: 5

Barack Obama

+’s
- Barack speaking to the camera. He is the candidate, and having him lead the intro is powerful.
- Question and answers with Gordon Fischer are clear, concise, and give viewer a lot of a information.
- Long: almost 8 minutes.

-’s
- Intro. Reminds me of a late night, 80′s era infomercial.
- Doesn’t grab your attention, nor does it provide any incentive to continue watching to the end.
- Looks amateurish at times. The voice (a young midwestern) doesn’t provide any authority not does he sound authentic. Feels like it was made by volunteers.
- Doesn’t provide viewer with any a sence of urgency.

Creativity: 3
New Media Savvy: 4
Effectiveness: 6
Informative: 8

Though informative, that’s really it. It doesn’t give viewers any sense of empowerment, and doesn’t look all that well made. Doesn’t have much of a YouTube feel to it, and at 8 minutes, is a little long. I was tempted to stop watching it in the middle. No creativity in how the story is told, a straightforward, textbook style training video with a few cool Final Cut Pro graphics thrown in.

Hillary Clinton

+’s
- Well made. Audio, video quality, and the narrator all are professional.
- Good use of Bill Clinton and humor, though a little too much hamburger (I almost stopped watching to go eat)
- Makes a caucus look incredibly simple, like voting except you get counted. Showing up = Hillary wins!
- Short – about four minutes, and keeps the viewers attention throughout.

-’s
- Feels too much like a TV commercial, especially the introduction.
- Not very informative. Nothing about caucus math, viability, undecided voters, delegates or the second round.
- Difficult to find. Go ahead. Go to Hillary’s website and try to find this video, or any information about the Iowa caucus process. Good luck.

The shortest of the three videos, and the least informative, Hillary’s video has one goal – get the voters out to the caucus. It keeps things simple and doesn’t get into very many details, and the video makes it sound like the precinct captains at every precinct will have everything taken care of.

Creativity: 4
New Media Savvy: 3
Effectiveness: 7
Informative: 3

In conclusion, John Edwards wins three of the four catagories and in my opinion has by far the best caucus training video. It has the right balance of information, motivation, and creativity. It gives viewers something to fight for on January 3rd and reminds them of why they support Edwards. Obama and Clinton both showed a lack of new media savvy with two traditional training videos, while Edwards used new media effectively without losing an old media audience. For your enjoyment, you can see all three of the videos here.

Share

NithinCoca.com Horserace Rankings

The order from most likely to win the Democratic nomination to least likely to win the Democratic nomination. Momentum direction in parenthesis. Republican rankings coming soon. Like the BCS, these rankings are generally retarded, unfounded in reality, but thankfully no computer component was used.

Crossposted at Daily Kos

1) Hillary Clinton (down)

Though Iowa is looking more and more precarious for her by the day, she is still ahead in the other three early states, and has a huge lead in some of the February 5th states (ex. +26 in California, +31 in New York). Nationally, she still holds a large lead over Barack Obama and John Edwards. However, something must be causing her some alarm, as she has shifted her tone from ignoring her opponents to an all out attack on Barack Obama, who has been leading in Iowa according to three of the last five polls.

2) Barack Obama (up)

Where it matters, Obama is doing well. As I mentioned above, he’s taken the lead in Iowa in three of the last five polls. In the previous 11 months, only 3 polls, all outliers, showed him in the lead, so this is definitely important. He’s narrowed the gap in New Hampshire to the single digits, and, most importantly in my mind, seems to finally be taking the lead with African Americans in South Carolina. So far, he’s responded well to the attacks from Hillary, even launching a new rapid response website, Hillary Attacks to respond to her allegations.

Will Obama be able to withstand the heat? All of his eggs are in one basket, Iowa, and to a lesser extent, South Carolina. If he doesn’t win both of those states, it could be over.

3) John Edwards (up)

Edwards was playing the role of attack dog for a few weeks. He has since stopped, now staying above the fray (notable exception – in debates, where he’s been the sharpest in taking Hillary on). Like Obama, all his eggs are in the Iowa basket, but to a greater extent. A weak showing in Iowa will finish Edwards, who’s not showing much strength in South Carolina, which he won back in 2004.

Edwards has released information during a media conference call claiming to have the strongest organization in Iowa, stating that he has precinct captains in 86% of the precincts. However, I’m skeptical, as to why his campaign released this information – now his opponents know the extent of his organization, and this might be an attempt to create an illusion of strength to ward of supporters slipping to other candidates. It might be a sign of weakness, without any other numbers to compare this to, it’s anyones guess.

4) Bill Richardson (down)

Richardson hasn’t really had much momentum since the summer, when his “interview” ads went on the air and bumped him up to double digits. He’s still below the 15% threshhold for Iowa, and lately has been faltering a bit. However, he apparently does have a strong organization (personally, I have some doubts) and still might be able to create a surprise in Iowa or New Hampshire. I keep him at third because he still shows relative strength in three of the first four states, Iowa, NH, and also in Nevada.

5) Joe Biden (up)

Joe Biden has broken away from his colleague, Chris Dodd, as the statesmen of the Senate. Whether he can be the Kerry of 2008 is yet to be seen. He hasn’t articulated why he’s more electable than any of the major candidates, and often comes of as being bitter at being behind lesser experienced candidates. I don’t think he will overtake Richardson on caucus night. Iowa is his only chance to break into the top tier.

6) Chris Dodd (even)

He moved his family to Iowa. I doubt carpetbagging will get him much support here. The Biden/Dodd jumble is over, with Biden taking the clear lead as the experienced Senator, and Dodd is now fighting Kucinich and Gravel for irrelevency.

7) Dennis Kucinich

Is he even trying this time? Doesn’t seem like it…

8) Mike Gravel (lost)

I thought he was done, then he showed up in Iowa for the NPR debate. Where’ve you been, Mike? And I don’t mean his lack exposure in the media. He’s made the least campaign appearances of any candidate, with almost no public events and no web presence. eight events in New Hampshire = his most active state?

Other Candidate Rankings
Iowa Independent – Iowa Caucus Power Rankings
Markos of Daily Kos
The National Journal

Share

Glassbooth.com Candidate Test

I just discovered a unique candidate test that you can take at Glassbooth.org. Unlike other tests, which solely test you on issue based question, this one also takes into account what issues matter to you the most. For me, it was the Environment, Economic Policy, and the War in Iraq.

Not surprisingly, Dennis Kucinich was #1, followed by John Edwards. Barack? #4

Barack Obama shares a 75% similarity with your beliefs.

However, it never asked me who I believe would help us transcend our differences and bring America together like no other. That, my friend, is Barack Obama.

Take the test yourself, and post in the comments how you do.

Share